Eden Burning and the Guards Will Change

 

 

 

Gentlemen, he said,
I don’t need your organization, I’ve shined your shoes,
I’ve moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning, either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.

–Dylan

 

Burning White House
24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.

-Gen. 19:24-25

Eden Burning

4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

–Jer. 1:4-5

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions. (April 2012)
Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Full title an Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end “too big to fail”, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
Colloquial name(s) Dodd–Frank, Wall Street Reform, Financial Regulatory Reform
Enacted by the 111th United States Congress
Effective July 21, 2010
Citations
Public Law Pub.L. 111-203
Stat. 124 Stat. 1376–2223
Codification
Commodity Exchange Act, Consumer Credit Protection Act, Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Federal Reserve Act, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, International Banking Act of 1978, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, Revised Statutes of the United States, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Truth in Lending Act
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as “The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009” (H.R. 4173) by Barney Frank (D–MA) on December 2, 2009
Committee consideration by: Financial Services
Passed the House on December 11, 2009 (223–202)
Passed the Senate with amendment on May 20, 2010 (59–39)
Reported by the joint conference committee on June 29, 2010; agreed to by the House on June 30, 2010 (237–192) and by the Senate on July 15, 2010 (60–39)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010
v t e
The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010.[1] Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression.[2][3][4] It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation’s financial services industry.[5][6]
As with other major financial reforms, a variety of critics have attacked the law, some arguing it was not enough to prevent another financial crisis or more “bail outs”, and others arguing it went too far and unduly restricted financial institutions.[7]
The law was initially proposed by the Obama Administration in June 2009, when the White House sent a series of proposed bills to Congress. A version of the legislation was introduced in the House in July 2009. On December 2, 2009, revised versions were introduced in the House of Representatives by Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, and in the Senate Banking Committee by Chairman Chris Dodd. Due to their involvement with the bill, the conference committee that reported on June 25, 2010,[1] voted to name the bill after the two members of Congress.[8]

American Pastor Jailed in Iran May Be Missing

American Pastor Jailed in Iran May Be Missing

CBNNews.com
Friday, January 25, 2013
Print 19 Comment(s)
American Pastor Saeed Abedini, who has been jailed in Iran since September for his faith, may be missing, according to the American Center for Law and Justice.

Abedini is a U.S. citizen who has been charged with attempting to undermine the Iranian government through his work starting house churches in the Islamic Republic.

The judge in his case, known as the “hanging judge,” told Abedini’s lawyer that his client was moved to a different part of the prison so he could receive medical treatment.

However, guards at the prison turned his family away when they attempted to visit him Thursday morning. The guards told them they didn’t know where Abedini was taken.

The ACLJ has been working with the pastor’s family and attorney to see him released from prison. They are urging the Obama administration and the State Department to get involved in the matter.

A spokeswomen for the National Security Council told CBN News the administration is monitoring Abedini’s case when asked about the American pastor.

Abedini’s wife shared more about her husband’s imprisonment, saying he is ‘counting it all joy’ to be suffeing for Christ, on Newswatch, Jan. 23.

 

Elements of Claims and Defenses in Nevada: Stacking UIM

Stacking UIM
NRS 687B.145(1) provides in relevant part as follows:

Any provision which limits benefits pursuant to this section must be in clear language and be prominently displayed in the policy, binder or endorsement. Any limiting provision is void if the named insured has purchased separate coverage on the same risk and has paid a premium calculated for full reimbursement under that coverage.

Normally, an insured has a reasonable expectation that she will receive additional UIM indemnification for each separate UIM premium paid. When the insurer attempts to defeat this reasonable expectation, it must prove the validity of its anti-stacking provision in accordance with the requirements of NRS 687B.145(1). “The burdens of persuasion and production on the issue of the validity of an anti-stacking clause prohibiting stacking of [UIM] coverage limits rest on the insurer.”

 

Statue of Lady Justice, Virginia City, Nevada

Poems from Book of Matthew

(Mt. 2:1-2)

The Magi

Where is the One

Born King of Jews?

We’ll worship Him;

This is good news.

(Mt. 2:13-14)

Angels Sang

The angels sang

On Christmas morn−

To mankind was

A Savior born.

(Mt. 4:3-4)

Bread from Stones

The tempter said,

“Make bread from stones;”

“But man can’t live

On bread alone.”

(Mt. 4:3-4)

Jesus Responds to Satan

“Man cannot live

On bread alone,”

And He would not

Make bread from stones.

(Mt. 4:7)

Don’t Test the Lord

Don’t test the Lord;

Serve him alone;

Let God’s Word pierce

Your heart of stone.

(Mt. 5:13-15)

Salt of Earth

You’re salt of earth,

Light on a hill;

The Spirit rules

When flesh is killed.

(Mt. 5:25, 28, 7:6)

Admonitions

Settle your case,

Don’t throw pigs pearls,

Men, do not look

With lust at girls.

(Mt. 5:33-37, 6:24, Luke 16:13)

Oaths, God and Money

It is not wise

To swear an oath;

You can’t serve God

And Money both.

(Mt. 5:37)

No and Yes

Let “No” be “No;”

Let “Yes” by “Yes;”

Let people know—

Don’t make them guess.

(Mt. 5:38)

Be Perfect

Be perfect, as

Your Father is;

You are his sheep;

All sheep are his.

(Mt. 5:45)

The Lord is Fair

The Lord is fair;

He sends the rain

On millionaires

And homeless waifs.

(Mt. 6:26)

The Birds Don’t Plant

The birds don’t plant

Or reap or store

In barns, yet they’re

Fed by the Lord.

(Mt. 6:46-49)

Sand and Rock

With sand, you’ll be

A laughingstock;

Go build your house

On solid rock.

(Mt. 7:1-2)

Don’t Judge

Don’t judge, or you

Will be judged too:

What you mete out

Returns to you.

(Mt. 7:13)

The Narrow Gate

Let grudges fly,

Let go of hate:

You enter by

The narrow gate.

(Mt. 7:13)

The Narrow Gate

The narrow gate

Will get you in—

Do right by men,

Take care, shun sin.

(Mt. 7:13)

Relinquish

Relinquish sin,

Relinquish hate,

The Christian way

Is narrow, straight.

 

(Mt. 7:16)

By the Fruits

By its own fruit

You’ll know a tree;

You’ll know good men

By their good deeds.

(Mt. 7:22-23,

2 Peter 2:6-7)

Lawlessness

Men like to make

Their own rules up,

Defying God

Like vicious pups.

 

(Mt. 8:23-27)

The Wind and Waves

The wind and waves

Obeyed his words;

Of such a man

They had not heard.

 

(Mt. 9:37, Luke 10:2)

The Harvest

The harvest, great,

The workers, few,

Ask God to send

The workers through.

 

(Mt. 10:7, 16)

Be Shrewd

Be shrewd as snakes

And innocent

As doves, and preach

The Word where sent.

 

(Mt. 10:26-33)

What is Concealed

What is concealed

Will be revealed;

Pursue the Lord

With faith and zeal.

(Mt. 11:4-6)

The Blind Can See

The blind can see,

The dead are raised,

The lame can walk,

And God is praised.

 

(Mt. 11:30)

Though I Be Sad

Though I be sad,

Wear mourning cloak,

Jesus gives me

An easy yoke.

 

(Mt. 12:36, Romans 14:12,

2 Cor. 5:10)

I Count My Days

I count my days,

My days so short;

To God I’ll give

My full report.

(Mt. 13:46)

Pearl

He found a stone,

Best in the world,

Sold all he owned

To have the pearl.

(Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44,

Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15)

Feeding Five Thousand

They had two fish

And five bread loaves–

With that, Christ fed

Five thousand folks.

(Mt. 14:22-33)

He Water-Walked

He water-walked

And healed the lame,

And for my sins

He took the blame.

(Mt. 19:20, 21)

Lack

“What do I lack?”

The rich man asked;

“Sell what you own—

That is your task.”

(Mt. 20:29-34)

Jesus Heals Two Blind Men
“We want our sight,”

Said two blind men;

He touched their eyes,

They saw again.

(Mt. 21:22)

If You Believe

As you may pray,

If you believe,

What you ask for,

You will receive.

 

(Mt. 22:11-14)

No Wedding Clothes

How is it, man,

No wedding clothes?

Guards, tie him up

And out he goes.

 

(Mt. 24:42)

The End Will Come

The end will come,

So stay awake

And you’ll be strong

When mountains quake.

 

(Mt. 25:1-13)

Five Virgins

Five virgins kept

Their lamps’ oil high

But five did not—

The Groom passed by.

(Mt. 25:21)

How Do You Know?
How do you know

When you have won?

When Jesus says,

“Well done, my son.”

(Mt. 26:75, Luke 22:62)

Peter Wept

While Romans, Greeks

And Arabs slept,

A rooster crowed

And Peter wept.

(Mt. 27:1-5)

Judas

For silver I’ve

Betrayed the Lord;

A sin like this

I can’t afford.

(Mt. 27:34, Mark 15:39)

The Soldier Saw

The soldier saw

Him crucified

And knew that Love

In flesh had died.

(Mt. 27:35, Malachi 3:8-12)

They Threw Dice

Then, they drew dice

For Jesus’ robe;

Now, men rob God

Around the globe.

(Mt. 27:38, Mark 15:27,

Luke 23:39)

Side by Side with Jesus

A rebel and

A common thief:

One mocked and scoffed;

One gained belief.

(Mt. 27:51)

The Torn Veil

When Jesus died,

The veil was torn;

To know Him, you

Must be reborn.

 

(Mt. 27:54, Mark 15:39)

The Soldier’s Revelation

The soldier said,

“He is divine,”

As Jesus bled

Incarnadine.

 

(Mt. 28:19-20)

To Nations Preach

To nations preach,

Proclaim the Word

To places where

No one has heard.

(Mt. 28:20)

I’m with You

And surely I’m

With you each day

Down to the end

Of the whole age.

Don’t Believe the Nightly Propaganda

dog-sign 2mb

 

Each outlet receives an “F” in Journalism 101.

Their lack of curiosity and integrity is astounding.

Kick the CIA (e.g., Anderson Cooper) out of America’s newsrooms.

Independent bloggers and researchers have done much better than well-funded newsrooms at major media outlets, e.g.:

The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information
TRUTHER DECEMBER 26, 2012
Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre.

Prof. James F. Tracy
Globalresearch

“[My staff] and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” –Connecticut Medical Examiner D. Wayne Carver II, MD, December 15, 2012

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggests a deepened credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information is electronically mediated and controlled. The condition is reinforced through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked information while invoking prior restraint through threats of prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry seeking to interpret the event on social media.

 

Along these lines on December 19 the Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honored.[1] The de facto gag order will be in effect until the investigation concludes—now forecast to be “several months away” even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been confirmed as the sole culprit.[2]

With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny.[3] What can be gleaned from this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring inconsistencies than answers. While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.

The Accidental Medical Examiner

An especially important yet greatly underreported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.

H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel he oversaw.

Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.”[4] One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.

Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.

 

 

With this in mind extended excerpts from this exchange are worthy of recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified so I have assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be discerned of their voices.

Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?

H. Wayne Carver: Yes.

Reporter #1: [Inaudible]

Carver: Uh (pause). Question was what caliber were these bullets. And I know—I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court they yell at me and don’t make me answer [sic]—so [nervous laughter]. I’ll let the police do that for you.

Reporter #2: Doctor can you tell us about the nature of the wounds. Were they at very close range? Were the children shot at from across the room?

Carver: Uhm, I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from three to eleven wounds apiece and I only saw two of them with close range shooting. Uh, but that’s, uh y’know, a sample. Uh, I really don’t have detailed information on the rest of the injuries.

[Given that Carver is Connecticut’s top coroner and in charge of the entire postmortem this is a startling admission.-JT]

Reporter #3: But you said that the long rifle was used?

Carver: Yes.

Reporter #3: But the long rifle was discovered in the car.

State Police Lieutenant Vance: That’s not correct, sir.

Unidentified reporter #4: How many bullets or bullet fragments did you find in the autopsy. Can you tell us that?

Carver: Oh. I’m lucky I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know. There were lots of them, OK? This type of weapon is not, uh … the bullets are designed in such a fashion that the energy—this is very clinical. I shouldn’t be saying this. But the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in [the tissue].

[In fact, the Bushmaster .223 Connecticut police finally claimed was used in the shooting is designed for long range field use and utilizes high velocity bullets averaging 3,000 feet-per-second, the energy of which even at considerable distance would penetrate several bodies before finally coming to rest in tissue.]

Reporter #5: How close were the injuries?

Carver: Uh, all the ones (pause). I believe say, yes [sic].

Reporter #6: In what shape were the bodies when the families were brought to check [inaudible].

Carver: Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We have, uh, uh—it’s easier on the families when you do that. Un, there is, uh, a time and place for the up close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this we thought it would be best to do it this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh … You can control a situation depending on the photographer, and I have very good photographers. Uh, but uh—

Reporter #7: Do you know the difference of the time of death between the mother in the house and the bodies recovered [in the school].

Carver: Uh, no, I don’t. Sorry [shakes head excitedly] I don’t! [embarrassed laugh]

Reporter #8: Did the gunman kill himself with the rifle?

Carver: No. I—I don’t know yet. I’ll-I’ll examine him tomorrow morning. But, but I don’t think so.

[Why has Carver left arguably the most important specimen for last? And why doesn’t he think Lanza didn’t commit suicide with the rifle?]

Reporter #9: In terms of the children, were they all found in one classroom or—

Carver: Uhm … [inaudible] [Turns to Lieutenant Vance] Paul and company will deal with that.

Reporter #9: What?

Carver: Paul and company will deal with that. Lieutenant Vance is going to handle that one.

Reporter #10: Was there any evidence of a struggle? Any bruises?

Carver: No.

Reporter #11: The nature of the shooting; is there any sense that there was a lot of care taken with precision [inaudible] or randomly?

Carver: [Exhales while glancing upward, as if frustrated] Both. It’s a very difficult question to answer … You’d think after thousands of people I’ve seen shot but I … It’s … If I attempted to answer it in court there’d be an objection and then they’d win—[nervous laughter].

[Who would win? Why does an expert whose routine job as a public employee is to provide impartial medical opinion concerned with winning and losing in court? Further, Carver is not in court but rather at a press conference.]

Reporter #12: Doctor, can you discuss the fatal injuries to the adults?

Carver: Ah, they were similar to those of the children.

Reporter #13: Doctor, the children you had autopsied, where in the bodies were they hit?

Carver: Uhm [pause]. All over. All over.

Reporter #14: Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?

Carver: I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].

Reporter [#15]: How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?

Carver: [Slowly shaking his head] I don’t know.

More Unanswered Questions and Inconsistencies

In addition to Carver’s remarks several additional chronological and evidentiary contradictions in the official version of the Sandy Hook shooting are cause for serious consideration and leave doubt in terms of how the event transpired vis-à-vis the way authorities and major media outlets have presented it. It is now well known that early on journalists reported that Adam Lanza’s brother Ryan Lanza was reported to be the gunman, and that pistols were used in the shooting rather than a rifle. Yet these are merely the tip of the iceberg.

When Did the Gunman Arrive?
After Adam Lanza fatally shot and killed his mother at his residence, he drove himself to the elementary school campus, arriving one half hour after classes had commenced. Dressed in black, Lanza proceeds completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.

Further, initial press accounts suggest how no school personnel or students heard gunshots and no 911 calls are made until after Lanza begins firing inside the facility. “It was a lovely day,” Sandy Hook fourth grade teacher Theodore Varga said. And then, suddenly and unfathomably, gunshots rang out. “I can’t even remember how many,” Varga said.[5]

The recollection contrasts sharply with an updated version of Lanza’s arrival where at 9:30AM he

walked up to the front entrance and fired at least a half dozen rounds into the glass doors. The thunderous sound of Lanza blowing an opening big enough to walk through the locked school door caused Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach to bolt from a nearby meeting room to investigate. He shot and killed them both as they ran toward him.

Breaching the school’s security system in such a way would have likely triggered some automatic alert of school personnel. Further, why would the school’s administrators run toward an armed man who has just noisily blasted his way into the building?

Two other staff members attending the meeting with Hocksprung and Scherlach sustained injuries “in the hail of bullets” but returned to the aforementioned meeting room and managed a call to 911.[6] This contrasted with earlier reports where the first 911 call claimed students “were trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two guns.”[7] Recordings of the first police dispatch following the 911 call at 9:35:50 indicate that someone “thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.”[8] There is a clear distinction between potentially hearing shots somewhere in the building and being almost mortally caught in a “hail of bullets.”

How did the gunman fire so many shots in such little time?
According to Dr. Carver and State Police, Lanza shot each victim between 3 and 11 times during a 5 to 7 minute span. If one is to average this out to 7 bullets per individual—excluding misses—Lanza shot 182 times, or once every two seconds. Yet according to the official story Lanza was the sole assassin and armed with only one weapon. Thus if misses and changing the gun’s 30-shot magazine at least 6 times are added to the equation Lanza must have been averaging about one shot per second—extremely skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with absolutely no military training and who was on the verge of being institutionalized. Still, an accurate rendering of the event is even more difficult to arrive at because the chief medical examiner admittedly has no idea exactly how the children were shot or whether a struggle ensued.

Where is the Photo and Video Evidence?
Photographic and video evidence is at once profuse yet lacking in terms of its capacity to demonstrate that a mass shooting took place on the scale described by authorities. For example, in an era of ubiquitous video surveillance of public buildings especially no visual evidence of Lanza’s violent entry has emerged. And while studio snapshots of the Sandy Hook victims abound there is little if any eyewitness testimony of anyone who’s observed the corpses except for Carver and his staff, and they appear almost as confused about the conditions of the deceased as any layperson watching televised coverage of the event. Nor are there any routine eyewitness, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s aftermath—broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings and holes, bloodied walls and floors—all of which are common in such investigations and reportage.

Why Were Medical Personnel Turned Away From the Crime Scene?
Oddly enough medical personnel are forced to set up their operation not at the school where the dead and injured lay, but rather at the fire station several hundred feet away. This flies in the face of standard medical operating procedure where personnel are situated as close to the scene as possible. There is no doubt that the school had ample room to accommodate such personnel. Yet medical responders who rushed to Sandy Hook Elementary upon receiving word of the tragedy were denied entry to the school and forced to set up primary and secondary triages off school grounds and wait for the injured to be brought to them.

Shortly after the shooting “as other ambulances from neighboring communities rolled up, sirens blaring, the first responders slowly realized that their training would be tragically underutilized on this horrible day. ‘You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well try,’” 44 year old emergency medical technician James Wolff told NBC News. “’And when (we) didn’t have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it’s difficult.’”[9]

In light of this, who were the qualified medical practitioners pronounced the 20 children and 7 adults dead? Who decided that none could be revived? Carver and his staff are apparently the only medical personnel to have attended to the victims—yet this was in the postmortem conducted several hours later. Such slipshod handling of the crime scene leaves the State of Connecticut open to a potential array of hefty civil claims by families of the slain.

Did a mass evacuation of the school take place?
Sandy Hook Elementary is attended by 600 students. Yet there is no photographic or video evidence of an evacuation on this scale. Instead, limited video and photographic imagery suggest that a limited evacuation of perhaps at most several dozen students occurred.

A highly circulated photo depicts students walking in a single file formation with their hands on each others’ shoulders and eyes shut. Yet this was the image of a drill that took place prior to the event itself.[10] Most other photos are portraits of individual children. Despite aerial video footage of the event documenting law enforcement scouring the scene and apprehending one or more suspects in the wooded area nearby the school,[11] there is no such evidence that a mass exodus of children from the school transpired once law enforcement pronounced Sandy Hook secure. Nor are there videos or photos of several hundred students and their parents at the oft-referenced fire station nearby where students were routed for parent pick up.

Sound Bite Prism and the Will to Believe

Outside of a handful of citizen journalists and alternative media commentators Sandy Hook’s dramatically shifting factual and circumstantial terrain has escaped serious critique because it is presented through major media’s carefully constructed prism of select sound bites alongside a widespread and longstanding cultural impulse to accept the pronouncements of experts, be they bemused physicians, high ranking law enforcement officers, or political leaders demonstrating emotionally-grounded concern.

Political scientist W. Lance Bennett calls this the news media’s “authority-disorder bias.” “Whether the world is returned to a safe, normal place,” Bennett writes, “or whether the very idea of a normal world is called into question, the news is preoccupied with order, along with related questions of whether authorities are capable of establishing or restoring it.”[12]

Despite Carver’s bizarre performance and law enforcement authorities’ inability to settle on and relay simple facts, media management’s impulse to assure audiences and readerships of the Newtown community’s inevitable adjustment to its trauma and loss with the aid of the government’s protective oversight—however incompetent that may be—far surpasses a willingness to undermine this now almost universal news media narrative with messy questions and suggestions of intrigue. This well-worn script is one the public has been conditioned to accept. If few people relied on such media to develop their world view this would hardly be a concern. Yet this is regrettably not the case.

The Sandy Hook tragedy was on a far larger scale than the past year’s numerous slaughters, including the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and the Batman theater shooting in Colorado. It also included glaringly illogical exercises and pronouncements by authorities alongside remarkably unusual evidentiary fissures indistinguishable by an American political imagination cultivated to believe that the corporate, government and military’s sophisticated system of organized crime is largely confined to Hollywood-style storylines while really existing malfeasance and crises are without exception returned to normalcy.

If recent history is a prelude the likelihood of citizens collectively assessing and questioning Sandy Hook is limited even given the event’s overtly superficial trappings. While the incident is ostensibly being handled by Connecticut law enforcement, early reports indicate how federal authorities were on the scene as the 911 call was received. Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.

The move to railroad this program through with the aid of major media and an irrefutable barrage of children’s portraits, “heartfelt” platitudes and ostensible tears neutralizes a quest for genuine evidence, reasoned observation and in the case of Newtown honest and responsible law enforcement. Moreover, to suggest that Obama is not capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to similarly place ones faith in image and interpretation above substance and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought America to such an impasse.

Notes

[1] State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, ”State Police Investigate Newtown School Shooting” [Press Release] December 15, 2012.

[2] State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, “Update: Newtown School Shooting” [Press Release], December 19, 2012.

[3] CNN, “Family of 6 Year Old Victim,” December 14, 2012, “Sandy Hook School Shooting Hoax Fraud,” Youtube, December 17, 2012.

[4] Hartford Courant, “Finally ‘Enough’ For Chief Medical Examiner” [Editorial], January 30, 2012.

[5] John Christofferson and Jocelyn Noveck, “Sandy Hook School Shooting: Adam Lanza Kills 26 and Himself at Connecticut School,” Huffington Post, December 15, 2012.

[6] Edmund H. Mahoney, Dave Altmari, and Jon Lender, “Sandy Hook Shooter’s Pause May Have Aided Escape,” Hartford Courant, December 23, 2012.

[7] Jaweed Kaleem, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting: Newtown Connecticut Students, Administrators Among Victims, Reports Say,” Huffington Post, December 14, 2012.

[8] RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police / Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012. At several points in this recording audio is scrambled, particularly following apprehension of a second shooting suspect outside the school, suggesting a purposeful attempt to withhold vital information.

[9] Miranda Leitsinger, “You Feel Helpless: First Responders Rushed to School After Shooting, Only to Wait,” US News on NBC, December 20.

[10] http://thenetng.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Sandy-Hook-Elementary-School-600×400.jpg. 12/25/12
Update/Correction: Note that this photo of approximately fifteen children allegedly being evacuated from Sandy Hook Elementary was reportedly produced on December 14. See Connor Simpson, Alexander Abad-Santos et al, “Newtown School Shooting: Live Updates,” The Atlantic Wire, December 19, 2012. Still, the paltry number of children confirms the claim that little photographic evidence exists of Sandy Hook’s 600 students being moved from the facility on December 14. This photo was purportedly from a Tweet of a Sandy Hook drill published by the school’s slain principal Dawn Hochsprung titled, “Safety First.”

[11] Rob Dew, “Evidence of 2nd and 3rd Shooter at Sandy Hook,” Infowars Nightly News, December 18, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nCFHImNeRw. A more detailed yet less polished analysis was developed by citizen journalist Idahopicker, “Sandy Hook Elem: 3 Shooters,” December 16, 2012. See also James F. Tracy, “Analyzing the Newtown Narrative: Sandy Hook’s Disappearing Shooter Suspects,” Memoryholeblog.com, December 20, 2012.

[12] W. Lance Bennett, News: The Politics of Illusion 9th Edition, Boston: Longman, 2012, 47.

 

Elements of Claims and Defenses in Nevada by Day Williams: “Strict Liability”

Statue of Lady Justice, Virginia City, Nevada

 

 

Strict Liability

To present a prima facie case for strict liability in tort, a plaintiff must establish that her injuries were caused by a defect in the product, and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control.[1] Under Nevada law, “strict liability may be imposed even though the product is faultlessly made if it was unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hands of the user without suitable and adequate warning concerning safe and proper use.”[2] Inherent in this doctrine is that “a product must include a warning that adequately communicates the dangers that may result from its use or foreseeable misuse.” More particularly, in Fyssakis v. Knight Equipment Corp.,[3] the Nevada Supreme Court held that adequacy of warnings was an issue of fact for the jury where an industrial strength soap manufacturer’s warnings did not alert the user that the soap could cause blindness.

Allison v. Merck and Company,[4] a district court entered summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a children’s vaccine. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed in light of their conclusion that the drug manufacturer was required to adequately warn parents of possible side effects of immunization, including blindness, deafness or mental retardation. Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a general warning that an inoculated child could encounter rashes and possible brain inflammation was arguably inadequate and issues of fact remained as to the sufficiency of the warnings given. In remanding the Allison case for trial on the adequacy of the warnings, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the notion that a drug manufacturer could, via a general warning, avoid liability as a matter of law, even where the product was either reasonably or unavoidably unsafe.

Warnings in the context of products liability claims must be (1) designed to reasonably catch the consumer’s attention, (2) that the language be comprehensible and give a fair indication of the specific risks attendant to use of the product, and (3) that warnings be of sufficient intensity justified by the magnitude of the risk.[5]

 


[1] Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966).

[2] Lewis v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 119 Nev. 100, 107, 65 P.3d 245 (2003).

[3] 108 Nev. at 214, 826 P.2d at 571-72.

[4] 110 Nev. 762, 878 P.2d 948 (1994).

[5] Lewis v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 119 Nev. 100, 107, 65 P.3d 245 (2003).