Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ya Know... I Hope To Gawd That The Crimes At Penn State Are An Isolated Incident, But...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:26 PM
Original message
Ya Know... I Hope To Gawd That The Crimes At Penn State Are An Isolated Incident, But...
Edited on Sat Nov-12-11 08:27 PM by WillyT
There was a female lawyer on MSNBC the other day that said that what many people don't realize is that when you are hired by a large institution, you sign non-disclosure agreements as part of your contract. Meaning that you are NOT allowed to go outside the chain of command. You report it to your superiors, keep your mouth shut, and let them "handle it".

If you do not, it is grounds for immediate termination, loss of pension, and lawsuits.

And the host said something like, "Well isn't that sort of the Occupier's point... That we can no longer trust most of this countries institutions."

And it just hit me today... she's exactly correct.

We cannot trust our government.

We cannot trust the Church.

We cannot trust Wall Street, the Banks, or Industry.

We cannot trust those who make the laws.

We cannot trust those that administer the laws.

We cannot trust those that adjudicate the laws.

And we DEFINITELY cannot trust those that enforce the laws.

Maybe that was the change we were all hoping for.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Waking up to reality can feel very rude as in rude awakening
It's worth it though. Who wants to keep living the lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. If my prospective employer asked me to sign a non-disclosure that...
... prevented me from reporting crimes I'd look for another job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Ironically, I'm in the reverse position
My job with a state agency makes me subject to mandatory reporting laws--child and elderly neglect/abuse. I'm just an IT nerd, not a case worker or anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
51. a non disclosure agreement will not stand against a law that will
put you in jail if you don't report. And I think that is your 3 am wake up call: do you do the right thing or the easy thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. "do you do the right thing or the easy thing?"
That's the question...

What's the answer... currently... these days ???

I'm just pointing out how the corruption trickles down for many.

:shrug:

:hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Exactly. The non disclosure is not meant to supersede
Reporting to an agency regarding the commission of a serious crime, or a natural disaster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. Apparently it isn't an isolated incident according to an
earlier post on du:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2295219>

(Reuters) - In the wake of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal, another university, The Citadel military college in South Carolina, revealed on Saturday that it had investigated accusations against a camp counselor but took no action.

The man has since been jailed on separate charges of molesting five boys in Mount Pleasant, near Charleston, South Carolina.

"We regret that we did not pursue this matter further," Citadel President Lt. General John Rosa and Board of Visitors Chair Doug Snyder said in a statement.

The Citadel said it investigated four years ago accusations of inappropriate conduct with children by Louis Neal "Skip" ReVille, who was a counselor at the military school's camp.

ReVille is a graduate of The Citadel, the college said, and worked as a counselor at the school's camp for three summers between 2001 and 2003.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Private contracts (employment contracts) cannot override state or fed. reporting laws.
Edited on Sat Nov-12-11 08:41 PM by Divernan
As a female lawyer, I beg to differ with the female lawyer on MSNBC. In fact I'll go farther than merely differing with her. I'll state that she is full of crap and her statement could cause extreme physical harm to children by stating a falsehood which could inhibit or frighten some people from reporting child abuse.

A basic tenet of contract law, is that one cannot contract to perform an illegal act. While states may differ, and you can easily check the law in your state on the net, Pennsylvania law specifically requires certain types of employees who observe child abuse to report it directly to state officials, such as the Department of Public Welfare.
§ 21.502. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), RNs, LPNs or CRNPs who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. RNs, LPNs and CRNPs who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the RN, LPN or CRNP, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the LEGAL OBLIGATION to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. And That's The Point...
The guy that witnessed the abuse may not have trusted the law you cite to be enforced.

Plus... how many college football coaching assistants would you wager are aware of that law?

Look what's happening to whistle-blowers these days.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I think all university/college employees will be aware of that law after Penn State.
And as you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse or defense to being prosecuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I Agree, But A) Too Little Too Late, B) Were Talking The Real World Here, And C)...
Wanna tackle Post #9 ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. Yes, I did reply - you can tell from my lengthy answer, it took a while to write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Also And... As A Lawyer, What Are We To Think Of The DA Who Declined To Prosecute ???
And doesn't that also prove the point?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Maybe he didn't feel he had enough evidence to prosecute
or maybe he was uncomfortable going after such a powerful man with only one kid and his mother as witnesses. I don't know. We can't ask him because he disappeared off the face of the planet a few years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Which Begs Some REALLY Interesting Questions, No ???
:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melissaf Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. It sure does, although
I will point out that so far, all the reports I've seen from the state say that there is no link between Gricar's disappearance and the Sandusky scandal. I do think they're still investigating, but so far, nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. he declined to prosecute because he didn't have a case
The allegations didn't add up to a crime... showering with a boy is not illegal nor is hugging a boy in the shower. It is without question extremely inappropriate as well as highly suspicious which is why the police did all they could to find something on Sandusky at the time that WAS criminal. Gricar didn't have any other real choice but to not move forward with the case... there just wasn't any evidence of a crime.

Keep in mind that at the time the community believed Sandusky was a local celebrity/hero, and the jury would have come from that same community. DA's routinely don't take cases in which a crime definitely DID occur because of the weakness of the case, so Gricar can hardly be blamed for not going forward with a case where he couldn't even find that a crime had been committed at all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Au contraire! Sandusky confessed his guilt twice!
Once to the campus police detectives, and again to the victim's mother. She gave the police permission to tape the conversation, so they had it on tape!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Aargh !!! - So What The Hell Happened ???
Seriously... I'm trying to understand, and I do appreciate your expertise, and I hope you get the point of the OP.

The way whistle-blowers are being treated these days, it's no wonder people "do not want to get involved".

We don't thrust institutions to do the right thing anymore.

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #37
61. what happened is probably this:
rich guys were hiring young boys for sex from Sandusky and others at Penn.

rich guys can get anything they want, including prosecutors, either by bribe or threat.

if the media were honest, which they are not, this story will lead to some dark corners no one could imagine. my guess only, but fits in well I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 02:12 PM
Original message
He admitted to showering with the kid
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 02:15 PM by onenote
Again, the issue is whether the DA thought he could make a criminal case out of showering and and hugging a child. Under the terms of the statute, it would not be a clear case of criminal conduct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
62. Delete
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 02:13 PM by onenote
Dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
63. what he confessed to did not amount to a crime
He confessed to showering with the boy and admitted it was wrong. That's it. Once again, showering with a boy is not a crime. The boy himself did not make any allegations that amounted to a crime, so Sandusky did admit to what the boy alleged to the police and in that taped conversation (except I don't think he ever admitted to hugging the boy in the shower as well), but AGAIN, what the boy alleged and what Sandusky confessed to did not constitute a crime.

Of course it is terribly inappropriate and most definitely suspicious which is why the police tried so hard to find evidence of something more - something that WOULD add up to a crime. But the fact remains that as much as they tried they were unable to unearth any evidence of a crime, and no one else was willing to come forward with allegations that amounted to a crime. In hindsight, of course this is tragic, but at the time there was nothing else they could have done, and they most certainly tried.

Sorry, but there is no police/DA conspiracy here regardless of how hard some people are attempting to make one.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Again... The Point Of The Post... We Cannot TRUST Our Institutions...
Showering with a boy is not illegal... well yeah, I guess, if it's your own son, but...

Was it lack of evidence of fondling ???

Or was it the hero worship of the Penn State Football Establishment?

Again... the point of the post.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. Willie, why do you accept Torchthewitch's unsubstantiated, subjective statement?
Edited on Sat Nov-12-11 10:24 PM by Divernan
Here's the state law definition

§ 6312. Sexual abuse of children.
(a) Definition.--As used in this section, "prohibited sexual
act" means sexual intercourse as defined in section 3101
(relating to definitions), masturbation, sadism, masochism,
bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the
genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of
sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view
such depiction.

Now read the description of the shower incident in the Grand Jury report.

If you happened to be showering with a bunch of other naked people, none of whom were coerced into stripping and showering with you, no crime. That is not what happened here.

If, as was detailed in the Grand Jury report, "Sandusky said they needed to shower (after 20 minutes of very mild exercise), even though Victim 6 was not sweaty. Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out." Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair." Keep in mind this is an 11 year old boy.

I'd say those aggressive actions, nudity and gross physical contact combine to more than satisfy the statutory requirements.

The thing is, you can look this up for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. My Point All Along Was...
That no matter what a law says, or intends...

We do not trust those that make them, adjudicate them, or enforce them... to DO SO!

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
66. Oh for heaven's sake - there were no allegations in this incident
that broke this law! Your interpretation of what Sandusky was feeling and what the boy was feeling is contradicted by the evidence including the allegations of the boy. At the time the boy said it made him feel uncomfortable but he did not believe that Sandusky's motives were sexual, and Sandusky insisted they were not.

Of COURSE we all FEEL that it was and in hindsight that feeling is borne out, but in this country we don't do justice on FEELINGS but on EVIDENCE. And the EVIDENCE including the statements from both Sandusky AND THE BOY at the time just doesn't break the law. Of COURSE you and I and probably everyone else here FEEL (especially in hindsight) that Sandusky's actions were entirely sexual but his alleged actions aren't EVIDENCE of that. When you don't have EVIDENCE you don't have a case. Period.

We don't even know if this boy would have been willing to testify or that his mother would have allowed it, and odds are that he wouldn't want to and she wouldn't have wanted him to. That's the whole fucking problem with sexual abuse whether it's men, women or children - the victims very often don't want ANYONE to know what happened to them much less the entire public to know about it. Without the boy's testimony there definitely would have been no case. And what if he was willing to testify? He would have gotten on the stand and testified that nothing Sandusky did was sexual but that it just made him feel uncomfortable because that's exactly what he alleged.

Suppose the DA did go forward with this case. You do realize what would have happened, right? He would have tried it in front of a jury full of people that regarded Sandusky as a local celebrity/hero, and public opinion would have been that the DA was railroading their local saint. He would have been found not-guilty, and any allegations that came afterward wouldn't be pursued very aggressively or pursued at all because of this monumental fuck-up. He likely would not have lost his job either and would still been coaching at the school since it was the FEAR of what public opinion might be and the FEAR that he might have been found guilty that made the school force him into retirement. Without that fear, there wouldn't have been any reason to get him out of the school, and for all intents and purposes the pig would have been vindicated. Had this happened we'd all likely be sitting here right now debating whether or not this poor innocent lamb Sandusky (*choke, gag*) was being repeatedly railroaded. It's a damn GOOD thing this never happened, and the real tragedy is that back in 1998 the police just couldn't find enough evidence and no other victims were willing to come forward.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
64. the boy himself at the time made no allegations of a crime
Please stop trying to invent something that didn't happen. It is tragic enough that at the time no one was willing to come forward with any allegations that DID amount to a crime and that the police were not able to find any such evidence despite their trying to do so. It's entirely possible that the boy was criminally abused, but he never said anything about it to anyone. What he was willing to allege simply didn't amount to a crime and it very well may have been the whole truth of the incident.

Showering with a boy is not illegal no matter WHO's son it is. And as I have said repeatedly it IS highly suspicious which is WHY the police tried so hard to find something more substantial that WAS criminal. Given the allegations from the boy that were reported to the police did not amount to a crime it's commendable that they were willing to investigate further and try to FIND evidence that added up to a crime when they could have just said "Sorry, showering with a boy is not a crime, so there's nothing to investigate" and washed their hands of it.

Interesting how normally the complaints about police here are that they try to make someone lay people believe are innocent into a criminal, and butt into things that they believe the police should be ignoring, but with this case it's the opposite. Clearly too many people here believe that police should only act and only act in such a way that is consistent with their personal opinion even when they are miles away from having any real knowledge of a case. At DU police are damned if they do and damned if they don't and from those people that seem to believe that the police should only act and only act in such a way that is consistent with their personal opinion regardless of evidence or the law. It shouldn't even need to be said, but be careful what you wish for.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. It certainly proves your point that our legal system often cannot be trusted.
Edited on Sat Nov-12-11 09:44 PM by Divernan
Of COURSE the DA didn't prosecute (this was in 1998, in relation to Victim Six in the Grand Jury report). He was a politically elected DA in a tiny county where the only major employer was Penn State. He did what he was told to do by Penn State. Penn State and its huge alumni group wields tremendous power in the state. Penn State actively lobbies every single state legislator, and a highlight of the legislative calendar is the annual football weekend in Happy Valley, where the legislators who choose to attend (nearly all of them) are royally wined and dined. Harrisburg is the state capitol, and the saying is, "The road to Harrisburg goes through Happy Valley".

From what I know, having practiced law in Pennsylvania, and worked for a major private university and the state legislature, I confidently expect that the following happened. Anytime the campus police are called in, even for a minor problem, a report goes to the university administration. In a serious case such as sexual assault of a minor child, head of security is immediately in touch with an administration VP, who immediately alerts the univ. president. In Penn State, Paterno has more clout than the Univ. President & happened to be the one who contacted a high level administrator. Cover-up and damage control immediately ensued.

Campus police would definitely have known about the state's mandated reporting law, i.e, to the Dept. of Public Welfare, but ignored it (as was pointed out in the Grand Jury report). The campus police conducted the investigation, rather than turning the matter over to the University Park police (where Penn State is located) or the state police, who are called in in such matters if local law enforcement cannot handle the matter. It hasn't been made clear yet at what point the Centre County DA was brought into the picture. We have several thousand local govt. towns/boroughs in PA. Hundreds are so small they have no police force and rely on the state police, or have a two man force who make Barney Fife look like Columbo.

A statement has been quoted in PA media that the campus police asked the DA not to prosecute. It appears that a deal was struck between the DA and Penn State. Remember, we're talking about the 1998 incident - some 13 years ago. At that time, the campus police discovered another 11 year old boy who had also been molested in the Penn State showers by Sandusky. So at that point Paterno knew of two children sexually molested by Sandusky.

What happened was that Sandusky was allowed to continue coaching through the 1998 football season, which extended into 1999 when Penn State played in the Alamo Bowl. As to this bowl game, according to testimony in the Grand Jury report Victim no. four, was taken (across state lines) to Texas, and listed as a member of Sandusky's family. Texas is now investigating this matter. After the game, Paterno called Sandusky in and told Sandusky that he/Sandusky would no longer be Paterno's successor as head coach. Sandusky later told Victim Four this. Victim Four described Sandusky as being emotionally upset(i.e., surprised & blind-sided) by the meeting. Clearly, Sandusky thought he was home free from the 1998 incident since he was actively sexually abusing/seducing Victim 4 within months & flaunted it in Paterno's face by bringing this child to the Bowl game.

What Paterno evidently ALSO told Sandusky at this spring of '99 meeting was that Sandusky could retire with his pension or be fired. Sandusky negotiated terms of his "retirement" which allowed Sandusky to continue having an office, phone, email, etc. on the campus, as well as access to the sports facilities, including the infamous showers. Most damning of all, as far as I'm concerned, is that Sandusky was allowed to continue running summer youth football camps on Penn State branch campuses, trading on Penn State's and Paterno's (then) good names, and thereby having a huge pool of potential victims for his pedophelia.

Penn State is a football empire with a university attached. It's a + $70 million a year business. And here in the good ole' US of A, it's all about the profit and the power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. Thank You !!!
:D

:yourock:

:bounce:

:hi:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. What about the KBR female
employee who was raped and put in a metal cage by her fellow employees???? The rapists weren't prosecuted. Al Franken worked to get what happened to her to be against the law.

How is rape legal?

I had to sign an Arbitration agreement back in the '80's which said I had could not use the Legal System....I said, well, I guess my boss can rape me now.

I'm serious. This fucking system and country is fucked and is asking to be destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. THANK YOU !!!
Exactly!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. That is shocking but is it a certainty that McQueary signed such an agreement
and even if he had wouldn't he be covered by whistleblower laws had he reported it to the police once it was evident no steps had been taken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HipChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. If the victims were not poor African American boys
I wonder if results would have been different..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Is 'African American' a guess, or has that been stated somewhere? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
60. We don't know what race the victims are. How can you say that?
If you've got proof please share. Otherwise, making such a statement is wrong.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. What have I been telling everyone?
Our institutions are set up to bury crimes, and society willingly follows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Unless they are crimes against
the wealthy....Madoff was jailed because he stole from the Rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws

Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws


Current Through April 2010

This brief introduction summarizes how States address this topic in statute. To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.

All States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have statutes identifying persons who are required to report child maltreatment under specific circumstances.
Professionals Required to Report

Approximately 48 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands designate professions whose members are mandated by law to report child maltreatment.1 Individuals designated as mandatory reporters typically have frequent contact with children. Such individuals may include:

* Social workers
* Teachers and other school personnel
* Physicians and other health-care workers
* Mental health professionals
* Child care providers
* Medical examiners or coroners
* Law enforcement officers

Some other professions frequently mandated across the States include commercial film or photograph processors (in 11 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico), substance abuse counselors (in 14 States), and probation or parole officers (in 17 States).2 Seven States and the District of Columbia include domestic violence workers on the list of mandated reporters, while seven States and the District of Columbia include animal control or humane officers.3 Court-appointed special advocates are mandatory reporters in nine States.4 Members of the clergy now are required to report in 26 States.5
Reporting by Other Persons

In approximately 18 States and Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. Of these 18 States, 16 States and Puerto Rico specify certain professionals who must report but also require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession.6 New Jersey and Wyoming require all persons to report without specifying any professions. In all other States, territories, and the District of Columbia, any person is permitted to report. These voluntary reporters of abuse are often referred to as "permissive reporters."
Standards for Making a Report

The circumstances under which a mandatory reporter must make a report vary from State to State. Typically, a report must be made when the reporter, in his or her official capacity, suspects or has reasons to believe that a child has been abused or neglected. Another standard frequently used is when the reporter has knowledge of, or observes a child being subjected to, conditions that would reasonably result in harm to the child. Permissive reporters follow the same standards when electing to make a report.
Privileged Communications

Mandatory reporting statutes also may specify when a communication is privileged. "Privileged communications" is the statutory recognition of the right to maintain confidential communications between professionals and their clients, patients, or congregants. To enable States to provide protection to maltreated children, the reporting laws in most States and territories restrict this privilege for mandated reporters. All but three States and Puerto Rico currently address the issue of privileged communications within their reporting laws, either affirming the privilege or denying it (i.e., not allowing privilege to be grounds for failing to report).7 For instance:

* The physician-patient and husband-wife privileges are the most common to be denied by States.
* The attorney-client privilege is most commonly affirmed.
* The clergy-penitent privilege is also widely affirmed, although that privilege usually is limited to confessional communications and, in some States, denied altogether.8

Inclusion of the Reporter's Name in the Report

Most States maintain toll-free telephone numbers for receiving reports of abuse or neglect.9 Reports may be made anonymously to most of these reporting numbers, but States find it helpful to their investigations to know the identity of reporters. Approximately 18 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands currently require mandatory reporters to provide their names and contact information, either at the time of the initial oral report or as part of a written report.10 The laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and Washington allow child protection workers to request the name of the reporter. In Wyoming, the reporter does not have to provide his or her identity as part of the written report, but if the person takes and submits photographs or x rays of the child, his or her name must be provided.
Disclosure of the Reporter's Identity

All jurisdictions have provisions in statute to maintain the confidentiality of abuse and neglect records. The identity of the reporter is specifically protected from disclosure to the alleged perpetrator in 39 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.11 This protection is maintained even when other information from the report may be disclosed.

Release of the reporter's identity is allowed in some jurisdictions under specific circumstances or to specific departments or officials. For example, disclosure of the reporter's identity can be ordered by the court when there is a compelling reason to disclose (in California, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Guam) or upon a finding that the reporter knowingly made a false report (in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia). In some jurisdictions (California, Florida, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Guam), the reporter can waive confidentiality and give consent to the release of his or her name.

To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.

1 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current only through April 2010. At that time, New Jersey and Wyoming were the only two States that did not enumerate specific professional groups as mandated reporters but required all persons to report. back
2 Film processors are mandated reporters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Substance abuse counselors are required to report in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Probation or parole officers are mandated reporters in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. back
3 Domestic violence workers are mandated reporters in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, and South Dakota. Humane officers are mandated reporters in California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. back
4 Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. back
5 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. For more information, see Child Welfare Information Gateway's Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect at www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm. back
6 Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. back
7 Connecticut, Mississippi, and New Jersey do not currently address the issue of privileged communications within their reporting laws. The issue of privilege may be addressed elsewhere in the statutes of these States, such as rules of evidence. back
8 New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia disallow the use of the clergy-penitent privilege as grounds for failing to report suspected child abuse or neglect. For a more complete discussion of the requirement for clergy to report child abuse and neglect, see the Information Gateway's Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect at www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm. back
9 For State-specific information about these hotlines, see Information Gateway's State Child Abuse Reporting Numbers at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/reslist/rl_dsp.cfm?rs_id=5&rate_chno=W-00082. back
10 California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have this requirement. back
11 The statutes in Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Virgin Islands do not specifically protect reporter identity but do provide for confidentiality of records in general. back

This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. No Love For Post # 9 ???
:hi:

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
36. No love for post 29?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. I Loved Your Post # 29 With My Post # 40 !!!
:D

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. If McQueary did not have frequent and/or regular contact
with children in the course of his job, would he have been required to report?

He was not a teacher of children; he was an assistant coach of a college football team. It was not one of his players being raped, nor one of his students. Where would that have put him, legally, with regard to Pennsylvania's mandatory reporting law? It seems to me he's in the clear on that aspect, but obviously I'm not a lawyer or a jury.



TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
20. what horseshit, signing an employment contract does not excuse you from reporting rape
the lawyer you saw in teevee was a LIAR and just because she was "female," a point you seem to think important (would you think it important to mention what color she was or is it just the gender that is somehow mysteriously important?) that doesn't make her a magical witch who knows everything

if you are witnessing a rape in progress, be it of a 10 year old or of a 100 year old, your duty under the law is clear, and your duty as a human being is clear, you call fucking 911 right fucking now

having signed an employment contract does not excuse you from simple human decency

for someone, anyone -- even a "female" lawyer on msnbc.com to suggest otherwise -- is ridiculous, for someone, anyone else to repeat this obvious crap is beyond ridiculous

if you are incapable of thoughtful resistance to bullshit, you should not be watching teevee EVER because you are clearly too susceptible to being brainwashed by bullshit

i say this not to be cruel but because i too am gullible but instead of sitting on my thumbs and watching/believing all sorts of bullshit you know what i do? I DON'T WATCH TEEVEE I DON'T GIVE THEM THE CHANCE TO PUT LIES IN MY HEAD

later you will be ashamed you posted this post and that you really thought this woman's arguments had merit

common sense, hell, HUMAN DECENCY should tell you that some magic mumble words about employment contracts aren't relevant when you're witness to violent rape of a 10 year old

next question?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. A) Ashamed, Hahahahahaha... B) You Missed The Point Entirely, And C)...
Cut down on the caffine.

:wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proverbialwisdom Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
53. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. LOL !!!
Ya might wanna know what that means, and how it works.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
21. k&r..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. Sandusky was no longer an employee of Penn State...
had not been one as of 1999, 3 years before the the reported rape took place. There could be NO non-disclosure contract clause that could possibly be attributed to McQueary's lack of reporting to the police even if one were to put aside the point already made that a non-disclosure contract does not take precedence over existing law on criminal acts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Yeah... But McQueary Was... That's Who Was In The Command Chain...
I'm confused... how did McQueary witness a rape of a child at Penn State by a guy who hadn't worked at Penn State for three years?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Because Sandusky was given free reign to the campus...
keys and all as part of his 'retirement' package. The keys were only taken away only AFTER the 2002 rape witnessed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Making The Point Of The OP Once Again...
:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. I have no quibble with the substance of your OP....
from this aspect:

We cannot trust our government.

We cannot trust the Church.

We cannot trust Wall Street, the Banks, or Industry.

We cannot trust those who make the laws.

We cannot trust those that administer the laws.

We cannot trust those that adjudicate the laws.

And we DEFINITELY cannot trust those that enforce the laws.

Maybe that was the change we were all hoping for.

My point in responding was to add more context to the issue of non-disclosure clauses and the fact Sandusky was not even an employee of Penn State at the time of the witnessed rape of a child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Thank You... And I Agree... But McQueary Was... And It Was HIS Future At Penn State On The Line...
And apparently, he felt, or he KNEW, Sandusky was being protected.

Not agreeing with his decision, just trying to point out how the corrupt systems continue the corruption.

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. You are absolutely right as to the 2002 rape.
Edited on Sat Nov-12-11 09:59 PM by Divernan
That lady lawyer on teevee displayed her stupidity to the whole country. And for another thing, every state has different requirements & laws on this topic. A corporation typically would have a one size fits all contract of employment with multiple clauses, including one which states that if one of the contract clauses is found invalid or illegal, the rest of the contract remains in effect. So for her to make such a broad general statement is really outrageous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Agree, outrageous and harmful...
as it leaves a grossly inaccurate impression of non-disclosure clauses and their limitations, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. It Also Leaves A Willful Denial Of Self-Preservation
Not defending this, but human nature might understand that a football guy at A HUGE football university might not be aware of, or care to risk his career over, the finer points of law that he was probably clueless about.

Not defending... attempting to understand the behavior in order to change the response mechanism.

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. I must take exception to the use of....
"risking his career over the fine points of the law" in relation to witnessing the rape of a child. It does NOT take understanding 'the fine points of the law' to realize the horrific criminal act he was witnessing, to the contrary, in fact.

As to why he acted the way he did....phoning his father instead of the police... and not acting after nothing was done about Sandusky after except to take away his keys to the campus, one can speculate that the end result was to protect his future prospects which meant protecting Penn State over the protection of children.

(an aside here, by phoning his father who was NOT one of his employers, not affiliated in any official way to Penn State, he breached any non-disclosure clause at that point even if such a clause had been perceived as valid in this case)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I Agree... I Might Have Taken A Baseball Bat To The MFer...
and THEN called the police.

But the point of this whole thread is just how fucking compromised have we all become?

And... I liked in the OP.... remember the OP ???

How the host said that the Occupiers are right in not trusting our major institutions.

The legal system is a major institution.

The fact that a football program is a "Major Institution" deserves its own thread.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. Business don't let their employees report crimes directly to police? HOLY FUCK!
That's messed up! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
33. Not isolated. Systemic. Not just universities. Not just sports.
Here's a direct link to an article posted earlier today specific to universities. The original thread linked to nytimes behind a pay wall. This is to the same article not behind a pay wall.

After the body of an Eastern Michigan University freshman was found in her dorm room in December 2006, naked from the waist down with a pillow over her head, the chief of the university police said there was “no reason to suspect foul play,” and let her parents believe she had died of natural causes.

That silence held for more than two months. In that time, the student who was eventually convicted in her murder had free run of a campus where he was previously caught climbing into a window of a university building.

In recent years Marquette University has been accused of mishandling accusations of sexual assault by four athletes, and Arizona State has been faulted in handling a student's rape, allegedly by a football player with a history of sexual aggression on campus.

<snip>

“I think we're just on the cusp of breaking the silence,” said Colby Bruno, the managing lawyer at the Boston-based Victim Rights Law Center who specializes in cases of sexual assault on campus. “But there are a lot of very invidious ways that a school can go about squelching these reports. This is everyone's problem; it's not just a sports problem or a sports-icon problem.”


The link: http://www.telegram.com/article/20111112/NEWS/111119585/1116

Then take a look at rape in the military.

Then look at corporate America. Do you think cain is an anomaly?

Then look at politicians.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
39. I don't think an NDA can prevent you from reporting a crime to police.
You can't enforce an illegal contract or contract someone to hide illegality or do something illegal.
Agreed about the rest of it, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
55. you can't enforce a contract that requires someone to NOT report a felony
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. Oh Fuck... I Give Up... LOL !!!
Edited on Sun Nov-13-11 01:57 AM by WillyT
I know how the world is SUPPOSED TO WORK !!!

The original point is about how it DOES/DOESN'T work!

AND... how many of us cannot trust the rules and the machinery that enforces those rules.

:banghead:

:beer:

:smoke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Those of us responding about what people should do
Aren't trying to steal attention away from your point.

But the more people hear that they are always required to do the right thing, the better off we will be.

And believe me, I know that we cannot trust the machinery that is "in place" to protect people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. very true. any court settlement with a confidentiality clause almot by definition
is covering up a crime, or they wouldn't need the confidentiality clause.

To extent clause like that are allowed in contracts and settlements at all, it should be understood and stated that criminal conduct cannot be protected by such a clause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
57. NDAs cannot require you to not report felonies
Contracts based on illegal behavior are invalid.

:hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. Bingo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
68. If you haven't worked in higher ed, you really have no clue...
When I retire, I'm seriously considering writing a novel about the things I've seen in these hallowed halls. The professor who impregnated two students at once. The student aid who was caught giving out "grade enhancements" in exchange for blowjobs. The group of sophomores who were once caught doing "wager-scores" with the high school girls at the on-campus charter high school (i.e. 19 & 20 year old guys bedding 14-17 year old girls, and the guy who "scored" the most each month got money). The stories go on, and on, and on.

It's extremely rare that any of it ever gets discussed outside of the institution, and it's NEVER reported to the police. Why? Reputation. Reputation is the single most important asset that any college or university has. In the end, they all offer essentially the same product, so they rely on their prestige and reputation to attract students. If something besmirches that reputation, it doesn't get made public. EVER. It's actually IN MY CONTRACT that I can be terminated for any actions that "bring shame or disrepute upon the institution". That includes reporting things to the police and press. According to my contract, any crimes located on campus must be reported to the campus police, and they will contact the local PD if needed (the only exceptions are for "life in danger" situations). And absolutely NOTHING gets reported to the local media without first being approved by our Public Affairs office. Violating these rules gets you fired. And once you get fired from one academic institution, finding a job elsewhere is nearly impossible. Nobody wants to touch a college prof who has been fired for cause. They can't ask why you were fired, so they must assume the worst. It's a career killer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNLib Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
69. yep but Ironically weren't they all fired anyway.
I hope I would have gone to the police regardless of what my contract said and then I would have gone to the press if I was fired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC