America Tortures It’s Inmates

The North Carolina Commission of Inquiry On  Torture  PAY CLOSE ATTENTION

ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION TORTURES IN US JAILS AND PRISONS

http://www.coldcelltorture2.com/Dear-Supreme-Justice-Roberts.pdf

coldcell

coldcell3

  • TORTURE ISSUES BEFORE – US SUPREME COURT >> Four Winds …

    fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news…

    Examples of Judge Gaitan’s actions to excise and improperly control discovery and inquiry is the Torture the SEVER COLD CELLING the Environmental Manipulation ; Sheriff Mike Robertson’s ASSAULT and PHYSICAL ATTACK upon Witham (without any cause or justification) , and the overly tight HANDCUFFING tortures set forth in the pleadings by Plaintiff, Improperly narrowing issues CENSORING facts and impermissibly narrowing the SCOPE of Witham’s …

coldcelling

 

AMERICALOOTED.WORDPRESS.COM
           The greatest device to COURT STRIP Civil Rights Litigants of Civil and Human Rights Federal Rule 8 Notice Pleadings CRUCIFIED   Court Corruption in America Visit The American Justice League …

From: Jud Witham

To:

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:29 PM

Subject: TORTURE ISSUES BEFORE – US SCt.

I was repeatedly FALSELY ARRESTED and MALICIOUSLY PROSECUTED because I caught the BASTARDS in this County PREYING ON THE ELDERLY and HANDICAPPED as well as FAMILIES. Probate and Family Courts are FLUSH WITH CASH from Forcibly Sold Property, Managed Probate Estates and Gaurdian Ad Litems and Appointed LIARS.

MY CLAIMS ARE TRUE !!!

**************************

 

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

 

JUDSON WITHAM                                      )

Appellant’s  > Torture Victim     <         )

                                                                            )                Appeal NO.  

                                                                            )

CHRISTIAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S        )            “Light on Torture”

DEPT., ET AL                                                )

Apellees                                                          )           Human RIGHTS Violations

 

“An Expose’ on the  Tactics Of COVER UPS , Oppression and Suppression”

Witham’s Appellate Petition

And Alternatively

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

 

To the Honorable Judges of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

 

The main  issues of errors in the dismissal of this case by Judge Fernando Gaitan are his erroneous,  FALSE and UNTRUE Sophistries or clever FALSE claims in his March 3/30/07 dismissal order  ( at pg. 9  – sentence 5 ) , that Witham had amongst other things “exhibited a pattern of delays throughout the entirety “  of pretrial of these matters , (this is a ENOURMOUS LIE) and that Witham with “scinter”  or intentionally violated a SINGLE Orderof the Court,  ( this is a LIE )  by Not Answering Written Depositions propounded upon Witham by the Appellees.   The FACTS contrary to Judge Gaitan’s absurdities are, IN HIS 3/30/07 order,  as it references and in fact quotes just 4 of Appellant’s answers of the more than 20 answers to those interrogatories, provided to Appellees Under Oath and Timely. Witham ANSWERED the interrogatories in good faith and under oath,  Judge Gaitan  through FALSEHOODS and BY DISTRACTION  and SUBTREFUGE IGNORES this FACT.  It is abundantly obvious that Judge Gaitan did NOT understand or improperly interpreted the FULL SET of answers Witham TIMELY served upon these Appellees.  Witham points out the  Defendants engaged in FAR WORSE,  as follows:

 

  1. It is FALSEY CLAIMED that Witham refused to provide Defendant’s Lawyers of his address where he could be served with process, given notices and or communicated with.  The Claims are WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT and FABRICATED.  These LIARS have always had perfectly good addresses and contact information on Witham.

 

  1. Judge Gaitanin collusion with Defendant’s Lawyers FALSELY accuse Witham ofINTENTIONALLY  Causing delay / s THROUGHOUT the pretrial of the Case in Circuit Court at page 9 of his 3/30/07 dismissal order, the Judge’s claims are BASELESS, the defendants caused most all the delays and engaged in far more sophisticated avoidances, BUT this Judge overlooks those FACTS.

 

  1. That your Appellant had refused to cooperate in discovery by, amongst several things,  allegedly refusing to give his Name and Social Security number  to the Defendant County Prosecutor, Sheriff and the jailers of Christian County, THIS IS A REDICULOUS ABSURD COMPLETE TOTAL BALD NAKED  LIE.

 

Note:  These Appellees and Judge Gaitan have had Witham’s name for a period of years, Witham has provided this and all sorts of other information to these Appellees for a period in excess of 6 YEARS. These Defendants lawyers have ALWAYS POSSESSED good contact and service information on Witham and his entire Family – Any Contrary Claims are NONSENSE – Sophistry

 

  1. That Witham refused and failed to with precise specificity, name jailers, specify the exact times and exact places and exactly how these Defendants subjected Witham to Tazings,  Overly Tight Hand Cuffings,  State Sponsored and County Stalking, Harassment, False Arrests, Intimidation, Psychological Torture, Physical Attacks and Assault, Dissemination of FALSE and INJURIOUS INFLAMATORY Falsehoods and COLD TORTURE “Environmental Manipulation”  in NEAR Freezing Confinement Cells.  Judge Gaitan’s assertions are THINNLY VEILED LIES.   The information IS in Witham’s pleadings, as well as in his 2nd Amended Pleading Judge Gaitan REFUSED to allow.   Witham answered the interrogatory and advised THE FACTS are in the arrests and jail records THESE appellees possess, and that Witham NOT HAVING COOPERATION from these APPELLEES in producing their Jail Records and Security Videos and other information they have been ALLOWED to withhold by Judge Gaitan,  Witham was UNABLE to with PRECISION and SPECIFICITY Exactly answer those questions.  EVERY TIME Witham was arrested and hauled into these Appellees Patrol Cruisers, and Booked into there gulag, every time, as reflected in their Arrest, Prosecution and Jail records your Appellant was Subjected to FALSE ARREST, PHYSICAL ABUSE, THREATS of PHYSICAL ABUSE, Physical and Psychological Torture, Assault and MALICOUS Prosecution as Witham answered in his interrogatory answers.

 

NOTE:  These Appellees in more than 5 YEARS of trying and many arrests and jailing NEVER proved Witham committed even a single crime, NOT ONE. On November 15th 2007 Witham was yet again found NOT GUILTY by a Jury’s verdict as such.  The entire 5+ years of abuses were EXACTLY THAT 5+ years of premeditated abuse.

 

  1.     That your Appellant failed  to fully and completely describe the extent of the pattern, practice, custom and usage, or the nexus and common scheme of the conspiracy of unconstitutional acts and human rights violations, along with  the specific extent of and each of the actors EXACT actions and involvement, such as how County Administrator Pat Wright and Judge James Effiert, along with the others defendants Cleek and the Sheriff’s Department engaged in the Civil & Criminal Conspiracy against Witham. The basis of Witham’s allegations not only have been abundantly NOTICED  according to FRCP 8, but those allegations have been  bolstered by, and with fairly thorough particularity in  WITHAM’s SWORN and VERFIFIED “testimony and pleadings” setout in Witham’s Civil and Human Rights complaints, fully and accurately describing the basis for Witham’s claims  as to how  these Defendants had violated Witham’s Rights.

Witham BEING DENIED adequate discovery and being PRECLUDED from obtaining Records these Appellees CONTINUE TO SECRET, has been BLOCKED by Judge Gaitan’s Onerous and Overly Restrictive Denials of Discovery, has simply been precluded from fully ANSWERING these Interrogatories with Precise Information, and even further complicated as explained infra (below)

 

NOTE:  Judge Gaitan’s Dismissal on COOKED UP technicalities, based on FALSEHOODS, and his refusal to allow Lawfully Sought  Discovery of PUBLIC RECORDS, was Vindictive, Discriminatory and overly RESTRICTIVE in light of the LIBERAL APPLICATION requirements of FRCP 34 and FRCP 26.

 

  1. Judge Gaitan’s claims are WHOLLY unfounded and completely untrue.  For an EXAMPLE  many , many times  Witham gave his full name, birth date, place of birth, finger prints and all sorts of information to his Gulagers or jailers as required by their BOOKING PROCEDURES,  Witham previously had given his Social Security Number and multiple sets of FINGER PRINTS to these Defendants on no less than 6  different occasions beginning in 2001.   These Defendants, Sheriff’s, Missouri State Police and even Federal Agents associated with these Appellees including  FBI and BATF,  conducted thorough Missouri State Criminal Information Computer and National Criminal Information Computer,  WANTS and WARRANTS checks, and early  in the beginning thorough personal financial information and all sorts of other personal data Social Security Number and everything involving personal identifier information on Witham,  they even contacted State and Federal officials back in  Texas,  the FBI  and BATF in their UNWARRANTED INTRUSIONS into Witham’s Life.  These APPELLEES and as well Judge Gaitan,  have been given the information, Witham over and over and over and over and over and over ,  repeatedly, MANY TIMES advised them  that they had been so given the Social Security Number and FAR FAR more, and IN FACT your Appellant never denied the information to these defendants multiple, plural, times,   By advising these Defendants Lawyers under oath of these FACTS, without AGAIN providing the information AD NAUSIUM is NOT a matter of  uncooperative resistance, The Social Security Number of your Plaintiff was already in the possession of the Defendants ( for a period of YEARS ) and as such, Plaintiff has NO NEED to beat this RED HERRING any further, the Defendants have many times over been in possession of said information.  Judge Gaitan’s claims AGAINST Witham are wholly untrue and overtly prejudicial, in FACT they are ABSURD –  emphasis added

 

  1.  Judge Gaitan’s claims that Witham engaged in a “pattern of conduct” which caused multiple and intentional and unnecessary delays, adding THROUGHOUT the Pretrial is simply untrue and greatly exaggerated.    Witham did NO SUCH THINGS.    Witham  was however forced to engage in extremely time consuming efforts to, overcome  FRAUDULENT motions to dismiss for want of prosecution,  filed  by the Appellees, FALSELY claiming amongst other things that Witham HAD LEFT THE COUNTRY and / or  moved to Canada !!!!!   Falsely Claiming that he was failing to prosecute the case, and ABSURDITIES such as:  “ The Defendants HAD NO WAY TO CONTACT or COMMUNICATE with Witham “, and then these defendants attempted  and FAR FAR to late,   efforts to have the case DISMISSED on ABSURD CLAIMS of State Sovereign Immunity,  filed WAY WAY WAY WAY to late.    The delays were IN FACT CAUSED by Withams marathon efforts to gain cooperation in Discovery from these Defendants, again and again and again,  The District Court’s FALSE Claims against Witham are  simply UNTRUE.   Such Conduct on Judge Gaitan’s part is unconscionable EVIDENCE that he is ,  COVERTLY  Hostile and has Invidious Prejudice against the Nature and Basis of this Case “AND” against Witham.  Witham acted in good faith and asserted every effort he could to proceed in a timely manner, HE DID NOT fail to prosecute the case,   JUDGE GAITAN denied that early motion,   Witham honestly and fully answered  interrogatories, in good faith, and undertook considerable and time consuming efforts again and again and again to gain cooperation from these Defendant’s in Opening their “PUBLIC BOOKS” and cooperating in Discovery in accordance with FRCP 34 and FRCP 26, to no avail however.    The claims that Witham was NOT PROSECUTING THE CASE, INTENTIONALLY CAUSING MULTIPLE DELAYS and or SEVERAL TIMES ignored Court Orders throughout this case ; REFUSED to give his Social Security Number to these defendants for example, IS LUDICROUS and ABSURD, UNTRUE,  INACCURATE   MALARKY,  IF YOU WILL the claim / s are   RIDICULOUS and ABSURD LIES.

 

  1. Judge Gaitan’s SOPHISTRIES, DISTRACTIONS, MISLEADING ASSERTIONS  that Witham’s discovery requests were “NOT NARROWLY TAILORED ENOUGH”  and the Judge’s VAGUE, Mysterious Suggestion  to Witham to “Use His Discovery Time Wisely” were Demurrers, and BALD NAKED &  ABSOLUTELY  GENERAL, hints, that somehow, Witham had NOT sought RELEVANT Discovery within the SCOPE of  or  that remotely was “Bearing On The Subject Matters In Controversy “ is simply INNACCURATE and UNTRUE.

 

See:   Judge Gaitan’s 3/30/07 dismissal order at pgs  6 & 7  “ The Court directed plaintiff to limit his discovery to ONLY THOSE ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO HIS 1st Amended Complaint ”  This assertion by Judge Gaitan is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, DECEPTIVE and MISLEADING. This as they say is the SCENE OF THE CRIME.  If actually examine and compared to his previous order regarding said directive to LIMIT his Rule 26 and 34 requests made to these Defendants the TWO different descriptions of said instructions,  MARKEDLY differ, and are far more restricting than the assertion in the Judge’s dismissal order of 3/30/07 above.    Factually and Lawfully  Judge Gaitan’s onerous and restrictive limiting of Discovery is in error as  Rules 26 and 34 are to be LIBERALLY, ALLOWED, APPLIED and  OBSERVED and Discovery only require that Plaintiff’s seek materials, “reasonably” within the scope of, or relating to the subject matter of his pleadings, the scope of,  or penumbra, legitimate boundaries and  limits of his pleadings would be within reason and , would be necessarily included, or relating to encompassed by the ALLEGATIONS in the 1st Amended Complaint as cited by Judge Gaitan would be appropriate.  WITHAM in FACT did that, BUT Judge Gaitan ignores and Subverts his own standard as cited in the 3/30/07 Dismissal Order.  IN FACT Judge Gaitan uses this CAMOFLAGED, CAMELEON, SMOKE AND MIRRORS language change in his 3/30/07 to CONCEAL and SECREThis earlier error in DISALLOWING permissible and proper inquiry into the PROXIMATE ZONE, GENUINE PARAMETERS or SCOPE regarding information that would bear upon and shed light on the Issues raised in the Original Complaint and definitely the 1st Amended Complaint.   This is the pinnacle, the IMPACT CRATER, the FORENSIC EVIDENCE if you will, were Judge Gaitan’s LIMITING the Discovery Improperly Occurs. His subsequent use of this language on 3/30/07

“ The Court directed plaintiff to limit his discovery to ONLY THOSE ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO HIS 1st Amended Complaint ”  is where the SOPHISTRY and DISTRACTION (the FRAUD) of this Judge is found.   In reality FRCP 34 and FRCP 26 are to be LIBERALLY APPLIED, liberally, in favor of disclosure “of “any” facts bearing on the controversy”  or that reasonably could lead to,  or reasonably could result in,  the production of  information and materials that could lead to materials, information and witnesses, that could or reasonably might Shed Light on the issues and result in ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE being Discovered for use at Trial. 

 

See:  FRCP 34 and FRCP 26 b, the Federal Rules are to be  liberally, in favor of disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy” or within the REASONABLE SCOPE of the ISSUES raised. Definition & Example ofSCOPE  is applicable to an area of activity, predetermined and limited, but somewhat flexible < as time went on, the scope of the investigationwidened>. Example –  The term has the same broad meaning in Rule 26(a)(1) as in Rule 34(a). The Scope of legitimate  inquiry only requires a prima facia showing that the requested materials would  reasonably lead to the discovery of matters that may result in admissible evidence being discovered;  it is well settled that admissibility is not prerequisite to discovery.

 

NOTE:   Judge Gaitain’s Near Magician Level SLIGHT OF HAND was his Improper and “Near Wizardly ” act of improperly precluding inquiry into legitimate areas of discoverable materials. His “Excising LigitimateAllegations”  and his Preventing legitimate inquiry into Perfectly Allowable PUBLIC RECORDS,  properly sought through Proper Discovery Requests,  BY HIS ARBITRARY and ABUSIVE previous limiting of the Issues, and NOT  the Allegations Relating to the 1st Amended Complaint is HOW THIS SMOKE AND MIRROS TRICK is achieved.

 

See Hickman v. Taylor:  329 U.S. 495 (1947).  See also  Allen, 235 N.E.2d at 432 (interpreting CPLR 3101 liberally, in favor of disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy”).  In Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.the NY Court Writes

 

The courts do undoubtedly possess a wide discretion to decide whether information sought is ‘material and necessary’ to the prosecution or defense of an action (see, e.g., Paliotto v. Hartman, 2 A.D.2d 866, 156 N.Y.S.2d 220) but that discretion is not unlimited.   Where, as here, an issue exists as to whether there has been an abuse of discretion, a reviewable question of law is presented. Indeed, the parties have argued the question before us solely as one of law, and so the courts below have decided it, in accordance, we note, with generally accepted practice. (See, e.g., Matter of Rothschild, 298 N.Y. 538, 80 N.E.2d 670; Solomon v. La Guardia, 295 N.Y. 970, 68 N.E.2d 54; Drake v. Herrman, 261 N.Y. 414, 416, 185 N.E. 685, 686; see, also, Di Russo v. Kravitz, 19 N.Y.2d 1012, 281 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 228 N.E.2d 904; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, ss 88, 157, 158.)

….The words, ‘material and necessary’, are, in our view, to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason. CPLR 3101 (subd. (a)) should be construed, as the leading text on practice puts it, to permit discovery of testimony ‘which is sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make *407  the effort to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable’ (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 3101.07, p. 31-13).

 

More Fully Explaining the Court goes on:

…..Although there may seem to be a little more immediacy and substantiality to the word ‘material’ than to ‘relevant’ – the term contained in the more liberal Federal statute (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 26, subd. (b); see, also, 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed., 1967), par. 26.16, p. 1174 et seq.)-we believe that a broad interpretation**433  of the words ‘material and necessary’ is proper. In this connection, we note, the word ‘necessary’, even under former section 288 of the Civil Practice Act, was held to mean ‘needful’ and not indispensable. (Taylor v. Smith & Corona Typewriters, 179 Misc. 290, 292, 38 N.Y.S.2d 864, 866, affd. 266 App.Div. 903, 43 N.Y.S.2d 745.)

 

 

See:  McKinney’s CPLR § 3101

Mckinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated Currentness

  • 3101. Scope of disclosure

(a) Generally. There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof,

 

See also:

 

Rule 34. Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering Onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

 

Relevant Parts

(a) In General. A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):

(b) Procedure.

(1) Contents of the Request. The request:

(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

Also Note:  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consider  the scope ofdiscoverable subject matter as being broader than the scope ofadmissible subject matter.   Under Rule 26(b)(1), information and documents sought in discovery need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus the Scope of Discovery IS Broader Than What Would Be Relevant Evidence at TrialUnder FRCP 26, a party is entitled to discover not only material which is relevant and admissible at trial, but also to discover information which “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   Discovery is so liberally permitted it should also include matters regarding acts and events transpiring subsequent to those giving rise to the cause of action where there is a possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the pending actionrather than to limit it to the issues involved in the particular case. Relevance is not to be measured by the precise issues framed by the pleadings but by the general relevance to the subject matter.

 

    NOTE:    JUDGE GAITAN DID NOT APPLY THE required  LIBERAL Discovery STANDARDS in the proceedings  below, Your Appellant preserved his OBJECTION Sin the Court  below and again advances those exceptions to Judge Gaitan’s  DISCOVERY BLOCKADE,  for examination of error and reversal here in the Appellate Court.

 

  1. Judge Gaitan made BALD and NAKED assertions  that Witham had refused to sign PRESUMABLY proper and lawful medical release forms for these Defendants, yet  Judge Gaitan does NOT and DID NOT have those forms available to him for ANY REVIEW.   The Judge without  the least scintilla of detail  regarding  the Unlimited Nature or the IN BLANK, Carte Blanc, LIMITLESS SCOPE and UNRESTRAINED  form of the DEMANDS.  Said Blanket Releases,  Not being constrained by any time limitation whatsoever,  is again an abusive and IMPROPER Prejudicial assertion by Judge Gaitan. These Defendants are in no wayentitled to an UNLIMITED FISHING EXPIDITION into Witham’s LIFE LONG, 51 year Personal Medical History.  The materials are ANCIENT, Not remotely connected in time or place and far exceed the 6 years of discovery set as a limit during the  August 18th 2006, ordered discovery conference.

 

  1. Witham TIMELY OBJECTED TO and would NOT allow these Defendants unlimited and unfettered access to his Life Long Medical History.  It is TRUE that AFTER these Defendants sought additional time for discovery, after Discovery was CLOSED, twice previously, and then REOPENED by them for a THIRD TIME, defendants sought said UNLIMITED ACCESS to Witham’s Life 51 year Long Medical History.  Such UNLIMITED discovery was abundantly and vigorously OBJECTED TO by Witham and said was  NOT agreed to in the  Discovery Dispute Conference of August  18th of  2006.  It was  these Defendants that demanded and asserted a time Limit of 6 years prior to August 11th 2006 or going back to the year 2000 to control and limit  ALL Discovery in this case – emphasis added

 

  1. Witham is certainly NOT obligated under Law nor the 6 year stipulation of the August 18th2006 Discovery Conference to allow an UNLIMITED, GLOBAL and ANCIENT fishing expedition into 51 YEARS of  his Life Medical History and Records.  These Defendants improperly sought discovery FAR FAR in excess of anything even remotely relevant to the scope of these  matters and so Witham asserted a PROPER Lawful and Timely Objection regarding  the attempt at UNLIMITED ACCESS to his 51 year long Life Time  Medical History and Records.   Witham is NOT Obligated by FRCP 34 or FRCP 26 to allow such burdensome, expansive, global or TOTAL and UNLIMITED access to his LIFE 51 year LONG MEDICAL RECORDS, when they are irrelevant,  far beyond any reasonable scope of inquiry and they are privileged and FAR FAR beyond that agreed to in the Discovery Dispute Conference of August 18th 2006.  Such a DRACONIAN FISHING EXPIDITIONsuch as attempted by these Defendants and Judge Gaitan, is patently onerous , off the charts OUT OF BOUNDS, irrelevant and amount to an  abuse of discretion on the Judge’s part.   Judge Gaitan’s assertions and his overt and obvious unbalanced actions in these discovery matters reveal an  improper favoritism for these Appellees.  His slight of hand, subterfuge and OVERLY HARSH actions of denying Witham legitimate Discovery Requests while allowing unreasonable and unlimited Discovery for these Defendants, reveals his invidious animus against Witham.  Dismissal of Witham’s case WITH PREJUDICE was Overtly HOSTILE and Exceedingly HARSH and such is OVERTLY OBVIOUS – Emphasis Added

 

Courts should dismiss a case only upon a “clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.”Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.1989) (vacating and remanding the district court’s dismissal, where the district court failed to make a finding that lesser sanctions would not have sufficed), citingLink v. Wabash RR Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) and Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.1985)See alsoGratton v. Great Am. Communications, 178 F.3d 1373, 1375 (11th Cir.1999)

 

See:  Carter v. Jablonsky, 121 Fed. Appx. 888 (2d Cir. 2005)

 

Rule 37(b)(2), dismissal “ ‘is a drastic remedy thatshould be imposed only in extreme circumstances,’ usually after consideration of alternative, less drastic sanctions.” John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Prods., Inc., 845 F.2d at 1176 (quoting Salahuddin v. Harris, 782 F.2d 1127, 1132 (2d Cir.1986).

 

Where a party that has been reprimanded multiple times about maintaining scheduling orders, has missed court deadlines, directly disobeys court orders,and has been warned that failure to cooperate makes the action subject todismissal, but still refuses to comply with court orders, a sanction less harsh than dismissal will do no good and such a sanction (dismissal) is warranted.

Witham was NOT in Fact engaged in MULTIPLE FAILURES to proceed, or comply and DID NOT Multiple Intentionally Disobey Court ORDERS (as in more than ONE) ******* (as in any actually)

 

FABRICATING said grounds and EXAGERATING and SEXING THEM UP making MOUNTAINS out of Mole Hills, all the while BLOCKADING perfectly allowable discovery under FRCP 34 and FRCP 26, is an impermissible SOPHISTRY not legitimately used as a PLOY or Smoke and Mirrors, that SHOULD MORALLY be used as the EXCUSE to Court Strip anyone for their Constitutional, Civil and Human Rights – Judge Gaitan Grossly Over REACTED.

 

Dismissal of § 1983 action was not warranted as sanction for plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to attend meeting to draft pretrial scheduling order and pretrial conference, where attorney explained that he mistakenly failed to calendar the dates for the meeting and conference and that he was out of town on those dates, there was no showing of a pattern of disregard of court orders, deliberate stalling, or repeated nonchalance, the case was not unreasonably delayed, and the defendants were not prejudiced. Bachier-Ortiz v. Colon-Mendoza, 331 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2003).

 

Counsel’s violation of scheduling order in failing to file joint statement or attend scheduling conference due to clerical error at counsel’s office which resulted in failure to enter date of conference on his calendardid not rise to level necessary to support harsh penalty of dismissal of action; expenses incurred by opposing party in preparation for aborted conference did not rise to level of prejudice justifying dismissal, and district court failed to consider alternative sanctions. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 16(f),41(b), 28 U.S.C.ACrossman v. Raytheon Long Term Disability Plan, 316 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2002).

 

District court abused its discretion in dismissing civil rights action as sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with scheduling order by not appearing at pretrial conference and by not submitting pretrial memorandum, where court failed to make requisite findings regarding Poulis factors. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 16(f), 28 U.S.C.AMisturak v. McCrea, 90 Fed. Appx. 582 (3d Cir. 2004).

 

Dismissal with prejudice was warranted in products liability action against drug manufacturer after plaintiff’s attorney failed to make appearance at scheduling conference, where attorney had already been sanctioned once for failing to appear at court setting, did not contact court in advance to inform it of any problem, and gave no explanation for his absence at scheduling conference. 28 U.S.C.A. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 16(f) Lydic v. Bayer A.G., 219 F.R.D. 114 (S.D. Tex. 2003).

 

 

Dismissal was warranted as sanction for pro se plaintiff’s failure to appear at pretrial hearings andconferences; plaintiff had adequate notice of the hearings and conferences, butrepeatedly failed to appear at all of them, which interfered with district court’s ability to resolvemotions and manage its case load, wasted judicial resources, and caused unnecessary expense to defendants, plaintiff was warned that her failure to appear would likely result in dismissal, and no lesser sanction would have been effective, given plaintiff’s continuing failure to appear. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 41(b), 28 U.S.C.AWilliamson v. Owners Resort & Exchange, 90 Fed. Appx. 342 (10th Cir. 2004).

 

See Ikerd v Lacy (1988, CA10 Okla) 852 F2d 1256, 11 FR Serv 3d 1073, § 8 [a].

 

In the following cases, the courts held that the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with scheduling or pretrialorders did not warrant the dismissal of the cases under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

Holding that dismissal with prejudice is the ultimate penalty and that a District Court should employ this sanction only when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and where lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice, the court in John v Louisiana (1987, CA5 La) 828 F2d 1129, 44 BNA FEP Cas 1769, 45 CCH EPD ¶; 37708, 9 FR Serv 3d 500, reversed the dismissal, under Rule 16(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of a case in which the plaintiff’s attorney failed to comply with the court’s scheduling order by his tardy response to discovery requests, his late submission of a pretrial orderand his failure to make timely filings during the 2 weeks preceding the trial date. Explaining that a District Court should consider aggravating factors, including whether the plaintiff himself contributed to the delay, whether the defendant suffered actual prejudice, and whether the delay was intentional, the court held that, while the attorney’s conduct was careless, inconsiderate,and understandably exasperating to a conscientious trial judge, it more closely approximated the kind of negligence that does not warrant dismissal with prejudice than the stubborn resistance to authority that does. The court explained that the facts which warrant dismissals with prejudice reveal either greater delay, bad faith, or persistent disobedience to court orders than was evident in this case. In this case, however, the court found that counsel had been inept but not purposely obstructive and that lesser sanctions than dismissal with prejudice would have served the best interests of justice. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff himself was innocent of any misconduct, stating that, while a client may suffer dismissal with prejudice if his counsel is chargeable with clear delay or contumacy, the proper punishment for an inept lawyer is to assess fines, attorneys’ fees, or costs against the lawyer without harming the client.

 

Apparently relying on Rule 16(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in Woodmore v Git-N-Go (1986, CA10 Okla) 790 F2d 1497, 40 BNA FEP Cas 1503, 40 CCH EPD ¶; 36166, 5 FR Serv 3d 204, the court held that, when a case is dismissed with prejudice or dismissed without prejudice at a time when the statute of limitations would ban refiling, a trial court must explain why it imposed the extreme sanction of dismissal, and therefore reversed an order which dismissed a civil rights case for failure to meet the trial court’s deadline for pretrial memorandum and remanded the case for further consideration. Although counsel for both parties received a letter ordering them to submit a pretrial memorandum to the court and warning them that failure to file the memo would be sufficient grounds for the court to summarily dismiss the action, the memorandum was not filed by the date specified in the letter, and the District Court, sua sponte, dismissed the plaintiff’s case without prejudice on the following day. Finding no default on the record other than the failure to meet the trial court’s deadline for the pretrial memorandum and further finding that the default appeared to be that of the attorney, the court explained that the trial court neither held a hearing nor invited responses as to what sanction should be applied and did not explain why dismissal was the most appropriate sanction in this case. The court explained that punishment should be imposed on the person at fault and that when the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of a sanction should be lodged.

 

In Ford v Fogarty Van Lines, Inc. (1986, CA11 Ga) 780 F2d 1582, 4 FR Serv 3d 957, the court held that the dismissal of a case with prejudice because plaintiff’s counsel failed to file a timely pretrial order was not warranted under Rule 16(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court explaining that, absent a showing of a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, the trial court’s discretion is limited to the application of lesser sanctions designed to achieve compliance with the court’s orders and expedite proceedings. The court found that the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice without exploring lesser sanctions, particularly against the attorney, that might have progressed the case in compliance with the court’s requirements and that the defendant had not shown that it was prejudiced in such a manner as to require dismissal with prejudice. Cautioning that dismissal of an action with prejudice is a sanction of last resort, applicable only in extreme circumstances, the court added that a party should not be punished for his attorney’s mistake absent a clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice, adding that a party’s simple negligence in complying with a court’s order does not warrant dismissal. In remanding the case, the court explained that the District Court was not deprived of the authority to impose lesser sanctions against the plaintiff, or disciplinary action against the attorney, if the court decided such would be appropriate under the established law and the facts of this case.

 

  1. Witham repeatedly informed the District Court and these Plaintiff’s that he was cooperating and pursuing the release of  6 years of relevant Medical records as agreed to on August 18th 2006 ,  from his Physician Dr. Paul Glynn of  Sparta Missouri and the Cox Medical Center in Springfield Missouri, to include the AMBULANCE SERVICES RECORDS that provided emergency medical transport for Mr. Witham during the period described in his pleadings.  Witham needed time to SUPPLEMENT his responses as those individuals were NOT responding timely and seemingly were resisting the release of the information.  Withama made that known to the Court below and to these defendants on several occasions.  HOWEVER Judge Gaitan dismissed this case on 3/0/07  being 16 sixteen days  PRIOR to the Scheduled Close of discovery set out in   the Courts Scheduling Order for  April 15th 2007.

 

  1. Judge Gaitain’s premature actions, cut off the ring, moved the goal posts, foreclosed and  PRECLUDED  Witham‘s Efforts to supplement his discovery regarding the Medical Records  Witham  was in good faith, earnestly seeking SO HE COULD SUPPLEMENT his responses BEFORE the close of Discovery, pursuant to the allowable rules being April 15th 2007.    Judge Gaitan by premature and arbitrary dismissal of Plaintiff’s  case, “WITH PREJUDICE”,  preempting and PRIOR to the Cut Off Date for discovery,  again prejudicially BLOCKED  Witham’s ability to LAWFULLY Comply and  Supplement  his responses.

 

Note:  Such Prejudicial and ONEROUS Conduct on Judge Gaitan’s part,  being but ONE of the reasons  for the delays in this case, Witham again reargues  and seeks Judge Gaitan’s REMOVAL and  RECUSAL from all future proceedings in this case.

 

  1. Contrary to Judge Gaitan’s UNTRUE and INACCURATE claims, throughout this case,   it has been the Defendants Unlawful refusal to allow inspection of relevant PUBLIC RECORDSand allowable Discovery materials, they are  obligated to produce many of these materials  under Missouri’s Open Records or Sunshine Act Laws  and FRCP 34.  Contrary to Judge Gaitan’s assertions it has in reality been the REFUSAL of these Defendants to abide by Missouri Sunshine Laws and the Discovery Rules , their blocking legitimate discovery of information (aimed at  with near precision)  THOSE ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO HIS 1st Amended Complaint ”  as instructed and revealed by Judge Gaitan’s 3/30/07 order.  The  “1st”  Amended ALLEGATIONS in Witham’s 1st Amended Complaint,  regarding the Torture  Physical abuses, False Arrests, Malicious Prosecutions and NEAR FREEZING sessions in HYPER AIRCONDITIONED CELLS at Defendants County Gulag. “ all being matters and facts bearing on the controversy”.

 

 

NOTE:    Plaintiff’s Numerous Discovery Requests and Briefs on said Discovery matters are in the record of this case and are conclusive that his discovery requests were MORE than Specific and Relevant to the Allegations and Subject Matter, GENUINE AND PROPER ISSUES of this case as well as ABUNDANTLY and PROPERLY MADE.  Please consider those briefs REPEATED HERE “Verbatim” and see FRCP 34.  Judge Gaitan’s Limiting of the Issues and the Discovery was IMPROPER and greatly the cause of the DELAYS he attempts to BLAME FRAUDULENTLY on Witham.

Also Note:  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consider  the scope ofdiscoverable subject matter as being broader than the scope ofadmissible subject matter.   Under Rule 26(b)(1), information and documents sought in discovery need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus the Scope of Discovery IS Broader Than What Would Be Relevant Evidence at TrialUnder FRCP 26, a party is entitled to discover not only material which is relevant and admissible at trial, but also to discover information which “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   Discovery is permitted of acts and eventstranspiring subsequent to those giving rise to the cause of action where there is a possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action rather than to limit it to the issues involved in the particular case.  Relevance is not to be measured by the precise issues framed by the pleadings but by the general relevance to the subject matter.

 

  1. In reality it has been the Defendants evasions, deceptions and refusals to cooperate in permissible discovery that have been the source of much of the delays in the case below.  Judge Gaitain’s assertions against Witham are BLATANTLY erroneous and highly prejudicial against Witham, and overtly favor and benefit these defendants to SECRET Public Records and Relevant materials legitimately and well within the realm,   within the sphere or penumbrah of allowable discovery.  Please see  FRCP 26 and FRCP 34 ….  Judge Gaitan’s false, exaggerated, nonsensical assertions and ADVERSE RULINGS against Witham are grounds for recusal , when such adverse rulings are OVERTLY improper and OBVIOUSLY Prejudicial FALSE in several aspects.   AGAIN Witham seeks the removal of Judge Gaitan from ALL future proceedings on these matters.

 

  1. Missouri’s Government has an OBLIGATION to conduct it’s affairs in a Transparent and Open manner under the Missouri Open Records Laws (The Missouri Sunshine Act ) and they are as well to  fully and forthrightly cooperate in discovery.  NONE  of the materials sought  by Witham in discovery comprises TOP SECRET or otherwise PRIVATE , PRIVILEGED or Burdensome requests INFORMATION.  ( considering asking for 51 YEARS of Medical Records being the standard and practice in Judge Gaitan’s Court ?? )  Judge Gaitan’s Rulings against Witham’s discovery requests,  encouraged, aided & abet the improper SECRETING of Government Records, disregard for FRCP 34 and BLOCKADED inquiry into the Allegations in Witham’s 1st Amended petition,  that were WELL WITHIN the Scope or Realm Of Legitimate  Inquiry and Discovery.Also Note:  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consider  the scope of discoverable subject matter as being broader than the scope of admissible subject matter.   Under Rule 26(b)(1), information and documents sought in discovery need only be reasonably calculated to  lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus the Scope of Discovery IS Broader Than What Would Be Relevant Evidence at Trial Under FRCP 26, a party is entitled to discover not only material which is relevant and admissible at trial, but also to discover information which “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   Discovery is permitted of acts and events transpiring subsequent to those giving rise to the cause of action where there is a possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action rather than to limit it to the issues involved in the particular case.  Relevance is not to be measured by the precise issues framed by the pleadings but by the general relevance to the subject matter.

 

  1. Judge Gaitan repeatedly, arbitrarily  and without lawful justification by a combination of oversight, error, incompetence, SOPHISTRY “or”  by  simply IGNORING Witham’s Pleadings,  improperly and SEVERELY LIMITED and NARROWED the issues he intended to allow to be examined and discovery developed   he improperly CENSORED and EXCIZED these issues, so as to prevent ANY JURY PANEL review in this case. 

 

Disregarding legitimate issues so as to defeat legitimate Civil and Human rights claims is UNCONSCIONABLE and IMPERMISSABLE as well as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Said ignoring of FACTS is an ABUSE of Discretion.

 

  1. Examples of  Judge Gaitan’s  actions to excise and improperly control discovery and inquiry is  the Torture the SEVER COLD CELLING  the Environmental Manipulation ;  Sheriff Mike Robertson’s ASSAULT and PHYSICAL ATTACK upon Witham (without any cause or justification) ,  and the overly tight HANDCUFFING  tortures set forth in the pleadings by Plaintiff,  Improperly  narrowing issues CENSORING facts  and impermissibly narrowing the SCOPE of Witham’s Legitimate Discovery efforts.  The FACT is, it has been Judge Gaitan and these Defendants Causing the Delays NOT Witham.

 

See   Hickman v. Taylor:  329 U.S. 495 (1947).  See also  Allen, 235 N.E.2d at 432 (interpreting CPLR 3101 liberally, in favor of disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy”).

 

  1. Judge Gaitan’s artistic method of distraction, the “prestige” and slight of hand, his GLOSSING OVER, DISTRACTING AWAY FROM and IGNORING and  MISSING these INHUMANE, unlawful and abusive FACTS,  again reveals this Judge‘s Prejudices against Witham and the Issues and his IMPROPER REFUSAL to allow discovery of relevant and allowable information and records of PRIOR VICTIMS,  Instances of others subjected to the same abuses, Records and Evidence of Prior Similar Abuses, and inquiry into Similar Subsequent acts of Torture and like abuses.  Judge Gaitan’s Blockades and OBSTRUCTIONISM reveals his propensity to FAVOR the Appellees by his overt and obvious COVERT efforts to ARBITRARILY Excise Legitimate inquiry into the Unlawful, Inhumane criminal conduct and impermissibly excise said  matters from the case.  Perfectly lawful and proper requests for production of Government Records and Witness information was ARTFULLY- SKILFULLY  avoided, by Well Articulated SOPHISTRY and quit skillfully denied by the refusal of Judge Gaitan to permit discovery of legitimate materials into the torture assault and SECRET GOVERNMENT in Christian County Missouri and ultimately by FRAUD all aspects of Witham’s Pleadings.

 

  1. So arbitrary were the LIMITS that were placed by Judge Gaitan on Witham’s efforts to obtain discovery,   Witham made a final effort to AMEND his Complaint for “ONLY”   the SECOND  2nd  SECOND TIME –   undertaken to address possible oversights by Judge Gaitan, and attempting to point out  NEW VIOLATIONS and ATTACKS and alternatively to clarify and preserve  the Judge’s errors and oversights.  OBVIOUSLY the 2nd SECOND Amended Complaint  angered  Judge Gaitan.  His disdain and anger is manifest in his refusal to allow the 2nd Amended Complaint and his Overly HARSH and RASH  abusive and improper DISMISSAL OF Witham’s CASE with PREJUDICE.

 

NOTE:   The FRCP adopt a liberal stance toward amending pleadings, stating that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).The Supreme Court has also expressed this liberality in interpreting Rule 15(a),finding that “the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962) (quoting Conley v.Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)). Witham was ORDERED to amend the first time and On his initiative sought to Amend to add NEW FACTS and ISSUES of Continuing Violations and to CLARIFY perceived earlier Errors and Oversights on Judge Gaitan’s and his Staff’s understanding of the issues in the 1st ORDERED Amendment.  Witham would assert GROSS OVERSIGHT and even to the extent of PURPOSEFUL FRAUD, Judge Gaitan and his Staff have EXCISED and improperly so entire areas of legitimate issues and prevented inquiry into said Unlawful Conduct.

 

  1. In Judge Gaitains Order of dismissal, he FALSELY makes it appear and falsely paints the Picture that Witham had been given ample opportunity to amend his complaint .  Once a single time Witham was ORDERED to 1 time.

 

  1. Judge Gaitan’s assertions in this regard are FAR FAR from the Truth.  Witham was ORDERED to amend his complaint by Judge Gaitain ONE TIME.    Witham would note Judge Gaitan’s SINGLE ORDERED amendment occurred Many Months prior to the Physical Assault and Attack by Sheriff Robertson and MANY MONTHS prior to the continued efforts of Cleek and Judge Eiffert to MALICOUSLY Continue in and DRAG OUT their efforts to  RAILROAD Witham into Prison for a LAWFUL and CONSTITUTIONAL USE in Proper and Lawful SELF DEFENSE of a 20 Gauge Shotgun purchased at WALMART.

 

  1. The Jury in that Malicious Felony Prosecution, that KANGEROO COURT  on November 15th 2005  SEVEN MONTHS after the May 2, 2005 ordering to Amend ,   found Witham “ NOT GUILTY ” of all and any criminal conduct whatsoever –HELLO  

 

  1. In fact and as a matter of LAW and Well Settled CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS,  Witham was truthfully and perfectly within his rights to fire “A SINGLE WARNING SHOT” under the circumstances.   Defendant Ron Cleek continued to use knowingly PERJURED testimony and continued to KNOWINGLY attempt to STRIP WITHAM of his Rights Under the 2nd Amendment and Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution.  Cleek continual sought  to prevent, FACTS and  truthful  “SELF DEFENSE EVIDENCE” from being given to the Jury, in his continuing and Malicious Prosecution. CLEEK  even went so far as to UNSUCCESSFULLY argue against REQUIRED “Self Defense Instructions” from being given to the Jury, EVEN THOUGH said are Mandatory in Missouri and US Courts under the TRUTH and FACTS of Witham’s case.  Throughout the TRIAL in this case Cleek knew his main witness was a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and that his Witness / es had testi-lied throughout the pretrial of that TRUMPED UP CASE.     His ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and UNCONSCIONABLE efforts continued 7 months or  210 days after the Ordered Amendment of Witham’s ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.

 

  1. Witham on his own initiative,  and only ONCE   sought to amend and CLARIFY his pleadings and EMPHASIS  NEW FACTS   to  Bring updated and NEW issues of Constitutional Violations  and NEW EVIDENCE of a physical assault and violent attack upon Witham’s  person by the Defendant  Sheriff Mike Robertson and Court Security Efforts to THREATEN WITHAM with FALSE ARREST and ASSUIALT or PHYSICAL attack after the May 2nd 2005 Ordered 1st Amendment ,  in August and October of 2005  the  said SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT being filed on November 16th 2006  more than 18 months AFTER    Judge Gaitan May 2, 2005  , Ordered Amendment of Witham’s original  complaint .    Disallowing Witham to assert additional factual basis and continuing violations, blocking the clarification of  his complaint was IMPROPER and OVERLY HARSH on Judge Gaitan’s part, it was improper ERROR.  The assaults and Continuing Malicous Prosecution efforts constitute additional violations and DID NOT OCCUR for more than ONE YEAR post the May 2nd, 2005 FIRST and ORDERED AMENDEMENT.

 

See Federal Rule Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) . . .it states that  that leave to amend should be “freely given.”

 

NOTE: Witham filed an extensive brief and objections to his being denied in the Court below, regarding when AMENDMENTS of Pleadings is proper, he again as if set forth here verbatim, reargues that brief, supporting Liberal Amendment of Pleadings, as JUSTICE REQUIRES he be allowed to amend his Pleadings for a 2nd time, maybe even a third time ??

 

  1. Witham would assert that Judge Gaitan refusing to allow the  2nd Amendment of Witham’s original complaint  was ACTUALLY MOTIVATED BY INVIDIOUSLY ANIMOUS AND DISCRIMINATORY,  intended to  “ Forever Suppress “ and “Forever Secret”  legitimate pleadings and to Conceal and Secret the COVER UP  Judge Gaitan’s improper handling of those matters.  Going so far as to WITH PREJUDICE dismissing Witham’s entire case on 3/30/07  sixteen days prior to the close of discovery.   Again Witham asserts his OBJECTIONS to the action taken by Judge Gatian’s invidious animus and obvious prejudice against Witham, His censoring legitimate issues within the  case below, and denying inquiry and investigation, discovery into those issues, caused the delays NOT your Appellant.  Simply put,  Judge Gaitan’s actions improperly suppressed legitimate discovery and the result was to SUPRESS Facts and the Law as said relates to Witham’s the subject matter of Witham’s legitimate claims against these defendants.

 

NOTE:   The FRCP adopt a liberal stance toward amending pleadings, stating that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).The Supreme Court has also expressed this liberality in interpreting Rule 15(a),finding that “the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962) (quoting Conley v.Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)).

See Federal Rule Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) . . .it states that  that leave to amend should be “freely given.”

 

  1. Mr. Ron Cleek should be fully investigated and ultimately DISBARRED   , along with Judge Eiffert they should be  Held Accountable by this Court and Missouri’s  BAR Associations for such INVIDEOUS and WICKED, UNLAWFUL and TYRANICAL, DESPOTISM, as such is Unconstitutional and Criminal as a matter of FACT and as a Matter of LAW.  See US Constitution 2nd Amendment and Missouri Constitution Art. 1 Section 23,   WITHAM did NOT break any laws,  and Cleek, Effiert and Sheriff Robertson and the other Defendants FULLY KNEW that.  They also knew Cleeks Witnesses had repeatedly LIED and Committed perjury.

 

  1. All every and each effort to prosecute Witham by Prosecutor Ron Cleek and the Defendant Sheriff’s Department, in their marathon stalking, harassment vendetta lasting over 5 years,   resulted in NOT GUILTY or  case after case after case  being forcibly removed to a State Special Prosecutors control ,  The State Being faced with ENORMOUS EMBARRASSMENT  and EXPOSURE of their Vendetta and Lies,   many of  the FABRICATED and BASELESSCharges being ABUNDANTLY  EXPOSED AS SUCH by Witham,   were dropped by State or the State Special Prosecutor Souder Tate.   Succinctly Put,   These Defendant’s  stalking and conspiracy – vendetta against Witham was UNSUCCESSFUL –  The Out Of The Blue Sky, INSANE arrest regarding the Baseball Bat threats against Joe Rouse, Mike Weis and the Rouse Grandchildren in MAY of 2003 apparently was THROWN in the TRASH as Witham never heard anything more about it, That case well VANISHED all on it’s own – The effects of the Freezer Celling – Cold Torture and ABUSIVE Hand Cuffing – being Drug Out Of Bed after Midenight and HAULLED to JAIL,  is abundantly in the record in the INSTANT CASE –  NO ZERO NOTTA NONE Less Than Nothing was done to follow up on that arrest and incarceration by the Appellees – ZIP

 

  1. SUBSEQUENT to Judge Gaitan’s May 2nd 2005 ORDER to Witham to Amend his ORIGINAL COMPLAINT,   Defendant Ron Cleek and his MAFIA in 2005  Continued and his Office went so far as to ATTEMPT to RESURRECT  prosecutions which had been removed from his office to the State Special Prosecutor Souder Tate’s.   The criminal allegations involved a TRUMPED UP PACK OF LIES by Kay’s Country Store Owner JOHN HAWKS fabricated and made up regarding  a NON-EXISTANT Criminal Trespass that  “Did Not Happen”  and a LIED ABOUT Peace Disturbance,  More than a year PRIOR these FALSE criminal allegations had previously been DISMISSED by the State Special Prosecutor Tate by written agreement.

 

  1. Ron Cleek and those in his office, NEVER had any jurisdiction whatsoever to handle any part of thePREVIOUSLY DISMISSED cases,  and without ANY legitimate Jurisdiction to handle  said prosecutions, and Cleek’s and his office members,  KNOWINGLY attempt to proceed on the DISMISSED cases,  Defendant Cleek and those in his office who acted with him, are without ANY legitimate immunity as prosecutors  regarding the same.  There conduct was wholly outside their legitimate roles as covered by absolute or even qualified immunity.  These Defendants marathon,  MALICOUS and CONTINUED effort to Unlawfully HARASS , STALK and Prosecute Witham illegally occurred over a YEAR  after, Judge Gaitan’s ordered amendment of Witham’s Original Petition.   REFUSING to allow Witham to Amend his Complaint for the SECOND time was improper abuse of discretion on Judge Gaitan’s part.    See FRCP 15

 

Note:   See Witham’s brief in the record of the case below regardingLiberal Allowance of Amendment of Pleadings, said is here by reference repeated herein verbatim. The FRCP adopt a liberal stance toward amending pleadings,stating that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).The Supreme Court has also expressed this liberality in interpreting Rule 15(a),finding that “the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962) (quoting Conley v.Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)). The Court Concludes Following the simple guide of Rule 8(f) that ‘all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,’ we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basisThe Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197, 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745.

 

  1. These Defendants have as well continued to and currently EVEN TODAY have / are disseminate / ed / ing  UNTRUE and INJURIOUS FALSEHOODS regarding Witham to amongst others International Intelligence and International Police agencies including Interpol (Interpolthe International Criminal Police Organization)  the Nation of Canada and the Canadian Border Security Services.   Said injurious and false criminal information claims Witham is ALWAYS ARMED and to be CONSIDERED DANGEROUS. Said LIES  were  NOT discovered or known to Witham at the time of Judge Gaitain’s May 2nd 2005 ordered amendment of Witham Original Pleadings.  These DEFENDANTS DEFAMATORY, INFLAMATORY and INJUROUS FALSEHOODS continue even at the present time.  Said was discovered by Witham many, many months OVER TWO years later by Witham,   again however Judge Gaitan denied Witham his RIGHT to amend his Complaint for the 2nd time even though these Human and Civil Rights Violations are continuing and RIPE for determination.

 

  1. It is alleged against Witham that he evaded and refused to answer interrogatories, HOWEVER those answers made in good faith and ARE IN FACT IN THE RECORD and even cited by Judge Gaitan.  By  FIAT and DECREE Judge Gaitan has ERRONEOUSLY , FALSELY EXAGERATED and claimed Witham with scinter refused to answer.  It is however explained in those VERIFIED RESPONSES that  The difficulty of Witham to respond  WITH PRECISION, giving  name of the officers who violated his rights, is very simplethe NAMES of said Jailers and Officers were concealed from Witham during his stay at the County Gulag  ( Witham had no means to TAKE RUNNING NOTES or CONTEMPORANOEOUSLY  RECORDING  the identities and information such as Badge Numbers or any other such RECORDING of who exactly wasresponsible for the EXTREME AIR CONDITIONING he was Tortured With in the cells he was held in.)  It is noted that These Defendants have allowed to EVADE discovery of said information and evade the Missouri Sunshine Laws, and such makes it impossible to answer and provide the records to establish the matters inquired into.  Witham clearly has been denied Legitimate and Proper Inquiry and discovery, release of these JAIL RECORDS,  AND THEN FALSELY BLAMED for the RESULTS of that Limiting and Preclusive OBSTRUCTIVE conduct of the Defendants and Judge Gaitan.

 

Note:  The very reason for Discovery is to develop facts and flush out evidence, Witham has been denied that RIGHT by Judge Gaitan and these GOVERNMENT ACTORS.  See Hickman v. Taylor:  329 U.S. 495 (1947).  See also  Allen, 235 N.E.2d at 432 (interpreting CPLR 3101 liberally, in favor of disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy”). 

 

Thus The  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consider  the scope ofdiscoverable subject matter as being broader than the scope ofadmissible subject matter.   Under Rule 26(b)(1), information and documents sought in discovery need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus the Scope of Discovery IS Broader Than What Would Be Relevant Evidence at TrialUnder FRCP 26, a party is entitled to discover not only material which is relevant and admissible at trial, but also to discover information which “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   Discovery is permitted of acts and eventstranspiring subsequent to those giving rise to the cause of action where there is a possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action rather than to limit it to the issues involved in the particular case.  Relevance is not to be measured by the precise issues framed by the pleadings but by the general relevance to the subject matter.

 

  1. The OVERLY TIGHT HAND CUFFING TORTURES were adequately setout in Witham’s Original Pleadings, Amended Pleadings and his Papers filed with the Court seeking to AMEND the Complaint for a SECOND TIME.  The Abusive and Violative Conduct being accomplished by the Deputies, Sheriff and jailers, even CLEEK,  whose names appear on the arrest records and Jail records, as described  in Plaintiff’s pleadings .  MOST IMPORTANTLY the records are SOLELY in the possession of these Defendants, THESE Defendants HAVE that information and have all through this case.  Plaintiff has NEVER refused to provide said information to these defendants as THEY have always had the information under FRCP 8 and their own records throughout these matters.   Said  ALWAYS in the sole control of the Government these Records which reveal the information they seek have been SECRETED and DENIED to Witham.   The misleading claims against Witham that he refused to answer or share the information with these defendants, and contrary to Judge Gaitan’s assertions regarding the same, complicated  the REFUSAL of these defendants to produce their JAILER and JAIL OPERATIONS  RECORDS, being aided and abetted by Judge Gaitan’s claims Witham’s Discovery Requests were  NOT NARROWLY TAILORED ENOUGH,  ( by  a simple yet  rather Sophisticated Sophistry on Judge Gaitan’s part ) , these Defendants, OBSTRUCTING WITHAM’s ACCESS to the JAILS Operations Records and SECURITY TAPES, has resulted in SUBVERTING  Witham’s Right, to discover that information.  By Subverting  the Discovery Rules and Subverting  the Laws of Missouri (Open Records – Sunshine Act) and the FRCP and the Constitution and Laws of the United States, INTERNATIONAL LAW and   HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES regarding the Human and Civil Rights of persons such as Witham.   It has been Judge Gaitan’s Improper LIMITING of Issues and Discovery and these Defendants Secrecy and Cover Up that has resulted in Witham’s inability to DESCRIBE with precision what exactly happened.  Witham’s ability to precisely answer the interrogatories has beenPRECLUDED, BLOCKED and MADE IMPOSSIBLE, not by his choosing I must add.

 

The US  Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of these pretrial factual inquiries in Hickman v. Taylor:  329 U.S. 495 (1947).

 

[T]he deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of “fishing expedition” serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent’s case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.

 

. . . The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of surprise.

 

Thus  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consider  the scope ofdiscoverable subject matter as being broader than the scope ofadmissible subject matter.   Under Rule 26(b)(1), information and documents sought in discovery need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus the Scope of Discovery IS Broader Than What Would Be Relevant Evidence at TrialUnder FRCP 26, a party is entitled to discover not only material which is relevant and admissible at trial, but also to discover information which “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   Discovery is permitted of acts and eventstranspiring subsequent to those giving rise to the cause of action where there is a possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action rather than to limit it to the issues involved in the particular case.  Relevance is not to be measured by the precise issues framed by the pleadings but by the general relevance to the subject matter.

 

 

  1. Complicating Witham’s Ability to recount with precision in  these matters have been  the effects of the EXTREME and Prolonged COLD CELLING “Environmental manipulation” or extreme air conditioning , and it’s  known effects,  which  cause violent shaking,  physical and mental exhaustion, considerable stress , SLEEP DEPRIVATION and CONFUSION  and memory loss or AMNISIA.  Witham’s ability to remember, or even memorialize and make notes of exactly who, when and where exactly  regarding the details of all that happened,  were greatly complicated to say the least as a DIRECT result of the Environmental Manipulation or torture and sleep deprivations he was subjected to.   Witham had a sever episode of ANGINA and a PHYSICAL BREAKDOWN in custody during the false arrests, THE DEFENDANTS JAIL INFIRMARY RECORDS however are being secreted.

 

Note: Witham has filed with the Court below and by reference herein Treatise and Professional reports and accounts of hos COLD TORTURE, Sleep Deprivation, Psychological Torture etc. effect the human body and memory. Witham by reference again cites them verbatim here for this Appellate Court’s consideration.  See the record below

 

See also US Army Field manual 3452, the CIA’s 1963 KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual and the 1983 CIA Interrogation Training Manual.  Additionally US Army General Miller and General Ricardo Sanchez disseminated a Compact Disc regarding these Interrogation and Torture Techniques, to date Witham has been unable to obtain the “Torture Light” instructional CD.

 

  1. Judge Gaitan’s subtle and well articulated SUBVERSION of Witham’s ability to obtain JAIL, Videos, Tapes, Computer, Staff  and Internal Sheriff’s Department Records, combined with the REFUSAL to cooperate in Discovery and the SECRETING of Government Records by these Appellees,  that IS THE SOLE and SOLITARY, REAL  reasons  for the delays in this case .  Said is a major factor in Witham’s inability to answer the interrogatories with any precision or with accuracy and honesty.  JUDGE GAITAN however attempts to FRAUDULENTLY blame these results upon Witham,  revealing the Judge’s  prejudices against Witham and his Favoring and efforts to aid and abets these Defendant’s to CONCEAL and GET AWAY WITH the Torture, False Arrests, Vendetta, Malicious Prosecution and RETALIATION against Witham as described.  Again Witham OBJECTS to said abuses by Judge Gaitan and Seeks full reversal of his Dismissal With Prejudice in this case AND as well his RECUSAL from further proceedings in this case. 

 

See, e.g., Chapman v. State, 642 N.Y.S.2d 975, 976 (App. Div. 1996)(stating ……FRCP 26). The Court of Appeals advanced principles similar to those underlying the FRCP when it stated:

 

“The purpose of disclosure procedures . . . is to advance the function of a trial to ascertain truth and to accelerate the disposition of suits and . . . if there is any possibility that the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence- in-chief or in rebuttal or for cross examination, it should be considered evidence material . . . in the prosecution or defense.”

 

 

  1. Further complicating these matters, was Witham’s efforts to obtain the materials PRIOR to the institution of this federal case, while in the jail of these Defendants.  Requests he made for the materials from his cells and during proceedings in State Court were FORCLOSED and COMPLETELY ingnored and prevented BY JUDGE EFFIERT, JUDGE WATTERS and Ron Cleek as well as The Sheriff’s Department, Joe Matlock and Defendant Sheriff mike Robertson.    Any person faced with this type of MANIPULATION and “Torture” and faced with such a level of  threats and a massive  legal fight (such as the one in the instant case and the CRIMINAL CASES IN STATE COURT) , being LOCKED DOWN and FROZEN in  the County’s POPSICLE FREEZER – and Hyper Air-conditioned in ISOLATION CELLS,  then deprived of even Note Paper or Even a Crayon or Pencil,   would be INCAPABLE of recording the extensive and complex  information sought by the Defendants in this case.   Especially complicated by the onset of and symptoms of HYPOTHERMIA  , ANY individual being deprived of writing materials, or  meaningful access to legal instructions ,  printing recording or tape recording, video taping equipment,  denied practice materials, procedural treatises and all preparation materials,  and HEAT being  faced with JAILERS who ignore your requests and your well being,  is  so completely isolated and confused they are ABSOLUTELY hamstrung     UP A  CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE  and CUT OFF from Witnesses and the ability to record the incidents. The MATRIX of OBSTACLES placed in their way to RECOUNT the facts of WHO, exactly how and when, they were being TORTURED in this fashion.   Succinctly it’s INTENTIONAL and Unconscionable, done to Secret, Block, Silence, Suppress, DEFEAT, DISCOURAGE, OBSTRUCT, PRECLUDE and make IMPOSIBLE Legitimate Claims against these defendants from being pursued.     Said INTELLIGENCE and MILITARY INFORMATION OFFICER, CIA and DOD MILITARY  METHODS and SECRECY being employed to CONCEAL and SECRET said Inhumane and Unconstitutional, Illegal Conduct, is the cause

 NOT Witham’s refusal to cooperate – Emphasis Added

 

  1. Without access to, Jail Security Tapes, a Personal Video Camera, recording equipment,  Meaningful writing or Legal Preparation Materials, recounting the details of what occurred, beyond referencing the JAILS and SHERIFF’S Departments Internal Records,  answering is made impossible.  Having NO WAY to record the events and demand the names of WHO is doing it to you, or being able to REMEMBER that information  after many, many hours of HYPOTHERMIA being induced by the ENVIRONEMNTAL MANIPULATION,  Blocking access to the records and jail videos, concealing names of other inmates who witnessed it IN FACT were subjected to it, is  why Witham needed the discovery and more time to ANSWER.   Requiring  narrowly Drafted Pleadings, and Discovery Responses, while being denied the information needed IS TRIAL or better PRETRIAL BY AMBUSH  –  Judge Gaitan Knows or Should HAVE KNOW this,  This Appeals Court should as well.  In General  Missouri’s Sunshine Laws should not and reality do NOT allow,  it’s POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO CONDUCT SECERT GOVERNMENT ABOVE REVIEW OR AUDIT.

 

Note:  The Secreting of the jail Operations Records and Internal Sheriff’s Office records IN REALITY creates an INFORMATION BLACK OUT and TOTAL Secreting of what goes on in this Jail.

 

  1. Christian County’s GULAG is run by Highly Sophisticated, Many Times Military and Even CIA trained Intelligence Officer Level individuals that have designed a NEAR FOOL PROOF, Information Secure Environment  or  DO AS THEY WILL to WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE,  conditions like those exposed at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and  Bagram in Afghanistan,  it’s a NAZI likeGULAG they operate in Not Really A Christian County and Ozark Missouri, No Records, No Cameras, NOT EVEN PAPER or PENCIL to record what they do.

 

  1. Judge James Eiffert has an OBLIGATION under law to see to it and make certain Jail Inmates are Humanely Treated and Not so abused under Missouri Law.  Judge Eiffert is a previous CIA Trained US ARMY CAPTAIN and OFFICER , INTELLIGENCE TRAINED,  LAWYER and CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR.  He is good at keeping secrets as is RON CLEEK and Mike Robertson and the Sheriff’s Department.   Sheriffs Joe Matlock and Sheriff Mike Robertson and many of  the deputies involved in these matters are former Military Officers and possess INFORMATION SECURITY , INTELLIGENCE OFFICER and Psyop Training as well as CODE OF SILENCE and THIN BLUE LINE SKILLS acquired on the job from inmates, as jailers, THEY HAVE LEARNED from the CRIMINALS they deal with.    The CODE of Silence and the THIN BLUE LINE at work here operates nearly seamlessly in CIA , MILITARY INTELLIGENCE Top Secret Fashion .

 

Defendant Judge James L. Eiffert

U.S. Army Captain,   Military  intelligence.

 

 

 

Circuit 38

JAMES L. EIFFERT

Office address: 110 W. Elm, Rm. 205, Ozark 65721; phone (417)

581-2727.

Home address: Nixa 65714.

Counties: Christian and Taney.

Biography: Born May 12, 1945, in Springfield. Educated at Southwest

Missouri State University, B.A.; University of Missouri–Columbia,

J.D. Married July 18, 1970, to Judith A. Repp in Columbus, Indiana.

They have two daughters.

 

Served in the  U.S. Army, captain,   Military  intelligence.

Source – http://www.sos.missouri.gov/BlueBook/2003-2004/247-294.pdf

 

     Christian County’s Jail   is staffed by former  Military Intelligence Trained Personnel, such as ARMY RANGERS  trained in Information Secreting and Torture see below:

 

CHRISTIAN COUNTY GETS NEW JAIL ADMINISTRATOR…
Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006

 

Summary: .  SOURCE  http://www.ktxrfm.com/news.asp?ID=4463

 

CHRISTIAN COUNTY SHERIFF MIKE ROBERTSON SAYS HE’S FOUND A REPLACEMENT TO RUN THE COUNTY JAIL. RICHARD RAMAGE HAS BEEN WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT SINCE 2002; THE FORMER ARMY RANGER HAS ALSO BEEN A DEPUTY IN CALLAWAY COUNTY AND WORKED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. RAMAGE WILL TAKE OVER FOR CAPTAIN C.E. WELLS, WHO’S MOVING TO GREENE COUNTY AND WILL BE JAIL ADMINSITRATOR THERE.

 

ACLU Sues Missouri Authorities Over “Deplorable” Conditions at County Jail(10/6/1999)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPRINGFIELD, MO—Acting on behalf of an inmate, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a class action lawsuit against county officials today, citing inhumane conditions at a jail in Ozark.

The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri in conjunction with the Ozarks ACLU Chapter headquartered here, charges that inmates in the Christian County Jail are subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Specifically, the ACLU said:

*The jail, which is located on the third floor of a three-story building, has no fire escape or emergency exit, lacks adequate fire safety mechanisms and does not have a written fire safety plan.

* The jail has inadequate staffing and supervision. At times, there are no guards available to supervise the inmates.

* Inmates are confined to their cells at all times, except to make court appearances, take five-minute showers three times a week, visit with their attorneys, or visit with non-attorneys for a maximum of 15 minutes on visitation day.

“The ACLU’s response to the deplorable conditions at the Christian County Jail has been on our agenda for quite some time,” said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. “This action today illustrates the ACLU’s commitment to enforcing fundamental constitutional rights.”

The case is Johnathan Mangan v. Christian County Missouri. The attorneys for the ACLU are Eddie M. Lorenzo, Legal Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, and Paul W. Rebein of Shook, Hardy and Bacon, Kansas City, Missouri.

A copy of the complaint as filed in federal court can be viewed at http://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DocketSheet.pl?99-3373.

 

  1. Even if persons such as Witham have legitimate claims against these Defendants, the Defendants have a precision MILITARY INTELLIGENCE LIKE INFORMATION SECURE MACHINE  at work.  Legitimate claims against them  are DEFEATED by secreting relevant discovery and SECRETING GOVERNMENT RECORDS and by deprival of access meaningful legal materials FOREVER DEFEATED by the Overly Technical Burdens Imposed Upon Them by the Courts.  In this case, AIDDED and Abetted by untrue sophistries, deception, exaggerations and  Prejudicial and Damaging discovery rulings by Judge Gaitan which violate the Letter and Spirit of FRCP 34 and FRCP 26.

 

  1. Inducing Hypothermia Committing Physical VIOLENCE, acts of Torture,  making Threats, engaging in Intimidation, repeated and continuing malicious prosecutions ,  pursuing SYSTEMATIC Governmental STALKING, HARASMENT  against Witham for over 5 years,  the totality of said circumstances of said  VENDETTA being waged nearly CONTINUASELY since 2001 against Witham and his Family Forced  his Family to FLEE Christian County,  the cumulative effects of the false arrests, torture, threats,  Fire Bombings, Explosive Devices , Court Date after Court date month after month after month, made  making any effort to successfully sue these Individuals for the Civil Rights / Human Rights Violations in The Courts nearly impossible and extremely difficult.  Witham is EXHAUSTED and suffering from extreme stress, sleep abnormalities AND IS FACED WITH relocating his family on top of it all.  The Witham family were RUN OUT of their Ozarks Home, they  were forced to flee, instructed by the BATF to do so, circumstances forced them into homelessness on the road,  Judson Witham has been HOSPITALIZED during this exodus, undergoing TWO surgical procedures to save his life, and being rushed to the hospital numerous times for sever chest pain, and  to  top of it all, and nearly FINANCIALLY RUINED along the way.

 

 

Note:    Judge Gaitan’s derogatory and false assertions and blaming Witham for delays and improper conduct in this case are EGREGOUS VINDICTIVE AND UNCALLED FOR LIES.  WHAT a racket, what a scheme what an OBOMINATION to Human Dignity, Freedom, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness ,  EVIL IS THIS WICKEDNESS AND  ANTI FREEDOM MACHINARY.  There’s no nobility in this form of Rigged Government.   There’s no nobility in this form of injustice. Judge Gaitan and these Defendants have NO HONOR and NO Integrity NONE.

 

  1. In Christian County Missouri  dissidents or those who speak out against local abuse and corruption BEWARE, they are  merely accused of crimes,  merely accused of Civil Law Violations , get SET UP by LIARS as is the case in Witham’s Pleadings,  they are at the near total mercy of  Corrupt Police, Corrupt Public Officials,  Corrupt Judges and Corrupt Prosecutors,many of which are MILITARY INTELLIGENCE, US Army SAF or Rangers.  Many trained in IRAQ and Kuwait during Desert Storm and the UNPROVOKED WAR called Operation Enduring Freedom.

 

  1. In Christian County Missouri,   Ordinary Citizens,  Pretrial Detainees and those trying to secure their Civil Liberties are stalked, harassed, attacked and then denied materials at  the Jail and at the Court House SHUT OUT of the Public Law Library available to the PRIVATE SECTOR , PUBLIC DEFENDERS  and Non Lawyer Government Employees of the Corrupt County.  This Oppressive, Suppressive and UNCONSTITUTIONAL MONOPOLY on access to Publicly Funded Legal Materials is by intentional design “Tyranny and DESPOTISM perfected, and with  MILITARY PRECISION and EFFECTIVENESS.

 

FACT:  Witham and his Family were severely  harassed, repeatedly stalked and rather than BOMBED or BURT OUT, they were RUN OUT of the County, RON CLEEK openly and repeatedly demanded Witham and Family LEAVE the County and NEVER RETURN.

 

  1. 44.In this case, and under these FACTS, anyone criminally accused, falsely or otherwise, Set Up As  Guilty by the State, or better said RAIL ROADED as in my case, is at a TOTAL DISADVANTAGE and these conditions continue as the result of Judge Gaitain’s Discriminatory Animus against Witham and his IMPROPER and UNTRUE claims against Witham.

 

Note:  Witham’s repeated HOSPITALISATIONS in UTAH, during these matters,  subsequent to the family being forced from their home were TIEMELY NOTICED to Judge Gaitan and These Defendants, JUDGE GAITAN makes NO MENTION of that fact though, instead he casts deceptive and misleading derogatory aspersions FALSELY on your Appellant.

 

PLEASE SEE

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lack Of Public Defenders A Disgrace

Editorial from the (Missouri) News-Leader:

Perhaps the American Bar Association has found the path to fixing Greene County’s jail overcrowding problem.

 

The nation’s top legal organization has suggested a profound ethical stand be taken by public defenders facing ridiculously high case loads: Just say no.

 

Public defenders have an ethical obligation to refuse cases if they can’t reasonably offer good counsel, the new ethical opinion by the ABA decrees. The realities of the court system likely dictate that such a course of action won’t be followed by public defenders in any sort of organized fashion. But we suggest that if things don’t get better in Greene County and in Missouri, it’s an option they should consider.

 

In the past five years alone in the state of Missouri, public defenders’ case loads have risen by more than 12,000. But state legislators haven’t increased the number of public defenders. So just in the past five years, that’s an additional 33 cases per public defender.

 

In Greene County, the very serious jail overcrowding situation is magnified by the lack of public defenders. There are lots of reasons we have jail overcrowding, from lack of judges to the wrong sorts of cases leading to incarceration, but chief among the culprits is the lack of public defenders to even see clients and move their cases through the system with appropriate haste.

 

It’s not like legislators are unaware of this situation, but adding public defenders just doesn’t make good election year sound bite material. No, that’s reserved for being tough on crime. Passing mandatory sentences. Going after more classes of sex offenders. Putting cops on the streets. Building prisons. These are things legislators like to be proud of. Adding public defenders isn’t the sort of thing they take seriously.

 

The problem, of course, is that their very lack of action could undermine all their tough-on-crime legislation.

 

Imagine if public defenders take up the ABA on their ethical pledge. When they refuse to take cases, judges will face a very real dilemma. They can force the public defenders to take too many cases and thus create a situation where nobody gets adequate representation; or they can go right along with the gambit and start setting prisoners free. Ultimately, that’s the only reasonable solution: We either start providing adequate representation, or we let defendants go, knowing that our system is broken.

 

Think that might get lawmakers’ attention?

 

They ought to be paying attention right now. A time study being conducted inGreene County ought to provide the ammunition advocates for justice need in next year’s legislative session to convince lawmakers that hiring public defenders is a very necessary expense if they want to continue to pass the sorts of laws that bind the hands of judges and call for more prisons. As Justice Black wrote in the landmark 1963 Gideon vs. Wainwright case that guaranteed accused criminals access to a lawyer, “From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him….”

 

Our accused criminals today have lawyers, but all too often they barely have enough time to know their names.

 

There’s no nobility in that form of justice.

 

Also See:

 http://www.kcmba.org/PDF%20Files/Spangenberg%20Final%20Report.pdf

 

THE

SPANGENBERG

GROUP

1001 Watertown Street

West Newton, MA 02465

Tel: 617.969.3820

Fax: 617.965.3966

http://www.spangenberggroup.com

 

Assessment of the Missouri State

Public Defender System

FINAL REPORT

October 26, 2005

 

Prepared For: Prepared By:

Missouri State Bar Robert L. Spangenberg

Public Defender Task Force Jennifer W. Riggs

David J. Newhouse

 

also see:

 

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-17544672

 

 

Missouri State Public Defender caseload ‘crisis’.(Missouri State Public Defender’s Office )

2006 Dolan Media Company

Byline: Scott Lauck

The battle to pull the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office out of what some have called a “crisis mode” is being fought in both the committee hearing room and the courtroom.

An interim Senate committee and a task force of the Missouri Bar are independently seeking solutions to the crushing caseloads and high turnover found throughout the system that represents those without the means to hire their own lawyer.

Meanwhile, the Public Defender’s office has taken matters into its own hands. Last month, it appealed its involvement in a murder case, hoping that the Missouri Court of Appeals — or the Supreme Court — would provide the courts more guidance on when and when not to appoint public defenders.

According to a report commissioned by the Bar last year, the Public Defender’s Office has suffered more than a 100 percent turnover rate since 2001, and lawyers within the system handle well over 300 cases a year — far in excess of the 235 caseload standard adopted by the state in 1989.   Salaries for even the most experienced lawyers in the system were capped at less than $53,000.

The salary situation has changed somewhat: The Legislature approved a 4 percent pay hike for public defenders as part of this year’s…

 

 

 

See Also :  Missouri Public Defender Chief On Duty in Iraq

May 21, 2006

 

http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=19950

 

see also:   http://www.mobar.org/mobarforms/bulletinDetail.aspx?item=889

 

The Missouri Bar Bulletin  September 2006

 

 

  1. In not very Christian County Missouri, the Preclusion of access to Legal Materials by these defendants is by design and CONTINUES.  It amounts to a near total road block to meaningful access to Law Materials, it is an intentional connivance, a wanton and purposeful obstruction, purposely designed in this case TO PRECLUDE CITIZENS from securing their Rights an holding these Defendants Accountable as PUBLIC SERVANTS.

 

  1. The Old Saying Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse, takes on NEW SIGNIFICANCE as PRECLUDING Citizens access to the materials and Open Records and other Public Information, is grounds to falsely arrest, maliciously prosecute and then preclude all efforts at redress.  Succinctly such a RIGGED and DISHONEST  SYSTEM ROBS PEOPLE for the Liberty, Freedom and Rights they are ENTITLED TO,   

 

There’s no nobility in this form of rigged Government. 

 

 There’s no nobility in this form of  injustice.

Please See The Following:

 

Prison and Institution Libraries:

American Association of Law Libraries

Contemporary Social Problems Special Interest Section,

Recommended Collections for Prison Law Libraries, in

Arturo A. Flores, Werner’s Manual for Prison Law Libraries (2d ed. 1990).

American Association of Law Libraries

Social Responsibilities Special Interest Section,

Recommended Collections for Prison and   Other Institution Law Libraries  (1990).

 

 

http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/committees/acquisitions/colldevpolicies/libtype.htm

 

SEE ALSO :

 

http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm

60th IFLA General Conference –

Conference Proceedings   August 21-27, 1994

Prisoners’ Right of Access to the Courts:

Law Libraries in U.S. Prisons

Vibeke Lehmann

Library Services Coordinator

Wisconsin Department of Corrections

Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

 

 

Guidelines for library services to prisoners

3rd Edition  –  International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions IFLA Professional Reports, No. 92

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s9/nd1/iflapr-92.pdf

 

 

     Additionally PLEASE Consider The Following:  Standards required for  Treatment In Pro Se Civil Rights Litigation.  Pro Se Pleading Standards –  HAINES v. KERNER, ET AL. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).

ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. GAMBLE 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251. We now consider whether respondent’s complaint states a cognizable 1983 claim. The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

WILLIAM MCNEIL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 113 S. Ct. 1980, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21, 61 U.S.L.W. 4468. Moreover, given the clarity of the statutory text, it is certainly not a “trap for the unwary.” It is no doubt true that there are cases in which a litigant proceeding without counsel may make a fatal procedural error, but the risk that a lawyer will be unable to understand the exhaustion requirement is virtually nonexistent. Our rules of procedure are based on the assumption that litigation is normally conducted by lawyers. While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and have held that some procedural rules must give way because of the unique circumstance of incarceration, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal deemed filed at time of delivery to prison authorities), we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. As we have noted before, “in the long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law.” Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 826 (1980).  BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTER v. BROWN 466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that ” pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.

HUGHES v. ROWE ET AL. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 2d 163, 49 U.S.L.W. 3346. Petitioner’s complaint, like most prisoner complaints filed in the Northern District of Illinois, was not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a complaint, “however inartfully pleaded” are held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86 (CA7 1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520-521. And, of course, the allegations of the complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).

  1. Under these circumstances –  Judge Gaitan’s,  overly demanding and VAGUE instruction that Narrowly Drafted Discovery requests ,  his demanding Heightened Complaints, and Heightened  Answers to Interrogatories, and overly restrictive, improper and limited  Requests for  Discovery ,  should be and factually is contrary to the Law and CONTRARY to the Principles and Public Policies of Equity and Fairness  See:   FRCP 26 and  34 as well as the LIBERAL TREATMENT required to be afforded Pro Se Litigants
  2. It is and continues to be “DOUBLY and ESPECIALLY” unfair when access to Records even Writing Paper, Adequate Legal Preparation Materials are being blocked and denied to prisoners such is the, custom, practice and policy practiced at the  Christian County Gulag, for those they especially appreciate and care about LIKE WITHAM.   Characterizing such as unfairness and iniquity,  as Dishonesty and SOPHISTRY by Judge Gaitan and These Defendants is,  under these circumstances  being kind and generous.” To require strict adherence to all the LITANY of Mind Numbing Court Rules and Technicalities from pro Se Citizens while BLOCKING access to adequate Legal materials is simply WRONG and CONTRARY to the Concepts of FAIRNESS and EQUITY.
  3. Under these conditions, REQUIRING ANY ORDINARY CITIZEN  to conduct their  efforts before the Courts as if Well Financed and TRAINED COUNSEL, is abhorrent to the principles and provisions embodied in the Liberty, Freedom and JUSTICE FOR all,   which is the Well Settled Public Policy within the United States “ OR RATHER”  and “MORALLY” “Rightfully”  Should Be.
  4. The ability to pursue the gurantees of “Life, Liberty and Happiness”  in  “NOT A VERY”  Christian County Missouri, is IMPOSSIBLE.  It is instead as much a HELL HOLE as any Guantanamo Bay Cuba, Bagram Afghanistan,Abu Ghraib Prison Iraq, or any North Vietnam, Camere Rouge or NAZI Gulag.

     Wherefore,   Premises Considered,   APPELLANT  would respectfully move and pray that this honorable Appellate Court  will reverse the Dismissal of this case, further;

 

  1. Appellant would respectfully move and pray the Court to appoint a Special Master to review the status of such Meaningful Legal Preparation materials available to prisoners and the general public in Christian County and throughout Missouri and order that meaningful access to Legal preparation materials and order SUCH be  THE RULE AND PUBLIC POLICY OF THE MISSOURI, throughout the State and the United States  to be required in all Counties in The United States.

 

  1.  Appellant  would as well move and pray that this Court undertake an appoint a Special Master to investigate and  Review of the Quality, Competency, Meaningful and Constitutional  Unfairness of the Missouri Public Defenders System, particularly the ONGOING CRISIS which exists in Christian County and Greene County Missouri.

 

  1. 3.Appellant requests that his case be remanded for further proceedings, and that robust and lawful cooperation in discovery be required of these defendants, allowing a full development of the record of these matters to be presented to a Jury for a Lawful and Proper Jury Trial of the issues presented by Witham.

 

  1. Appellant requests payment of Costs and Expenses incurred in the Court Below and  this Appeal to be taxed to these Defendants and that Witham be reimbursed and equitable amount of money for the pursuit and perfection of this appeal.

 

  1. Appellant prays that his Criminal Record be expunged and corrected to reflect the FACT that even though he has been arrested many times by these defendants, ZERO convictions resulted, and that his arrest record be REMOVED.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Judson Witham

Box 4863

2250 N. University Parkway #48

Jurisnot2@yahoo.com

 

Certificate Of Service

 

This is to certify that all Counsel of Record have been NOTICED and Served copy of this Plaintiff’s Appellate Petition  and such has been sent to their respective E-Mail Addresses as well as the US Postal Addresses they have upon the record of this Court.

 

October 30th , 2008

  1. Douglas Harpool

Baird, Lightner, Millsap & Harpool, PC

Two Corporate Centre

1949 East Sunshine Street

Suite 2-102

Springfield, MO 65804

417/887-0133

Fax: 417/887-8740

Email: dharpool@blmhpc.com

Peter Allen Lee

Two Corporate Centre

1949 East Sunshine Street

Suite 2-102

Springfield, MO 65804

(417) 887-0133

Fax: (417) 887-8740

Email: plee@blmhpc.co

Steven S. Meier Attorney at Law LLC

218 North Massey Boulevard

Nixa, MO 65714

(417) 725-8686

Fax: 417-877-7948

Email:   ssmeier@sbcglobal.net

THESE MATERIALS ARE ATTACHED AS REFERENCE AND EXHIBITS ONLY

DISREGARD AT THE COURTS’  DISCRETION

THANK YOU

 

OPTIONAL – Addendum and Reference Works

 

Please See;  These Reference Works For Torture Light and the effects of  COLD TORTURE and ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION, AND the treatises and references supplied to the District Court by Witham, regarding HYPOTHERMIA and it’s effects.

 

Category three techniques   include threats against detainees’ families, actions intended to simulate suffocation, exposure to cold weather or water,

 

Rape Of The Mind Joost A.M. Meerloo M.D.

 http://www.ninehundred.net/control/forward.html

It’s  Available ONLINE

See Also –  Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (Paperback)

by Robert Jay Lifton

 

    1. The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods

… , exposure to cold weather or water, and the use of “mild, non-injurious physical contact.” The following five documents were released by …

… prohibiting torture The memo, written by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel, advises White House .not violate the Torture Convention of 1984, and that such interrogations were not within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. …

… the definition of torture The memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales examines the definition of … the definition of torture under the 1984 Torture Convention and its applicability to interrogations outside of the United States. The Office of …

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/index.htm

 

    1. IN SEARCH OF HIDDEN TRUTHS

… animals, throw cold water on him, change the temperature’. ‘When I returned to Honduras, I was trained in assaults, bombs and explosives by …

… detention and torture, and former members of the Honduran military. The report is divided into three sections: 1. A description of the efforts …

… detentions, torture, and extrajudicial killings which occurred in the individual cases in question. It is the latter information that …

… “Testifying to Torture” which appeared in the New York Times Magazine on June 5, 1988. Regarding the Carney case , “Florencio Caballero said he …

… to end physical torture in Honduras. They taught us psychological methods — to study the fears and weaknesses of a prisoner. Make him stand up, …

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/honduras/hidden_truths/hidden.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/#kubark

 

In Search of Hidden Truths

 

IN SEARCH OF HIDDEN TRUTHS

An Interim Report on Declassification by the National Commissioner

for Human Rights in Honduras  

Dr. Leo Valladares Lanza

and

Susan C. Peacock   http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/honduras/hidden_truths/hidden.htm

THE TESTIMONY OF FLORENCIO CABALLERO

A former Honduran Army Sergeant, Florencio Caballero Bonilla, was one of the primary sources of information about the Carney case and other cases of human rights abuses. Caballero deserted from the Honduras military intelligence app aratus in June, 1986 and later shared eyewitness testimony in a number of different fora, some public and some confidential. This section examines Caballero’s testimony and the U.S. government’s response in relation to the Carney case.

In 1987, Carney family members made contact with Caballero and went to interview him in Canada where he had sought political asylum. Caballero told the Carney family that the orders to kill Fr. Carney and PRTC guerrilla leader Dr. Jos&e acute; María Reyes Mata came directly from General Gustavo Alvarez Martínez. Caballero indicated that U.S. personnel, including a CIA agent known as “Mister Mike,”were present at the briefing by General Alvarez. This testimony contradicts official statements that U.S.personnel were unaware of Carney’s involvement with PRTC until the Patuca Operation was winding down.

Since he was posted at Nueva Palestina, Caballero said that he personally had not seen Fr. Carney. Nonetheless, he claimed to have heard second-hand that Fr. Carney was captured and taken to El Aguacate, a camp near Catacamas, Honduras operated by the CIA for the Nicaraguan “Contras.” Caballero claimed that CIA and Pentagon instructors, who were training the Contras, were present at El Aguacate during Fr. Carney’s detention there. Caballero informed the family that Fr. Carney was subsequently tortured, and then thrown “out of a helicopter alive” over the Honduran jungle.

Caballero said that he did look at a dairy and some religious artifacts which had belonged to Fr. Carney. He indicated that the diary was later turned over to Capt. Chávez Hernández, who was the second-in-command of Battal ion 3-16 after Major Alexander Hernández.

In January, 1988, Caballero testified before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in San José, Costa Rica in the historic case which the family of Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez brought against the Government t of Honduras.

Caballero also shared his testimony with journalist James LeMoyne, who quoted him extensively in an article entitled “Testifying to Torture” which appeared in the New York Times Magazine on June 5, 1988. Regarding the Carney case , “Florencio Caballero said he interrogated an American priest, Father James Carney, who supported guerrilla warfare and was captured along with a group of 96 rebels who had infiltrated into Honduras from Nicaragua after training in Cuba. Mr. Caballero said Father Carney and nearly 70 of the captured guerrillas were executed.”28 Did Caballero see and interrogate Fr. Carney or not? This discrepancy needs to be clarified.

The magazine article also provided details about Caballero’s claims of receiving CIA training:

‘I was taken to Texas with 24 others for six months between 1979 and 1980,’ Mr. Caballero told me. ‘There was an American Army captain there and men from the C.I.A. The chief C.I.A. instructor was Mr. Bill.’ …

In Texas, said Mr. Caballero, the Americans ‘taught me interrogation, in order to end physical torture in Honduras. They taught us psychological methods — to study the fears and weaknesses of a prisoner. Make him stand up, don’t let him sleep,   keep him naked and isolated, put rats and cockroaches in his cell, give him bad food, serve him dead animals, throw cold water on him, change the temperature’.

Excerpts from  The Dark Art of Interrogation  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden

 

The Atlantic Monthly | October 2003

The Dark Art of Interrogation

The most effective way to gather intelligence and thwart terrorism can also be a direct route into morally repugnant terrain. A survey of the landscape of persuasion

by Mark Bowden

“….He would be kept awake, cold,…”

Then there are methods that, some people argue, fall short of torture. Called “torture lite,” these include sleep deprivation, exposure to heat or cold, ….. rough treatment (slapping, shoving, or shaking), forcing a prisoner to stand for days at a time or to sit in uncomfortable positions, and playing on his fears for himself and his family. Although excruciating for the victim, these tactics generally leave no permanent marks and do no lasting physical harm.

On that third day, once more hooded, Sheikh Mohammed was driven to Chaklala Air Force base, in Rawalpindi, and turned over to U.S. forces. From there he was flown to the CIA interrogation center in Bagram, Afghanistan, and from there, some days later, to an “undisclosed location” (a place the CIA calls “Hotel California”)—presumably a facility in another cooperative nation, or perhaps a specially designed prison aboard an aircraft carrier. It doesn’t much matter where, because the place would not have been familiar or identifiable to him. Place and time, the anchors of sanity, were about to come unmoored. He might as well have been entering a new dimension, a strange new world where his every word, move, and sensation would be monitored and measured; where things might be as they seemed but might not; where there would be no such thing as day or night, or normal patterns of eating and drinking, wakefulness and sleep; where hot and cold, wet and dry, clean and dirty, truth and lies, would all be tangled and distorted.

 

Document 1

CIA, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, July 1963

Part 1 (pp. 1-60) – Part II (pp. 61-112) – Part III (pp. 113-128)

This 127-page report, classified Secret, was drafted in July 1963 as a comprehensive guide for training interrogators in the art of obtaining intelligence from “resistant sources.” KUBARK–a CIA codename for itself–describes the qualifications of a successful interrogator, and reviews the theory of non-coercive and coercive techniques for breaking a prisoner. Some recommendations are very specific. The report recommends, for example, that in choosing an interrogation site “the electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers and other modifying devices will be on hand if needed.” Of specific relevance to the current scandal in Iraq is section nine, “The Coercive Counterintelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources,” (pp 82-104). Under the subheading, “Threats and Fears,” the CIA authors note that “the threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain.” Under the subheading “Pain,” the guidelines discuss the theories behind various thresholds of pain, and recommend that a subject’s “resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself” such rather than by direct torture. The report suggests forcing the detainee to stand at attention for long periods of time. A section on sensory deprivations suggests imprisoning detainees in rooms without sensory stimuli of any kind, “in a cell which has no light,” for example. “An environment still more subject to control, such as water-tank or iron lung, is even more effective,” the KUBARK manual concludes.

Document 2

CIA, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983

Part I (pp. 1-67) – Part II (pp. 68-124)

This secret manual was compiled from sections of the KUBARK guidelines, and from U.S. Military Intelligence field manuals written in the mid 1960s as part of the Army’s Foreign Intelligence Assistance Program codenamed “Project X.” The manual was used in numerous Latin American countries as an instructional tool by CIA and Green Beret trainers between 1983 and 1987 and became the subject of executive session Senate Intelligence Committee hearings in 1988 because of human rights abuses committed by CIA-trained Honduran military units. The manual allocates considerable space to the subject of “coercive questioning” and psychological and physical techniques. The original text stated that “we will be discussing two types of techniques, coercive and non-coercive. While we do not stress the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them.” After Congress began investigating human rights violations by U.S.-trained Honduran intelligence officers, that passage was hand edited to read “while we deplore the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them so that you may avoid them.” Although the manual advised methods of coercion similar to those used in the Abu Ghraib prison by U.S. forces, it also carried a prescient observation: “The routine use of torture lowers the moral caliber of the organization that uses it and corrupts those that rely on it….”

Document 3

DOD, Improper Material in Spanish-Language Intelligence Manuals, SECRET, 10 March 1992

This “report of investigation” was sent to then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney in March 1992, nine months after the Defense Department began an internal investigation into how seven counterintelligence and interrogation manuals used for years by the Southern Command throughout Latin America had come to contain “objectionable” and prohibited material. Army investigators traced the origins of the instructions on use of beatings, false imprisonment, executions and truth serums back to “Project X”-a program run by the Army Foreign Intelligence unit in the 1960s. The report to Cheney found that the “offensive and objectionable material in the manuals” contradicted the Southern Command’s priority of teaching respect for human rights, and therefore “undermines U.S. credibility, and could result in significant embarrassment.” Cheney concurred with the recommendations for “corrective action” and recall and destruction of as many of the offending manuals as possible.

Document 4

DOD, USSOUTHCOM CI Training-Supplemental Information, CONFIDENTIAL, 31 July, 1991

This document records a phone conversation with Major Victor Tise, who served in 1982 as a counterintelligence instructor at the School of the Americas. Tise relates the history of the “objectionable material” in the manuals and the training courses at SOA. A decade of training between 1966 and 1976 was suspended after a Congressional panel witnessed the teaching program. The Carter administration then halted the counterintelligence training courses “for fear training would contribute to Human Rights violations in other countries,” Tise said, but the program was restored by the Reagan administration in 1982. He then obtained training materials from the archives of the Army’s “Project X” program which he described as a “training package to provide counterinsurgency techniques learned in Vietnam to Latin American countries.” The course materials he put together, including the manuals that became the subject of the investigations, were sent to Defense Department headquarters “for clearance” in 1982 and “came back approved but UNCHANGED.” Although Tise stated he removed parts he believed to be objectionable, hundreds of unaltered manuals were used throughout Latin America over the next nine years.

The Psychology of torture

The psychological effects associated with torture, or the threat of torture, can be severe. The psychological suffering coupled with physiological pain affects the torture subject and serves the torturer‘s (conscious) interests. The torture can also suffer from psychological effects.

Contents

[hide]

Introduction

Psychological torture is less well known than physical torture and tends to be subtle and much easier to conceal. In practice the distinction between physical and psychological torture often blurred. Physical torture is the inflicting of severe pain or suffering on a person. In contrast, psychological torture is directed at the psyche with calculated violations of psychological needs, along with deep damage to psychological structures and the breakage of beliefs underpinning normal sanity. Torturers often inflict both types of torture in combination to compound the associated effects.

Psychological torture also includes deliberate use of extreme stressors and situations such as mock executionshunning, violation of deep-seated social or sexual norms and taboos, or extended solitary confinement. Because psychological torture needs no physical violence to be effective, it is possible to induce severe psychological pain, suffering, and trauma with no externally visible effects.

Torture induces associated psychological effects on those who inflict it too. To understand the full psychological effects of torture it is essential that its impact on the torturer be studied as well. Therefore, this article discusses the psychological effects of torture on those who are tortured and on those who torturetoo.

Psychological stress

Main article: Psychological stress

Psychological pain is pain caused by psychological stress and by psychological trauma, as distinct from that caused by physiological injuries and other physical syndromes. The practice of torture induces psychological pain through various acts that often involve both physiological torture and psychological torture to achieve the torturers goal(s).

Examples of psychological stress include: paralyzing fear of death or pain, uncertainty, unfulfilled anticipation, fear for (and of) others and desire for (and of) others. But torture also creates other extreme dynamics, and can disrupt usual cognitive processes to such an extent that the subject is unable to retain the usual sense of personal boundaries, friends and enemies, love and hate, and other major human psychological dynamics.

Some well-known animal experiments performed in the 20th century show that in addition to these, the subject’s own strengths and weaknesses can be enhanced by psychological stress to the point that they will enter a “grey” mental world of great suggestibility, where certain critical faculties in the brain shut down under overload. This renders them less able to judge what they believe and refute, to conduct logicalargument or reject the views of interrogators, and can cause them in some cases even to side with the torturer in confusion. {{Main article: Brainwashing}} Such torture methods were dealt with, in depth, in the fictional novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, as well as in the 1995 motion picture Murder in the First written by Dan Gordon.

The torture process

Although torture induces both physiological and psychological effects, the psychological impact is often greater and tends to remain with the subject long after the actual activity is discontinued.

The process of torture is designed to invade and destroy the belief of the subjects in their independence as a human being, to destroy presumptions of privacyintimacy, and inviolability assumed by the subjects, and to destroy their unspoken trust that these things (or indeed society as a whole) cares, or can save them. Beyond merely invading the subjects’ mental, physical independence on a one-to-one level, such acts can be made more damaging via public humiliation, incessant repetition, depersonalization, and sadistic glee, and, on occasion, their opposites, false public praise, insidious pandering, false personalization, and masochistic manipulation.

Beatrice M. Patsalides, Ph.D describes this process in “Ethics of the unspeakable: Torture survivors in psychoanalytic treatment”:[1]

“As the gap between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ deepens, dissociation and alienation increase. The subject that, under torture, was forced into the position of pure object has lost his or her sense of interiority, intimacy, and privacy. Time is experienced now, in the present only, and perspective – that which allows for a sense of relativity – is foreclosed. Thoughts and dreams attack the mind and invade the body as if the protective skin that normally contains our thoughts, gives us space to breathe in between the thought and the thing being thought about, and separates between inside and outside, past and present, me and you, was lost.”

The CIA[2] summed up the theory of coercion thus:

“The purpose of all coercive techniques is to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist. Regression is basically a loss of autonomy, a reversion to an earlier behavioral level. As the subject regresses, his learned personality traits fall away in reverse chronological order. He begins to lose the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to deal with complex situations, or to cope with stressful interpersonal relationships or repeated frustrations.”

Psychologically, torture often creates a state where the mind works against the best interests of the individual, due to the inducement of such emotions as shameworthlessness, dependency, and a feeling of lacking uniqueness. Cunning torturers often induce pandered pride, specious worthiness, false favoritism, and grandiose specialness to further fool the subject. These and other responses can lead to a mutated, fragmented, or discredited personality and belief structure. Even the subject’s normal bodily needs and functions (e.g., sleep, sustenanceexcretion, etc.) can be changed and made to be construed as self-degrading, animalistic, and dehumanizing.

Torture can rob the subject of the most basic modes of relating to reality, and thus can be the equivalent of cognitive death. A person’s sense of self can be shattered. The tortured often have nothing familiar to hold on to: family, home, personal belongings, loved ones, language, name. They can lose their mental resilience and sense of freedom. They can feel alienated—unable to communicate, relate, attach, or empathize with others.

Immediate psychological aspects of torture

As normal developing human beings, people internalize certain concepts needed to support their ability to face life. For example, they come to understand that there are people and authorities who will support them, they psychologically become independent and individual from their peer group (individuation), they believe they have validity, purpose and “a place” simply by virtue of being a human being and that they are not simply an “object”. They have many life-experiences which give them pride and self-confidence, and so on. These are profound platforms for growth and, if removed or damaged, can change a person’s entire ability to know what and who they are in relationship to the world. They can be devastated.

Torture splinters these by guile and sheer force, using both psychological design and the impact of massive unavoidable sustained physical pain. In doing so, it shatters deep down narcissistic fantasies of uniqueness, omnipotence, invulnerability, and impenetrability which help sustain personality. Seeking an alternate means to comprehend the changed world, torture subjects grow into a fantasy of merging with an idealized and omnipotent (though not benignother—the inflicter of agony. The twin processes of individuation and separation which sustain independent adulthood are reversed.

Beatrice Patsalides describes this process:[1]

“As the gap between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ deepens, dissociation and alienation increase. The subject that, under torture, was forced into the position of pure object has lost his or her sense of interiority, intimacy, and privacy. Time is experienced now, in the present only, and perspective—that which allows for a sense of relativity—is foreclosed. Thoughts and dreams attack the mind and invade the body as if the protective skin that normally contains our thoughts, gives us space to breathe in between the thought and the thing being thought about, and separates between inside and outside, past and present, me and you, was lost.”

Psychological effects of pain

Psychologist, Shirley Spitz observes:[3]

“Pain is also unshareable in that it is resistant to language … All our interior states of consciousness: emotional, perceptual, cognitive and somatic can be described as having an object in the external world … This affirms our capacity to move beyond the boundaries of our body into the external, sharable world. This is the space in which we interact and communicate with our environment. But when we explore the interior state of physical pain we find that there is no object “out there”—no external, referential content. Pain is not of, or for, anything. Pain is. And it draws us away from the space of interaction, the sharable world, inwards. It draws us into the boundaries of our body.”

Extending torture to family and friends

A common factor of psychological torture, at times the only factor, is to extend the activity to family, friends, and others for whom the subject has a deep concern (the “social body”). This further disrupts the individual’s familiar expectations of their environment, their control over their circumstances, and the strength of (and ability to help and be helped by) their closest relationships and lifelong support network. Shunning, a form of social/sexual torture used by some groups against former members, is a one example of the systemic extension of psychological torture to spouses, family and friends.

The perversion of intimacy

The psychologist Shirley Spitz offers this powerful overview of the contradictory nature of torture:[3]

“Torture is an obscenity in that it joins what is most private with what is most public. Torture entails all the isolation and extreme solitude of privacy with none of the usual security embodied therein … Torture entails at the same time all the self exposure of the utterly public with none of its possibilities for camaraderie or shared experience. (The presence of an all powerful other with whom to merge, without the security of the other’s benign intentions.)

Beyond that, torture, by its nature, utilizes distortion of the traditional rules of human relationships:

A further obscenity of torture is the inversion it makes of intimate human relationships. The interrogation is a form of social encounter in which the normal rules of communicating, of relating, of intimacy are manipulated. Dependency needs are elicited by the interrogator, but not so they may be met as in close relationships, but to weaken and confuse. Independence that is offered in return for “betrayal” is a lie. Silence is intentionally misinterpreted either as confirmation of information or as guilt for ‘complicity.’[4]

Post-torture psychological effects of torture

Torture subjects often suffer from a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their strong feelings of hate, rage, terror, guilt, shame, and sorrow are also typical of subjects of mobbingchildhood abusedomestic violence, domestic vice, rape and incest. They feel anxious because the perpetrator’s behavior is seemingly arbitrary and unpredictable—or mechanically and inhumanly regular.

They feel guilty and disgraced because, to restore a semblance of order to their shattered world and a modicum of dominion over their chaotic life, they need to transform themselves into the cause of their own degradation and the accomplices of their tormentors.[4]

Inevitably, in the aftermath of torture, its subjects feel helpless and powerless. This loss of control over one’s life and body is manifested physically in impotence, attention deficits, and insomnia. This is often exacerbated by the disbelief many torture subjects encounter, especially if they are unable to produce scars, or other “objective” proof of their ordeal. Language cannot communicate such an intensely private experience as pain.

Intrapersonal effects

Subjects typically oscillate between emotional numbing and highly sensitive arousal: insomnia, irritability, restlessness, and attention deficits. Recollections of the traumatic events intrude in the form of dreams, night terrors, flashbacks, and distressing associations.

Long-term coping mechanisms include the development of compulsive rituals to fend off obsessive thoughts. Other psychological consequences include cognitive impairment,reduced capacity to learnmemory disorders, sexual dysfunctionsocial withdrawal, inability to maintain long-term relationships, or even mere intimacy, phobias, ideas of reference and superstitionsdelusionshallucinationspsychotic microepisodes, and flat affect.

Depression and anxiety are very common. These are forms and manifestations of self-directed aggression. The sufferer rages at their own suffering and resulting multiple dysfunction. They feel shamed by their new disabilities and responsible, or even guilty, somehow, for their predicament and the dire consequences borne by their nearest and dearest. Their sense of self-worth and self-esteem are crippled.

Social effects

Torturers and bystanders resent the tortured because the tortured make the perpetrators and bystanders who collude with the torture feel guilty and ashamed for having tortured and/or for having done nothing to prevent the atrocity. The sufferers threaten their sense of security and their much-needed belief in predictability, justice, and rule of law. The sufferers, on their part, do not believe that it is possible to effectively communicate to “outsiders” what they have been through. Author K. Zetnik is on record calling the Auschwitz torture chambers “another galaxy”, during his testimony at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalemin 1961.

Kenneth Pope, in “Torture,” a chapter he wrote for the “Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender,” quotes Harvard psychiatrist Judith Herman:

“It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering.”

The torture process to the torturer

Motivation to torture

It was long thought that “good” people would not torture and only “bad” ones would, under normal circumstances. Research over the past 50 years suggests a disquieting alternative view, that under the right circumstances and with the appropriate encouragement and setting, most people can be encouraged to actively torture others. Stages of torture mentality include:

  • Reluctant or peripheral participation
  • Official encouragement: As the Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment show, many people will follow the direction of an authority figure (such as a superior officer) in an official setting (especially if presented as mandatory), even if they have personal uncertainty. The main motivations for this appear to be fear of loss of status or respect, and the desire to be seen as a “good citizen” or “good subordinate”.
  • Peer encouragement: to accept torture as necessary, acceptable or deserved, or to comply from a wish to not reject peer group beliefs. This may potentially lead to torture gangs roaming the streets seeking dominant torture status.
  • Dehumanization: seeing victims as objects of curiosity and experimentation, where pain becomes just another test to see how it affects the victim.
  • Disinhibition: socio-cultural and situational pressures may cause torturers to undergo a lessening of moral inhibitions and as a result act in ways not normally countenanced by law, custom and conscience.
  • Organisationally, like many other procedures, once torture becomes established as part of internally acceptable norms under certain circumstances, its use often becomes institutionalised and self-perpetuating over time, as what was once used exceptionally for perceived necessity finds more reasons claimed to justify wider use.

One of the apparent ringleaders of the Abu Ghraib prison torture incident, Charles Graner Jr., exemplified some of these when he was reported to have said, “The Christian in me says it’s wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, ‘I love to make a grown man piss himself.'”

Effects of torture on the torturer

French author Alec Mellor writing, in 1972, about French General Jacques Massu’s use of torture in Algeria quotes a former French career soldier, now a priest, Père Gilbert, SJ, thus:

“But let us admit for a moment that it might be possible to justify torture for the ‘noble motives’: have they (those who justify torture) thought for one moment of the individual who does it, that is, of the man whom, whether he wishes or not, one is going to turn into a torturer? I have received enough confidences in Algeria and in France to know into what injuries, perhaps irreparable, torture can lead the human conscience. Many young men have ‘taken up the game’ and have thereby passed from mental health and stability into terrifying states of decay, from which some will probably never recover.”

Overcoming psychological effects to the tortured

Although torture, indeed, seems forever, it is possible to transform such terrible suffering. Torture subjects do take back their identities after even the most terrible tortures. Torture subjects do remember their horrible memories, do release their reasonable rages and do restore their original wholeness. Victimhood is a stage, not a destination.

Overcoming torture-induced trauma requires immense dedication, patience and support. Since little such support is available to torture victims today, most see no choice but to choose (unconscious) victimhood forever. One consequence is that, despite their best efforts, most victims victimize less capable people with their unconscious psychological torture (and terror) displacements and so the cycle repeats itself.

No torture subject need indulge in victimhood, forever, with no hope. Some torture subjects do overcome the associated psychological pain, suffering and trauma of torture. However, the costs of transforming torture are terrible and the long term losses that torture causes are irreplaceable.

References

Some of the information in this article may not be verified by reliable sources. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified to cite reliable sources.

  1. a b Patsalides, Beatrice M. Ph.D Ethics of the Unspeakable: Torture Survivors in Analytic Treatment The Journal of the Northern California Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. V, No. 1, 1999
  2. ^ Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983 (reprinted in the April 1997 issue of Harper’s Magazine)
  3. a b Spitz, Shirley, The Psychology of Torture, Seminar, 1989
  4. a b Vaknin, Sam The Psychology of Torture

Further reading

  • McCoy, Alfred, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror(Hardcover)
  • Conroy, John, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.
  • Glasser, William, WARNING: Psychiatry Can be Dangerous to Your Health, (?), 2004.
  • Millet, Kate, The Politics of Cruelty: An Essay on the Literature of Political Imprisonment, W. W. Norton, 1994.
  • Peters, Edward, Torture, Basil Blackwell, 1985.
  • Levine Peter, and Frederick, Ann, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma: The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences, North Atlantic, 1997.
  • Stover, Eric and Nightingale, Elena, The Breaking of Bodies and Minds: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse and the Health Professions, W.H. Freeman, 1985.
  • CIA, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, July 1963

External links

 

 

 

 

 

Alfred McCoy, author of the new book “A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror,” which investigates the history of secret torture and torture training done by the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

 

Friday, February 17th, 2006

Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror

 

We now take a look at what lies behind the shocking images of torture at Abu Ghraib prison by turning to the history of the CIA and torture techniques. Professor Alfred McCoy talks about his book “A Question of Torture”, a startling expose of the CIA development of psychological torture from the Cold War to Abu Ghraib. CIA mercenaries attempted to assassinate McCoy more than 30 years ago. [includes rush transcript]

We now take a look at what lies behind the shocking images of torture at Abu Ghraib by turning to the history of the CIA and torture techniques. The International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and other human rights groups say the recently released images of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib show a clear violation of international humanitarian law. The U.S. made a pledge against torture when Congress ratified the UN Convention Against Torture in 1994 – but it was ratified with reservations that exempted the CIA’s psychological torture method. So what were the results?

A new expose gives an account of the CIA’s secret efforts to develop new forms of torture spanning fifty years. It reveals how the CIA perfected its methods, distributing them across the world from Vietnam to Iran to Central America, uncovering the roots of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture scandals. The book is titled “A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror.”

  • Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Author of “A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror” and also “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade.”

AMY GOODMAN: A new expose gives an account of the C.I.A.’s secret efforts to develop new forms of torture, spanning half a century. It reveals how the C.I.A. perfected its methods, distributing them across the world, from Vietnam to Iran to Central America, uncovering the roots of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture scandals. The book is called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror, and we’re joined by its author, Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

ALFRED McCOY: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: And glad to have you with us, especially in light of your history. I first learned of you with your first book The Politics of Heroin: C.I.A. Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, for which you almost died. What happened then?

ALFRED McCOY: Oh, when I was researching that book in the mountains of Laos, hiking from village to village, interviewing Laotian farmers about their opium harvest, and they were telling me that they took it down to the local helicopter pad where Air America helicopters would land, Air America being a subsidiary of the C.I.A., and officers, tribal officers in the C.I.A.’s secret army would buy the opium and fly it off to the C.I.A.’s secret compound, where it would be transformed into heroin and ultimately wound up in South Vietnam. And while I was doing that research, hiking from village to village, interviewing farmers, we were ambushed by a group of C.I.A. mercenaries. Fortunately, I had five militiamen from the village with me, and we shot our way out of there, but they came quite close. Then later on, a C.I.A. operative threatened to murder my interpreter unless I stopped doing that research. And then when —

AMY GOODMAN: How did you know they were C.I.A.?

ALFRED McCOY: Oh, look, in the mountains of Laos, there aren’t that many white guys, okay? I mean, the mercenaries? First of all, the C.I.A. ran what was called the “Army Clandestine.” They had a secret army, and those soldiers that ambushed us were soldiers in the secret army. That, we knew.

AMY GOODMAN: The Laotian army?

ALFRED McCOY: The C.I.A.’s secret army.

AMY GOODMAN: The Laotian mercenaries?

ALFRED McCOY: Laotian mercenaries. That, everybody was clear about that. Nobody denied that. They said it was sort of an accident, but, no, it was very clear that it was intentional. And ultimately, when the book was in press, the head of covert operations for the C.I.A. called up my offices and my publisher in New York and suggested that the publisher suppress the book. They then got the right to prior review — the publisher compromised.

AMY GOODMAN: C.I.A. prior review.

ALFRED McCOY: Prior review of the manuscript, and they issued a 14-page critique. The publisher’s legal department, HarperCollins’s legal department reviewed the critique, reviewed the manuscript, published the book unchanged, not a word changed.

AMY GOODMAN: And the contention of that book was that the C.I.A. was complicit in the global drug trade?

ALFRED McCOY: Right. In the context of conducting covert operations around the globe, particularly in the Asian opium zone, which stretched from the Golden Triangle of Vietnam and Laos all the way to Afghanistan, that in those mountains far away from home, when the C.I.A. had to mobilize tribal armies, the only allies were warlords, and when the C.I.A. formed an alliance with them, the warlords used this alliance to become drug lords, and the C.I.A. didn’t stop them from their involvement in the traffic.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, as a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, you have not stopped looking at the C.I.A., and now you’ve written this new book. It’s called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Give us a history lesson.

ALFRED McCOY: Well, if you look at the most famous of photographs from Abu Ghraib, of the Iraqi standing on the box, arms extended with a hood over his head and the fake electrical wires from his arms, okay? In that photograph you can see the entire 50-year history of C.I.A. torture. It’s very simple. He’s hooded for sensory disorientation, and his arms are extended for self-inflicted pain. And those are the two very simple fundamental C.I.A. techniques, developed at enormous cost.

From 1950 to 1962, the C.I.A. ran a massive research project, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind, spending over $1 billion a year to crack the code of human consciousness, from both mass persuasion and the use of coercion in individual interrogation. And what they discovered — they tried LSD, they tried mescaline, they tried all kinds of drugs, they tried electroshock, truth serum, sodium pentathol. None of it worked. What worked was very simple behavioral findings, outsourced to our leading universities — Harvard, Princeton, Yale and McGill — and the first breakthrough came at McGill. And it’s in the book. And here, you can see the — this is the — if you want show it, you can. That graphic really shows — that’s the seminal C.I.A. experiment done in Canada and McGill University —

AMY GOODMAN: Describe it.

ALFRED McCOY: Oh, it’s very simple. Dr. Donald O. Hebb of McGill University, a brilliant psychologist, had a contract from the Canadian Defense Research Board, which was a partner with the C.I.A. in this research, and he found that he could induce a state of psychosis in an individual within 48 hours. It didn’t take electroshock, truth serum, beating or pain. All he did was had student volunteers sit in a cubicle with goggles, gloves and headphones, earmuffs, so that they were cut off from their senses, and within 48 hours, denied sensory stimulation, they would suffer, first hallucinations, then ultimately breakdown.

And if you look at many of those photographs, what do they show? They show people with bags over their head. If you look at the photographs of the Guantanamo detainees even today, they look exactly like those student volunteers in Dr. Hebb’s original cubicle.

Now, then the second major breakthrough that the C.I.A. had came here in New York City at Cornell University Medical Center, where two eminent neurologists under contract from the C.I.A. studied Soviet K.G.B. torture techniques, and they found that the most effective K.G.B. technique was self-inflicted pain. You simply make somebody stand for a day or two. And as they stand — okay, you’re not beating them, they have no resentment — you tell them, “You’re doing this to yourself. Cooperate with us, and you can sit down.” And so, as they stand, what happens is the fluids flow down to the legs, the legs swell, lesions form, they erupt, they suppurate, hallucinations start, the kidneys shut down.

Now, if you look at the other aspect of those photos, you’ll see that they’re short-shackled — okay? — that they’re long-shackled, that they’re made — several of those photos you just showed, one of them with a man with a bag on his arm, his arms are straight in front of him, people are standing with their arms extended, that’s self-inflicted pain. And the combination of those two techniques — sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain — is the basis of the C.I.A.’s technique.

AMY GOODMAN: Who has pioneered this at the C.I.A.?

ALFRED McCOY: This was done by Technical Services Division. Most of the in-house research involved drugs and all of the LSD experiments that we heard about for years, but ultimately they were a negative result. When you have any large massive research project, you get — you hit dead ends, you hit brick walls, you get negative results. All the drugs didn’t work. What did work was this.

AMY GOODMAN: But when you talk about the ‘everyone knows the LSD experiments,’ I don’t think everyone knows. In fact, I would conjecture that more than 90% of Americans don’t know that the C.I.A. was involved with LSD experiments on unwitting Americans. Can you explain what they did?

ALFRED McCOY: Oh, sure. As a part of this comprehensive survey of human consciousness, the C.I.A. tried every possible techniques. And one of the things that they — at the time that this research started in the 1940s, a Swiss pharmaceutical company developed LSD.

AMY GOODMAN: Which one?

ALFRED McCOY: I forget now. One of the major Swiss pharmaceutical companies. And Dr. Hoffman there was the man who developed it. The C.I.A. bought substantial doses, and they conducted experiments. One of the most notorious experiments was that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, inside the agency, spiked the drinks of his co-workers, and one of those co-workers suffered a breakdown, Dr. Frank Olson, and he either was — I don’t know whether he was pushed or jumped from a hotel here in New York City —

AMY GOODMAN: His son has never stopped pursuing this case?

ALFRED McCOY: Right, his son Eric Olson insists that his father was murdered by the C.I.A. Eric Olson believes that his father did a tour of Europe, and he visited the ultimate Anglo-American test site, black site near Frankfurt, where they were doing lethal experiments, fatal experiments, on double agents and suspected double agents, and that his father returned enormously upset by the discovery that this research was actually killing people, and that, therefore, Eric Olson argues his father was killed by the C.I.A., that he was pushed.

AMY GOODMAN: And didn’t they do experiments in brothels in the San Francisco area?

ALFRED McCOY: They had two kind of party houses. They had one in the San Francisco Bay Area, another in New York City. And what they did in San Francisco was they had prostitutes who go out to the streets, get individuals, bring them back, give them a drink, and there would be a two-way mirror, and the C.I.A. would photograph these people.

AMY GOODMAN: So, the C.I.A. were running the brothel.

ALFRED McCOY: They were running the brothel. They were running all of these experiments, okay? They did that on Army soldiers through the Army Chemical Warfare Division.

AMY GOODMAN: What did they do there?

ALFRED McCOY: Again, they gave them LSD and other drugs to see what effect they would have.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did the soldiers think they were getting?

ALFRED McCOY: They were just told they were participating in an experiment for national defense.

AMY GOODMAN: Prisoners?

ALFRED McCOY: No, these were —

AMY GOODMAN: Right, but also on prisoners, were there experiments?

ALFRED McCOY: There were some in prisons in the United States and also the Drug Treatment Centerin Lexington, Kentucky. The Federal Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky, had this. All of this research, all this very elaborate research —

AMY GOODMAN: On unwitting Americans?

ALFRED McCOY: Unwitting Americans, produced nothing, okay? What they found time and time again is that electroshock didn’t work, and sodium pentathol didn’t work, LSD certainly didn’t work. You scramble the brain. You got unreliable information. But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain.

And in 1963, the C.I.A. codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual. If you just type the word “KUBARK” into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques [Read the report.] But if you do, read the footnotes, because that’s where the behavioral research is. Now, this produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture, and it’s the one that’s with us today, and it’s proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.

Let’s make one thing clear. Americans refer to this often times in common parlance as “torture light.” Psychological to torture, people who are involved in treatment tell us it’s far more destructive, does far more lasting damage to the human psyche than does physical torture. As Senator McCain said, himself, last year when he was debating his torture prohibition, faced with a choice between being beaten and psychologically tortured, I’d rather be beaten. Okay? It does far more lasting damage. It is far crueler than physical torture. This is something that we don’t realize in this country.

Now, another thing we see is those photographs is the psychological techniques, but the initial research basically developed techniques for attacking universal human sensory receptors: sight, sound, heat, cold, sense of time. That’s why all of the detainees describe being put in dark rooms, being subjected to strobe lights, loud music, okay? That’s sensory deprivation or sensory assault. Okay, that was sort of the phase one of the C.I.A. research. But the paradigm has proved to be quite adaptable.

Now, one of the things that Donald Rumsfeld did, right at the start of the war of terror, in late 2002, he appointed General Geoffrey Miller to be chief at Guantanamo, alright, because the previous commanders at Guantanamo were too soft on the detainees, and General Miller turned Guantanamo into a de factobehavioral research laboratory, a kind of torture research laboratory. And under General Miller at Guantanamo, they perfected the C.I.A. torture paradigm. They added two key techniques. They went beyond the universal sensory receptors of the original research. They added to it an attack on cultural sensitivity, particularly Arab male sensitivity to issues of gender and sexual identity.

And then they went further still. Under General Miller, they created these things called “Biscuit” teams, behavioral science consultation teams, and they actually had qualified military psychologists participating in the ongoing interrogation, and these psychologists would identify individual phobias, like fear of dark or attachment to mother, and by the time we’re done, by 2003, under General Miller, Guantanamo had perfected the C.I.A. paradigm, and it had a three-fold total assault on the human psyche: sensory receptors, self-inflicted pain, cultural sensitivity, and individual fears and phobia.

AMY GOODMAN: And then they sent General Miller to, quote, “Gitmo-ize” Abu Ghraib. Professor McCoy, we’re going to break for a minute, and then we’ll come back. Professor Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. His latest book is called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, author of a number of books. The Politics of Heroin: C.I.A. Complicity in the Global Drug Tradealmost had him killed. Afterwards, the C.I.A. tried to have the book squelched, but ultimately it was published. Then A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation from the Cold War to the War On Terror is his latest book, and we’re talking about the history of torture. Continue with what you were saying, talking about the Biscuit teams, the use of psychologists in Guantanamo, and then Geoffrey Miller, going from Guantanamo to, quote, “Gitmo-ize” Abu Ghraib.

ALFRED McCOY: In mid-2003, when the Iraqi resistance erupted, the United States found it had no intelligence assets; it had no way to contain the insurgency, and they — the U.S. military was in a state of panic. And at that moment, they began sweeping across Iraq, rounding up thousands of Iraqi suspects, putting many of them in Abu Ghraib prison. At that point, in late August 2003, General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, and he brought his techniques with him. He brought a CD, and he brought a manual of his techniques. He gave them to the M.P. officers, the Military Intelligence officers and to General Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. Commander in Iraq.

In September of 2003, General Sanchez issued orders, detailed orders, for expanded interrogation techniques beyond those allowed in the U.S. Army Field Manual 3452, and if you look at those techniques, what he’s ordering, in essence, is a combination of self-inflicted pain, stress positions and sensory disorientation, and if you look at the 1963 C.I.A. KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, you look at the 1983 C.I.A. Interrogation Training Manual that they used in Honduras for training Honduran officers in torture and interrogation, and then twenty years later, you look at General Sanchez’s 2003 orders, there’s a striking continuity across this forty-year span, in both the general principles, this total assault on the existential platforms of human identity and existence, okay? And the specific techniques, the way of achieving that, through the attack on these sensory receptors.

AMY GOODMAN: And Rumsfeld’s comment, when asked if it was torture, when people were forced to stand hours on end, that he stands at his desk?

ALFRED McCOY: Right, he wrote that in one of his memos. When he was asked to review the Guantanamo techniques in late 2003 or early 2004, he scribbled that marginal note and said, you know, “I stand at my desk eight hours a day.” He has a designer standing desk. “How come we’re limiting these techniques of the stress position to just four hours?” So, in other words, that was a clear signal from the Defense Secretary. Now, one of the problems beyond the details of these orders is torture is an extraordinarily dangerous thing. There’s an absolute ban on torture for a very good reason. Torture taps into the deepest recesses, unexplored recesses of human consciousness, where creation and destruction coexist, where the infinite human capacity for kindness and infinite human capacity for cruelty coexist, and it has a powerful perverse appeal, and once it starts, both the perpetrators and the powerful who order them, let it spread, and it spreads out of control.

So, I think when the Bush administration gave those orders for, basically, techniques tantamount to torture at the start of the war on terror, I think it was probably their intention that these be limited to top al-Qaeda suspects, but within months, we were torturing hundreds of Afghanis at Bagram near Kabul, and a few months later in 2003, through these techniques, we were torturing literally thousands of Iraqis. And you can see in those photos, beyond the details of the techniques that we’ve described, you can see how that once it starts, it becomes this Dantesque hell, this kind of play palace of the darkest recesses of human consciousness. That’s why it’s necessary to maintain an absolute prohibition on torture. There is no such thing as a little bit of torture. The whole myth of scientific surgical torture, that torture advocates, academic advocates in this country came up with, that’s impossible. That cannot operate. It will inevitably spread.

AMY GOODMAN: So when, Professor McCoy, you started seeing these images, the first photos that came out at Abu Ghraib, the pictures we showed of the, you know, hooded man, electrodes coming out of his fingers, standing on the box, your response?

ALFRED McCOY: Oh, I mean, the reason I wrote this book is when that photo came out in April 2004 on CBS news, at the Times, William Safire, for example, writing in the New York Times said this was the work of creeps. Later on, Defense Secretary Schlesinger said that this was just abuse by a few people on the night shift. There was another phrase: “Recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.” In other words, this was the bad apple thesis. We could blame these bad apples. I looked at those photos, I didn’t see individual abuse. What I saw was two textbook trademark C.I.A. psychological interrogation techniques: self-inflicted pain and sensory disorientation.

AMY GOODMAN: We read our first headline today. It was about Maher Arar and the case – the judge has thrown out against him, the Canadian-Syrian man who was sent back to Syria — the U.S. government calls it “extraordinary rendition,” and he was kept in an underground “grave-like” cell, he described, very small. He was held for almost a year. As you showed, and I looked at the book, the pictures of the places where prisoners are kept, and in speaking to Maher, he’s described this level of sensory deprivation. What about the shape and the size and the coffin-like nature of these rooms?

ALFRED McCOY: The details are often left to the individual interrogators, but the manuals basically describe how you control the process, you control the environment right from the start when you pick somebody up. So, for example, often times we see in Iraq of people when they’re arrested, their arms are behind their back. They’re made to kneel in very uncomfortable positions, and they’re hooded right away. That’s one of the things they always specify is the time and conditions of arrest. You begin to break them down. You create this artificial environment of control, and then the techniques always vary. It can be extreme darkness or it can be extreme light; it can be absence of sound or a bombardment of sound.

AMY GOODMAN: And that bombardment of sound is often joked about. ‘Oh, we played Britney Spears really loud,’ or whatever it is. I don’t know if it was her. But that’s become a joke when soldiers play loud music.

ALFRED McCOY: Well, though, actually, that’s one of the problems of talking about this topic in the United States, is that we regard all of this panoply of psychological techniques as “torture light,” as somehow not really torture. Okay? And we’re the only country in the world that does that. The U.N. convention bars – defines torture as the infliction of severe psychological or physical pain. The U.N. convention which bans torture in 1984 gives equal weight to psychological and physical techniques. We alone as a society somehow exempt all of these psychological techniques. That dates back, of course, to the way we ratified the convention in the first place.

Back in the early 1990s, when the United States was emerging from the Cold War, and we began this process of, if you will, disarming ourselves and getting beyond all of these techniques, trying to sort of bring ourselves in line with rest of the international community, when we sent that — when President Clinton sent the U.N. Anti-Torture Convention to the U.S. Congress for ratification in 1994, he included four detailed paragraphs of reservation that had, in fact, been drafted by the Reagan administration, and he adopted them without so much as changing a semicolon. And when you read those detailed paragraphs of reservation, what you realize is this, is that the United States Congress ratified the treaty, but basically we outlawed only physical torture. Those photographs of reservation are carefully written to avoid one word in the 26 printed pages of the U.N. convention. That word is “mental.” Basically, we exempted psychological torture.

Now, another problem for the United States, as well, was when the U.S. Army re-wrote the Army Field Manual in 1992, the same period, while, although let’s say the civil authorities were sort of skirting the law by exempting psychological techniques, the U.S. Army re-wrote their field manual with the intention of strictly observing the letter and the spirit of the U.N. Anti-Torture Convention and other similar treaties. So what happened is that when the Defense Department gave orders for extreme techniques, when General Sanchez gave orders for his techniques beyond the Army Field Manual, what that meant is when the soldiers were actually investigated, they had committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They would be prosecuted, and they’re all being sent to jail.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor McCoy, you wrote a piece, “Why the McCain Torture Ban Won’t Work: The Bush Legacy of Legalized Torture.”

ALFRED McCOY: Right. Most Americans think that it’s over, that in last year, December 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act 2005, which in the language of Senator McCain, who was the original author of that amendment to the defense appropriation, the author of that act, it bars all inhumane or cruel treatment, and most people think that’s it, that it’s over, okay? Actually, what has happened is the Bush administration fought that amendment tooth and nail; they fought it with loopholes. Vice President Cheney went to Senator McCain and asked for a specific exemption for the C.I.A. McCain refused. The National Security Advisor went to McCain and asked for certain kinds of exemptions for the C.I.A. He refused.

So then they started amending it. Basically what happened is, through the process, they introduced loopholes. Look, at the start of the war on terror, the Bush administration ordered torture. President Bush said right on September 11, 2001, when he addressed the nation, “I don’t care what the international lawyers say. We’re going to kick some ass.” Those were his words, and then it was up to his legal advisors in the White House and the Justice Department to translate his otherwise unlawful orders into legal directives, and they did it by crafting three very controversial legal principles. One, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, could override laws and treaties. Two, that there was a possible defense for C.I.A. interrogators who engage in torture, and the defenses were of two kinds. First of all, they played around with the word “severe,” that torture is the infliction of severe pain. That’s when Jay Bybee, who was Assistant Attorney General, wrote that memo in which he said, “’severe’ means equivalent to organ failure,” in other words, right up to the point of death. The other thing was that they came up with the idea of intentionality. If a C.I.A. interrogator tortured, but the aim was information, not pain, then he could say that he was not guilty. The third principle, which was crafted by John Yoo, was Guantanamo is not part of the United States; it is exempt from the writ of U.S. courts. Now, in the process of ratifying – sorry, passing the McCain torture – the torture prohibition, McCain’s ban on inhumane treatment, the White House has cleverly twisted the legislation to re-establish these three key principles. In his signing statement on December 30, President Bush said —

AMY GOODMAN: This was the statement that he signed as he signed the McCain so-called ban on torture?

ALFRED McCOY: Right, he emailed it at 8:00 at night from his ranch in Crawford on December 30th, that he was signing this legislation into law. He said, “I reserve the right, as Commander-in-Chief and as head of the unitary executive, to do what I need to do to defend America.” Okay, that was the first thing. The next thing that happened is that McCain, as a compromise, inserted into the legislation a provision that if a C.I.A. operative engages in inhumane treatment or torture but believes that he or she was following a lawful order, then that’s a defense. So they got the second principle, defense for C.I.A. torturers. The third principle was – is that the White House had Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina amend McCain’s amendment by inserting language into it, saying that for the purposes of this act, the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay is not on U.S. territory, and last month —

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds.

ALFRED McCOY: So, and then in the last month, the Bush administration has gone to federal courts and said, “Drop all of your habeas corpus suits from Guantanamo.” There are 160 of them. They’ve gone to the Supreme Court and said, “Drop your Guantanamo case.” They have, in fact, used that law to quash legal oversight of their actions.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I want to thank you very much, Professor Al McCoy, for speaking with us, professor of history at University of Wisconsin, Madison, his book A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War On Terror.

 

See Also

Hypothermia

Hypothermia

Classification & external resources

ICD10 T68
ICD9 780.9991.6

Hypothermia refers to any condition in which the temperature of a body drops below the level required for normal metabolism and/or bodily function to take place. In warm-blooded animals, core body temperatureis maintained at or near a constant level through biologic homeostasis. When the body is exposed to colder temperatures, however, its internal mechanisms may be unable to replenish the heat that is being lost to the body’s surroundings.

Hypothermia is the opposite of hyperthermia. Because the words sound alike, they are easily confused.

Contents

[hide]

Stages of hypothermia in humans

Normal Body Temperature: 37°C or 98.6°F

Stage 1

Body temperature drops by 1°C – 2°C below normal temperature C (1.8°-3.6°F). Mild to strong shivering occurs. Unable to perform complex tasks with the hands; the hands become numb. Blood vessels in the outer extremities contract, lessening heat loss to the outside air. Breathing becomes quick and shallow. Goose bumps form, raising body hair on end in an attempt to create an insulatinglayer of air around the body (limited use in humans due to lack of sufficient hair, but useful in other species). Often times, a person will experience a warm sensation, as if they have recovered, but they are in fact heading into Stage 2. Another test to see if the person is entering stage 2 is if they are unable to touch their thumb with their little finger,this is first stages of muscles not working.

Stage 2

Body temperature drops by 2°C – 4°C (3.6°F – 7.2°F). Shivering becomes more violent. Muscle miscoordination becomes apparent. Movements are slow and labored, accompanied by a stumbling pace and mild confusion, although the victim may appear alert. Surface blood vessels contract further as the body focuses its remaining resources on keeping the vital organs warm. Victim becomes pale. Lips, ears, fingers and toes may become blue.

Stage 3

Body temperature drops below approximately 32°C (90°F). Shivering usually stops; difficulty speaking, sluggish thinking, and amnesia start to appear; inability to use hands and stumbling are also usually present. Cellular metabolic processes shut down. Below 30°C (86°F) the exposed skin becomes blue and puffy, muscle coordination very poor, walking nearly impossible, and the victim exhibits incoherent/irrational behavior including terminal burrowing or even a stupor. Pulse and respiration rates decrease significantly but fast heart rates (ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation) can occur. Major organs fail. Clinical death occurs. Because of decreased cellular activity in stage 3 hypothermia, the body will actually take longer to undergo brain death.

First aid

  • If any symptoms of hypothermia are present, especially confusion or changes in mental status, the local emergency service should be immediately contacted.
  • If the person is unconscious, check their airway, breathing, and circulation. Pulse check should take at least 45 seconds, as the heart rate may be extremely slow. If necessary, begin rescue breathing or CPR. If the victim is breathing less than 6 breaths per minute, begin rescue breathing.
  • Take the person inside to room temperature and cover him or her with warm blankets. If going indoors is not possible, get the person out of the wind and use a blanket to provide insulation from the cold ground. Cover the person’s head and neck to help retain body heat.
  • Once inside, remove any wet or constricting clothes and replace them with dry clothing.
  • Warm the person. Apply warm compresses or packs to the neck, chest wall, armpits and groin. If the person is alert and can easily swallow, give warm, sweetened, non-alcoholic fluids to aid the warming.
  • Stay with the person until medical help arrives.
  • Assume that you should obtain a doctor if the victim has been exposed for 24 hours or more.
  • DO NOT use direct heat (such as hot water, a heating pad, or a heat lamp) to warm the person.
  • DO NOT give the person alcohol.[1]
  • DO NOT rub the person’s limbs because this may cause further tissue damage.
  • HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE. Any rough handling of an extremely hypothermic person could cause their heart to stop. Get them out of the cold, but do it gently.

Hospital treatment

In a hospital, warming is accomplished by external techniques (blankets, warming devices) for mild hypothermia and by more invasive techniques such as warm fluids injected in the veins or even lavage(washing) of the bladder, stomach, chest and abdominal cavities with warmed fluids for severely hypothermic patients.[citation needed] These patients are at high risk for arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats), and care must be taken to minimize jostling and other disturbances until they have been sufficiently warmed, as these arrhythmias are very difficult to treat while the victim is still cold. An important tenet of treatment is that a person is not dead until they are warm and dead. Remarkable accounts of recovery after prolonged cardiac arrest have been reported in patients with hypothermia. This is presumably because the low temperature prevents some of the cellular damage that occurs when blood flow and oxygen are lost for an extended period of time.

Prevention

In air, most heat is lost through the head;[2] hypothermia can thus be most effectively prevented by covering the head. Having appropriate clothing for the environment is another important prevention. Fluid-retaining materials like cotton can be a hypothermia risk; if the wearer gets sweaty on a cold day, then cools down, they will have sweat-soaked clothing in the cold air. For outdoor exercise on a cold day, it is advisable to wear fabrics which can “wick” away sweat moisture. These include wool or synthetic fabrics designed specifically for rapid drying.

Heat is lost much more quickly in water. Children can die of hypothermia in as little as two hours in water as warm as 16°C (61°F, 289 K), typical of sea surface temperatures in temperate countries such as Great Britain in early summer. Many seaside safety information sources fail to quote survival times in water, as well as the consequent importance of diving suits. This is possibly because the original research into hypothermia mortality in water was carried out in wartime Germany on unwilling subjects.[citation needed]There is an ongoing debate as to the ethical basis of using the data thus acquired.

There is considerable evidence, however, that children who suffer near-drowning accidents in water near 0°C (32°F, 273 K) can be revived up to two hours after losing consciousness. The cold water considerably lowers metabolism, allowing the brain to withstand a much longer period of hypoxia.

Medically induced

Main article: induced hypothermia

Paradoxical undressing

Between 20 and 50 percent of hypothermal deaths are associated with, or even caused by, a phenomenon known as paradoxical undressing. When this occurs, the hypothermic victim becomes seriously confused and starts discarding clothing they have been wearing, a counter-productive action which only serves to increase the rate of temperature loss.[3] There have been several published case studies of victims throwing off their clothes before help reached them. [4]

Rescuers who are trained in mountain survival techniques have been taught to expect this effect. However, the phenomenon still regularly leads police to incorrectly assume that urban victims of hypothermia have been subjected to a sexual assault.[citation needed]

One explanation for the effect is a cold-inducted malfunction of the hypothalamus, the part of the brain that regulates body temperature. Another explanation is that the muscles contracting peripheral blood vessels become exhausted and relax, leading to a sudden surge of blood (and heat) to the extremities, fooling the victim into feeling warm.

See also

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

External links

PUBLIC DEFENDERS / PRETENDERS A VERY SICK JOKE

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lack Of Public Defenders A Disgrace

Editorial from the (Missouri) News-Leader:

Perhaps the American Bar Association has found the path to fixing Greene County’s jail overcrowding problem.

The nation’s top legal organization has suggested a profound ethical stand be taken by public defenders facing ridiculously high case loads: Just say no.

 

Public defenders have an ethical obligation to refuse cases if they can’t reasonably offer good counsel, the new ethical opinion by the ABA decrees. The realities of the court system likely dictate that such a course of action won’t be followed by public defenders in any sort of organized fashion. But we suggest that if things don’t get better in Greene County and in Missouri, it’s an option they should consider.

In the past five years alone in the state of Missouri, public defenders’ case loads have risen by more than 12,000. But state legislators haven’t increased the number of public defenders. So just in the past five years, that’s an additional 33 cases per public defender.

In Greene County, the very serious jail overcrowding situation is magnified by the lack of public defenders. There are lots of reasons we have jail overcrowding, from lack of judges to the wrong sorts of cases leading to incarceration, but chief among the culprits is the lack of public defenders to even see clients and move their cases through the system with appropriate haste.

It’s not like legislators are unaware of this situation, but adding public defenders just doesn’t make good election year sound bite material. No, that’s reserved for being tough on crime. Passing mandatory sentences. Going after more classes of sex offenders. Putting cops on the streets. Building prisons. These are things legislators like to be proud of. Adding public defenders isn’t the sort of thing they take seriously.

The problem, of course, is that their very lack of action could undermine all their tough-on-crime legislation.

Imagine if public defenders take up the ABA on their ethical pledge. When they refuse to take cases, judges will face a very real dilemma. They can force the public defenders to take too many cases and thus create a situation where nobody gets adequate representation; or they can go right along with the gambit and start setting prisoners free. Ultimately, that’s the only reasonable solution: We either start providing adequate representation, or we let defendants go, knowing that our system is broken.

Think that might get lawmakers’ attention?

They ought to be paying attention right now. A time study being conducted inGreene County ought to provide the ammunition advocates for justice need in next year’s legislative session to convince lawmakers that hiring public defenders is a very necessary expense if they want to continue to pass the sorts of laws that bind the hands of judges and call for more prisons. As Justice Black wrote in the landmark 1963 Gideon vs. Wainwright case that guaranteed accused criminals access to a lawyer, “From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him….”

Our accused criminals today have lawyers, but all too often they barely have enough time to know their names.

There’s no nobility in that form of justice.

Also See:

 http://www.kcmba.org/PDF%20Files/Spangenberg%20Final%20Report.pdf

 

THE

SPANGENBERG

GROUP

1001 Watertown Street

West Newton, MA 02465

Tel: 617.969.3820

Fax: 617.965.3966

http://www.spangenberggroup.com

Assessment of the Missouri State

Public Defender System

FINAL REPORT

October 26, 2005

Prepared For: Prepared By:

Missouri State Bar Robert L. Spangenberg

Public Defender Task Force Jennifer W. Riggs

David J. Newhouse

also see:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-17544672

Missouri State Public Defender caseload ‘crisis’.(Missouri State Public Defender’s Office )

2006 Dolan Media Company

Byline: Scott Lauck

The battle to pull the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office out of what some have called a “crisis mode” is being fought in both the committee hearing room and the courtroom.

An interim Senate committee and a task force of the Missouri Bar are independently seeking solutions to the crushing caseloads and high turnover found throughout the system that represents those without the means to hire their own lawyer.

Meanwhile, the Public Defender’s office has taken matters into its own hands. Last month, it appealed its involvement in a murder case, hoping that the Missouri Court of Appeals — or the Supreme Court — would provide the courts more guidance on when and when not to appoint public defenders.

According to a report commissioned by the Bar last year, the Public Defender’s Office has suffered more than a 100 percent turnover rate since 2001, and lawyers within the system handle well over 300 cases a year — far in excess of the 235 caseload standard adopted by the state in 1989.   Salaries for even the most experienced lawyers in the system were capped at less than $53,000.

The salary situation has changed somewhat: The Legislature approved a 4 percent pay hike for public defenders as part of this year’s…

See Also :  Missouri Public Defender Chief On Duty in Iraq

May 21, 2006

http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=19950

see also:   http://www.mobar.org/mobarforms/bulletinDetail.aspx?item=889

The Missouri Bar Bulletin  September 2006