Andrew Vachss's Blog
April 12, 2013
Review of a review, from the Zero collective
This is not a comment/criticism of the Publishers Weekly review of Aftershock. Opinions? Sure. First Amendment? Goes with saying. But when something is stated as fact, that's another story. The following quotes from the review are simply untrue:
This is debatable, as Dolly certainly can take care of herself, but this:
... is just wrong. Dell is no vigilante, has no interest in any level of society, has nothing against deer hunters (just doesn't want them shooting in an area where a stray bullet might hit his wife -- something that certainly happens, all the time), has no feelings about animal torturers -- the one he kills is a specific threat to his wife -- and he demonstrates no concern for victims of sex crimes, including the "females" singled out in the review.
His skill at killing without being caught has little-to-nothing to do with "military training." Combat training is not preparation for working as an assassin.
MaryLou is not Dolly's friend, or her contemporary. She is "Aunt Dolly" when she first visits MaryLou in jail. But for Dolly, Dell would never have been involved.
Cameron Taft is the leader of a "secret society" which preys on "undesirable" young girls and specializes in gang rape. He is no "athlete." In fact, MaryLou frankly admits she could have beaten him in a fight without assistance.
Why is any of this important? The review was glowing. We could have cherry-picked phrases such as "compelling first in a new thriller series," or "readers will stick with the story, and the series, because the steadfast, relentless Dell, with his uncompromising morality, commands attention." But we didn't want any reader gulled into thinking that this book kicks off some "Burke moves to the Pacific Northwest" artificial extension of what readers never stop expressing their regret at ending. It's too late for the libraries, but we would hate to see readers saying how disappointed they were because their expectations were not met.
Aftershock: A Thriller
[Dell] spends his time taking care of his woman
This is debatable, as Dolly certainly can take care of herself, but this:
killing those he considers the scum of society: deer hunters, animal torturers, and anyone who has anything to do with sex crimes against women.
... is just wrong. Dell is no vigilante, has no interest in any level of society, has nothing against deer hunters (just doesn't want them shooting in an area where a stray bullet might hit his wife -- something that certainly happens, all the time), has no feelings about animal torturers -- the one he kills is a specific threat to his wife -- and he demonstrates no concern for victims of sex crimes, including the "females" singled out in the review.
Thanks to his military training, he avoids getting caught.
His skill at killing without being caught has little-to-nothing to do with "military training." Combat training is not preparation for working as an assassin.
When a friend of Dolly’s, high school softball star MaryLou
MaryLou is not Dolly's friend, or her contemporary. She is "Aunt Dolly" when she first visits MaryLou in jail. But for Dolly, Dell would never have been involved.
killing popular athlete Cameron Taft
Cameron Taft is the leader of a "secret society" which preys on "undesirable" young girls and specializes in gang rape. He is no "athlete." In fact, MaryLou frankly admits she could have beaten him in a fight without assistance.
Why is any of this important? The review was glowing. We could have cherry-picked phrases such as "compelling first in a new thriller series," or "readers will stick with the story, and the series, because the steadfast, relentless Dell, with his uncompromising morality, commands attention." But we didn't want any reader gulled into thinking that this book kicks off some "Burke moves to the Pacific Northwest" artificial extension of what readers never stop expressing their regret at ending. It's too late for the libraries, but we would hate to see readers saying how disappointed they were because their expectations were not met.
Aftershock: A Thriller
February 22, 2012
Joe R. Lansdale:
Master of an absolutely unique combo-genre. Impossible to describe and harder to imitate.
His latest novel is Edge of Dark Water, being published March 25. Read an excerpt here.
His latest novel is Edge of Dark Water, being published March 25. Read an excerpt here.
February 8, 2012
Lawyers! At last!
The following gem landed in our inbox:
< blockquote >From: American Bar Association
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:55:58 -0500
Legal Representation of Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases Theme of 2-Day Florida Symposium
Fmr FL Supreme Court Chief Justice, Child Advocates and Former Foster Youth Slated to Speak
Washington, D.C., February 2, 2012 —Leading children's rights advocates from Florida and across the country will highlight the urgent need for abused and neglected kids to have lawyers protecting them in all court proceedings that impact their lives, during a media briefing on Thursday, Feb. 9 at 3 p.m., followed by a symposium on Friday, Feb. 10 from 8 - 4:30 p.m. at Nova Southeastern University's Shepard Broad Law Center.
Now, where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah...
2011
"At least this time, since he's being tried as an adult, Cristian will have a lawyer. The state of Florida doesn't appoint attorneys for children in abuse/neglect proceedings, but only non-lawyer volunteers. Of course, Florida doesn't have to worry about providing one for Cristian's little brother—he doesn't need one, not anymore. And the next time some Florida senatorial candidate runs on a platform to make America a 'Christian country,' the Devil might just die laughing."Andrew Vachss, from his essay, "Once again, Florida lives down to its reprehensible record on 'child protection'," published December 2011 on the Zero.
"If Caylee Anthony is to leave any legacy aside from floral tributes and notes, Florida must do for her now what it did not do during her life: appoint a law guardian to protect her interests. That lawyer should immediately sue Casey Anthony and her parents, who aided and abetted her. If the suit is successful, the resulting recovery would not go to any of Caylee Anthony's relatives, because, as defendants in the suit, they cannot benefit from the estate. Without any 'beneficiaries,' the recovery would 'escheat,' or return to the state of Florida. And the State could use the money to hire and train more child protective workers. It could institute a law-guardian system that would save money in the long haul ... and start saving the lives of Florida's children almost immediately." Andrew Vachss, from his essay, "Getting to the truth about Caylee Anthony's death," published August 2011 on the Zero.
2009
"This is what I think about the court-appointed psecial advocate program, period. When it's an adjunct to the child's lawyer, I think it's great. When it disfunctions as a substitute for the child's lawyer, I think it's disastrous. I think it's horrible, and I think it is, in fact, abusive of children." Andrew Vachss, from the Family of Choice webcast, January 2009
2006
"How about those 'programs' that provide warm, caring volunteers to 'represent' children in abuse and neglect cases? I don't mean in addition to lawyers; I mean instead of lawyers. If you're a child who's accused of committing a rape, you have a Constitutional right to be represented by counsel: a lawyer, admitted to the bar, who can be held responsible in the event of inadequate performance. But if you're a child who is believed to be a rape victim (of your own parents), what do you need a lawyer for, anyway? We'll give you a 'CASA' or a 'GAL,' to be your 'voice in court.' To those who insist that this is equal to (or even better than) professional representation, I always tell them, 'The next time you need a root canal, why don't you go to a warm, caring volunteer instead of a dentist?' " Andrew Vachss' essay, "A Long Time Coming: Closing New York's Incest Loophole," published by Protect.org, 2006
2004
"Why do some states refuse to provide legal counsel for children who are the subject of abuse or neglect cases, instead offering those most vulnerable victims the 'services' of volunteers with no legal training? Is that because the volunteers are more caring or because it's so much cheaper that way?" Andrew Vachss' article, "What Are You Going To Do About Child Abuse?," published in Parade, August 2004
2003
"In Florida, if you are, say an incest victim? Your 'parents' ... they'll get lawyers. Guess what you get. You get a warm, caring volunteer, and I don't mean a voluneer lawyer. I mean some amateur who's just a nice person who likes kids. They get to 'represent' you. They can't file motions, they can't cross-examine witnesses, they can't do any discovery, they can't do investigations. But they can stand up in court and tell the judge what they think would be best for you. It's a horrible system." Audio recording from Andrew Vachss' March 10, 2003, appearance at Barnes & Noble, 86th Street in New York City
2001
"When CASA volunteers are used as ADJUNCTS in the representation of a child, I couldn't be more supportive. However, in jurisdictions where CASAs are used INSTEAD OF legal representation for a child, I think this is a pernicious denial of due process for children. The idea that a warm, caring volunteer could 'represent' a child who has putatively been abused by adults, who are themselves going to be represented by actual attorneys is, to me, a replication of the child's situation in his or her own home. That is, not a fair fight." Andrew Vachss, in an online chat on USAToday.com, October 2001
2000
"[P]lenty of states, like Florida, still don't have [law guardians]. What does that tell you? Because with non-attorney guardians there's no attorney-client privilege. There's no ability to cross-examine witnesses, to subpoena evidence, to appeal. Basically you serve completely at the pleasure of the judge. And if you don't please the judge, you're history. What more of a message do kids need?" Andrew Vachss, from an interview in Journal For Living, Number 21, 2000
1991
"I will continue to advocate for what you call the New York system: attorneys representing children in abuse and neglect (and other related) matters. If CASA can provide assistance, that is a plus. It is not a substitute and, in my opinion, never will be." Andrew Vachss, in a letter to Beth Waid, Executive Director of the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, June 1991
1990
"I want to be very, very clear about this. Are [court-appointed advocates, such as guardians ad litem] useful? The answer is, they can be. Are they ever a substitute for actual representation by lawyers? No. Underline no. Repeat, NO. I think that concept represents one of the most pernicious trends in child protective work in this country today. There are states—and Florida is an excellent example—where a child who is the victim of abuse will not be represented by a lawyer but will be represented by a 'court-appointed special advocate' [CASA]. These people are not lawyers. Because they're not lawyers, they can't represent a child in terms of the totality of that child's needs. They can't file a motion. They can't argue before a court with any kind of force. I'll give you some concrete examples. If a child tells a secret to a court-appointed special advocate there is no attorney-client privilege. That child is not guaranteed the confidentiality that he would have in speaking to an attorney. We have a standard in American justice called effective assistance of counsel. Under that standard, if you're accused of a crime and your lawyer is incompetent, your case could be reversed, because you're entitled to minimal effectiveness. No non-lawyer can meet that standard. The whole Court Appointed Special Advocate concept gets its power from the idea that it's cheap; it's cost-effective. That's utter nonsense. You look at a state like Florida that could provide a stream of attorneys for a Ted Bundy and can't provide one attorney for an abused child. I think there's such a moral difficulty with that, that it's unresolvable." Andrew Vachss, from an interview in Current Issues, Volume 1: Child Abuse, 1990
1989
"I am utterly baffled by your perception that 'understanding of the child's needs and wishes' is best left to non-lawyers. National CASA may 'find' this is best—National CASA is hardly my idea of a disinterested, objective evaluator of its own programs. Any additional services offered to the subjects of child protective litigation is a plus—any substitution of counsel by lay people (regardless of justificatory rhetoric) is not." Andrew Vachss, in a letter to Jane H. Shaeffer, State Director of the Guardian Ad Litem Program of Florida, October 1989
"Your statement that [CASA's Guardian ad Litem] have 'effectively' represented more than 3,000 children to date is an expression of opinion, not fact. The United States Supreme Court has defined 'effective assistance of counsel.' Non-lawyers could not meet that standard. Thus, your position is simply that children who are the subject of child protective proceedings are not entitled to counsel. I profoundly disagree." Andrew Vachss, in a letter to Dr. Ilene Gerber, Circuit Director of the Guardian Ad Litem Program of the Palm Beach County Courthouse Annex, September 1989
The bottom line is this:
• Non-lawyer "volunteers" [generically referred to as GALs, but including the heavily-funded "CASA" (Court Appointed Special Advocates) program] are not required to pass character and fitness requirements as lawyers are. They have no "screening" process that is anything close to adequate. And such as it does have is utterly self-contained, not reviewable by any outside (or objective) agency.
• They serve "at the pleasure" of any judge, and can be summarily dismissed if the judge wishes. Many judges would have wished to dismiss me for my fervent advocacy and refusals to "make a deal," but the law prohibits such arbitrary action against lawyers.
• They are "agents of the court," and cannot independently represent a child without the court's "permission."
• They may "investigate" only as permitted by a judge. They have no subpoena power, may not compel discovery, etc.
• They may not cross-examine witnesses, challenge motions, etc.
• Their "representation" carries no attorney-client privilege, and, indeed, they can be compelled to testify against their own "clients." Do they warn the children that, should he or she disclose some crime they may have committed (which is an extremely common occurrence when representing abuse and neglect victims), the person they are confiding in is not prohibited by law from repeating what they heard? And may even be compelled to do so ... on the witness stand?! See, e.g., "Colorado Supreme Court removes attorney-client confidentiality from children in some cases" (Denver Post, 11/03/2011) and "Colorado Supreme Court: Neglected and abused kids shouldn't trust their lawyers" (Denver Westword, 10/26/2011).
• They are required to "report to the court." Unlike lawyers, who can decide what is in their client's best interests to reveal, they must turn over everything they "find."
• Lawyers can intervene against bad agency decisions (such as a refusal to terminate parental rights or remove a child from an inadequate placement). Lawyers can ensure proper counseling, medical care, etc. for victims because a lawyer can always bring a lawsuit to enforce rights, or redress wrongs. Non-lawyer volunteers cannot do any of this.
• They cannot file appeals on behalf of a child.
• They are held to no standard of professional performance. A "bad result" case "handled" by a non-lawyer volunteer can not be reversed by the appellate courts on ground of "ineffective assistance of counsel."
• They are not subject to professional discipline, loss of license, malpractice suits, and other sanctions ... only lawyers are. Sure, there are lousy lawyers ... and I endorse volunteers as adjuncts, even as "watchdogs," to guard against (and report) inadequate lawyers. But what they want is to be "the child's voice in court"—that was, in fact, CASA's logo for many years, until it proved to be a political liability ... because of professionals like myself pointing out what it really meant—and their program is to exclude lawyers or insist all lawyers involved work"pro bono," knowing the latter will limit the number of lawyers actually involved in "their" cases.
• They all are, beyond argument, a lesser standard of legal representation than a lawyer. If any group on this earth is to be so stigmatized, must it be abused and neglected children? Would any adult settle for a "warm, caring volunteer" if he or she needed a lawyer? But, of course, children don't vote, do they?
• To justify this judicially-sanctioned child abuse, the volunteers never fail to cite "the paucity of resources made available by state legislatures for the protection of children." Whose fault is that? Shouldn't the real efforts be aimed at correcting that atrocity instead of assisting it (which any non-lawyer "volunteer" program does, by allowing sociopathic or stupid legislators to claim that abused and neglected children are, in fact, being "represented").
• As for the old canard about "overworked" lawyers: This is, in fact, the same issue ... failure by the legislature to provide adequate funding for abused and neglected children ... repackaged. Were the lawyers for Ted Bundy "overworked"?
How is this kind of disenfranchisement of children sold to the public? Easy. Congress just labels it "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform."
Check it out for yourself: 42 USC 67, sec 5106(b)(2)(B)(xiii)
Note the requirement that children have "representation," which specifically and deliberately leaves out any requirement that such "representation" be provided by actual lawyers. That left a hole big enough to drive the CASA semi through, for one member of Congress to make sure his "earmark" privilege guaranteed heavy funding of "Children's Advocacy Centers" (again, with no oversight provided or required), and plenty of cash for anything that can be called "prevention." When I challenged a whole audience to show me proof that child abuse can be "prevented," the only (tearful, impassioned) response was, "You can't prove it doesn't work!" True. But I can prove Congress doesn't. See for yourself:
< blockquote >From: American Bar Association
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:55:58 -0500
Legal Representation of Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases Theme of 2-Day Florida Symposium
Fmr FL Supreme Court Chief Justice, Child Advocates and Former Foster Youth Slated to Speak
Washington, D.C., February 2, 2012 —Leading children's rights advocates from Florida and across the country will highlight the urgent need for abused and neglected kids to have lawyers protecting them in all court proceedings that impact their lives, during a media briefing on Thursday, Feb. 9 at 3 p.m., followed by a symposium on Friday, Feb. 10 from 8 - 4:30 p.m. at Nova Southeastern University's Shepard Broad Law Center.
Now, where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah...
2011
"At least this time, since he's being tried as an adult, Cristian will have a lawyer. The state of Florida doesn't appoint attorneys for children in abuse/neglect proceedings, but only non-lawyer volunteers. Of course, Florida doesn't have to worry about providing one for Cristian's little brother—he doesn't need one, not anymore. And the next time some Florida senatorial candidate runs on a platform to make America a 'Christian country,' the Devil might just die laughing."Andrew Vachss, from his essay, "Once again, Florida lives down to its reprehensible record on 'child protection'," published December 2011 on the Zero.
"If Caylee Anthony is to leave any legacy aside from floral tributes and notes, Florida must do for her now what it did not do during her life: appoint a law guardian to protect her interests. That lawyer should immediately sue Casey Anthony and her parents, who aided and abetted her. If the suit is successful, the resulting recovery would not go to any of Caylee Anthony's relatives, because, as defendants in the suit, they cannot benefit from the estate. Without any 'beneficiaries,' the recovery would 'escheat,' or return to the state of Florida. And the State could use the money to hire and train more child protective workers. It could institute a law-guardian system that would save money in the long haul ... and start saving the lives of Florida's children almost immediately." Andrew Vachss, from his essay, "Getting to the truth about Caylee Anthony's death," published August 2011 on the Zero.
2009
"This is what I think about the court-appointed psecial advocate program, period. When it's an adjunct to the child's lawyer, I think it's great. When it disfunctions as a substitute for the child's lawyer, I think it's disastrous. I think it's horrible, and I think it is, in fact, abusive of children." Andrew Vachss, from the Family of Choice webcast, January 2009
2006
"How about those 'programs' that provide warm, caring volunteers to 'represent' children in abuse and neglect cases? I don't mean in addition to lawyers; I mean instead of lawyers. If you're a child who's accused of committing a rape, you have a Constitutional right to be represented by counsel: a lawyer, admitted to the bar, who can be held responsible in the event of inadequate performance. But if you're a child who is believed to be a rape victim (of your own parents), what do you need a lawyer for, anyway? We'll give you a 'CASA' or a 'GAL,' to be your 'voice in court.' To those who insist that this is equal to (or even better than) professional representation, I always tell them, 'The next time you need a root canal, why don't you go to a warm, caring volunteer instead of a dentist?' " Andrew Vachss' essay, "A Long Time Coming: Closing New York's Incest Loophole," published by Protect.org, 2006
2004
"Why do some states refuse to provide legal counsel for children who are the subject of abuse or neglect cases, instead offering those most vulnerable victims the 'services' of volunteers with no legal training? Is that because the volunteers are more caring or because it's so much cheaper that way?" Andrew Vachss' article, "What Are You Going To Do About Child Abuse?," published in Parade, August 2004
2003
"In Florida, if you are, say an incest victim? Your 'parents' ... they'll get lawyers. Guess what you get. You get a warm, caring volunteer, and I don't mean a voluneer lawyer. I mean some amateur who's just a nice person who likes kids. They get to 'represent' you. They can't file motions, they can't cross-examine witnesses, they can't do any discovery, they can't do investigations. But they can stand up in court and tell the judge what they think would be best for you. It's a horrible system." Audio recording from Andrew Vachss' March 10, 2003, appearance at Barnes & Noble, 86th Street in New York City
2001
"When CASA volunteers are used as ADJUNCTS in the representation of a child, I couldn't be more supportive. However, in jurisdictions where CASAs are used INSTEAD OF legal representation for a child, I think this is a pernicious denial of due process for children. The idea that a warm, caring volunteer could 'represent' a child who has putatively been abused by adults, who are themselves going to be represented by actual attorneys is, to me, a replication of the child's situation in his or her own home. That is, not a fair fight." Andrew Vachss, in an online chat on USAToday.com, October 2001
2000
"[P]lenty of states, like Florida, still don't have [law guardians]. What does that tell you? Because with non-attorney guardians there's no attorney-client privilege. There's no ability to cross-examine witnesses, to subpoena evidence, to appeal. Basically you serve completely at the pleasure of the judge. And if you don't please the judge, you're history. What more of a message do kids need?" Andrew Vachss, from an interview in Journal For Living, Number 21, 2000
1991
"I will continue to advocate for what you call the New York system: attorneys representing children in abuse and neglect (and other related) matters. If CASA can provide assistance, that is a plus. It is not a substitute and, in my opinion, never will be." Andrew Vachss, in a letter to Beth Waid, Executive Director of the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, June 1991
1990
"I want to be very, very clear about this. Are [court-appointed advocates, such as guardians ad litem] useful? The answer is, they can be. Are they ever a substitute for actual representation by lawyers? No. Underline no. Repeat, NO. I think that concept represents one of the most pernicious trends in child protective work in this country today. There are states—and Florida is an excellent example—where a child who is the victim of abuse will not be represented by a lawyer but will be represented by a 'court-appointed special advocate' [CASA]. These people are not lawyers. Because they're not lawyers, they can't represent a child in terms of the totality of that child's needs. They can't file a motion. They can't argue before a court with any kind of force. I'll give you some concrete examples. If a child tells a secret to a court-appointed special advocate there is no attorney-client privilege. That child is not guaranteed the confidentiality that he would have in speaking to an attorney. We have a standard in American justice called effective assistance of counsel. Under that standard, if you're accused of a crime and your lawyer is incompetent, your case could be reversed, because you're entitled to minimal effectiveness. No non-lawyer can meet that standard. The whole Court Appointed Special Advocate concept gets its power from the idea that it's cheap; it's cost-effective. That's utter nonsense. You look at a state like Florida that could provide a stream of attorneys for a Ted Bundy and can't provide one attorney for an abused child. I think there's such a moral difficulty with that, that it's unresolvable." Andrew Vachss, from an interview in Current Issues, Volume 1: Child Abuse, 1990
1989
"I am utterly baffled by your perception that 'understanding of the child's needs and wishes' is best left to non-lawyers. National CASA may 'find' this is best—National CASA is hardly my idea of a disinterested, objective evaluator of its own programs. Any additional services offered to the subjects of child protective litigation is a plus—any substitution of counsel by lay people (regardless of justificatory rhetoric) is not." Andrew Vachss, in a letter to Jane H. Shaeffer, State Director of the Guardian Ad Litem Program of Florida, October 1989
"Your statement that [CASA's Guardian ad Litem] have 'effectively' represented more than 3,000 children to date is an expression of opinion, not fact. The United States Supreme Court has defined 'effective assistance of counsel.' Non-lawyers could not meet that standard. Thus, your position is simply that children who are the subject of child protective proceedings are not entitled to counsel. I profoundly disagree." Andrew Vachss, in a letter to Dr. Ilene Gerber, Circuit Director of the Guardian Ad Litem Program of the Palm Beach County Courthouse Annex, September 1989
The bottom line is this:
• Non-lawyer "volunteers" [generically referred to as GALs, but including the heavily-funded "CASA" (Court Appointed Special Advocates) program] are not required to pass character and fitness requirements as lawyers are. They have no "screening" process that is anything close to adequate. And such as it does have is utterly self-contained, not reviewable by any outside (or objective) agency.
• They serve "at the pleasure" of any judge, and can be summarily dismissed if the judge wishes. Many judges would have wished to dismiss me for my fervent advocacy and refusals to "make a deal," but the law prohibits such arbitrary action against lawyers.
• They are "agents of the court," and cannot independently represent a child without the court's "permission."
• They may "investigate" only as permitted by a judge. They have no subpoena power, may not compel discovery, etc.
• They may not cross-examine witnesses, challenge motions, etc.
• Their "representation" carries no attorney-client privilege, and, indeed, they can be compelled to testify against their own "clients." Do they warn the children that, should he or she disclose some crime they may have committed (which is an extremely common occurrence when representing abuse and neglect victims), the person they are confiding in is not prohibited by law from repeating what they heard? And may even be compelled to do so ... on the witness stand?! See, e.g., "Colorado Supreme Court removes attorney-client confidentiality from children in some cases" (Denver Post, 11/03/2011) and "Colorado Supreme Court: Neglected and abused kids shouldn't trust their lawyers" (Denver Westword, 10/26/2011).
• They are required to "report to the court." Unlike lawyers, who can decide what is in their client's best interests to reveal, they must turn over everything they "find."
• Lawyers can intervene against bad agency decisions (such as a refusal to terminate parental rights or remove a child from an inadequate placement). Lawyers can ensure proper counseling, medical care, etc. for victims because a lawyer can always bring a lawsuit to enforce rights, or redress wrongs. Non-lawyer volunteers cannot do any of this.
• They cannot file appeals on behalf of a child.
• They are held to no standard of professional performance. A "bad result" case "handled" by a non-lawyer volunteer can not be reversed by the appellate courts on ground of "ineffective assistance of counsel."
• They are not subject to professional discipline, loss of license, malpractice suits, and other sanctions ... only lawyers are. Sure, there are lousy lawyers ... and I endorse volunteers as adjuncts, even as "watchdogs," to guard against (and report) inadequate lawyers. But what they want is to be "the child's voice in court"—that was, in fact, CASA's logo for many years, until it proved to be a political liability ... because of professionals like myself pointing out what it really meant—and their program is to exclude lawyers or insist all lawyers involved work"pro bono," knowing the latter will limit the number of lawyers actually involved in "their" cases.
• They all are, beyond argument, a lesser standard of legal representation than a lawyer. If any group on this earth is to be so stigmatized, must it be abused and neglected children? Would any adult settle for a "warm, caring volunteer" if he or she needed a lawyer? But, of course, children don't vote, do they?
• To justify this judicially-sanctioned child abuse, the volunteers never fail to cite "the paucity of resources made available by state legislatures for the protection of children." Whose fault is that? Shouldn't the real efforts be aimed at correcting that atrocity instead of assisting it (which any non-lawyer "volunteer" program does, by allowing sociopathic or stupid legislators to claim that abused and neglected children are, in fact, being "represented").
• As for the old canard about "overworked" lawyers: This is, in fact, the same issue ... failure by the legislature to provide adequate funding for abused and neglected children ... repackaged. Were the lawyers for Ted Bundy "overworked"?
How is this kind of disenfranchisement of children sold to the public? Easy. Congress just labels it "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform."
Check it out for yourself: 42 USC 67, sec 5106(b)(2)(B)(xiii)
Note the requirement that children have "representation," which specifically and deliberately leaves out any requirement that such "representation" be provided by actual lawyers. That left a hole big enough to drive the CASA semi through, for one member of Congress to make sure his "earmark" privilege guaranteed heavy funding of "Children's Advocacy Centers" (again, with no oversight provided or required), and plenty of cash for anything that can be called "prevention." When I challenged a whole audience to show me proof that child abuse can be "prevented," the only (tearful, impassioned) response was, "You can't prove it doesn't work!" True. But I can prove Congress doesn't. See for yourself:
42 USC s.5106a (b)(2)(B)(xiii) - To be eligible for grant, state must require that in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect which results in a judicial proceeding, a guardian ad litem ... who may be an attorney or a court appointed special advocate...
(a) Development and operation grants
The Secretary shall make grants to the States, from allotments made under subsection (f) for each State that applies for a grant under this section, for purposes of assisting the States in improving the child protective services system of each such State in -(2)(B) improving legal preparation and representation, including -
(ii) provisions for the appointment of an individual appointed to represent a child in judicial proceedings;
(b) Eligibility requirements
(2) Contents
A State plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall contain a description of the activities that the State will carry out using amounts received under the grant to achieve the objectives of this subchapter, including -
(B) an assurance in the form of a certification by the Governor of the State that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect that includes -
(xiii) provisions and procedures requiring that in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect which results in a judicial proceeding, a guardian ad litem, who has received training appropriate to the role, including training in early childhood, child, and adolescent development, and who may be an attorney or a court appointed special advocate who has received training appropriate to that role (or both), shall be appointed to represent the child in such proceedings -
(I) to obtain first-hand, a clear understanding of the situation and needs of the child; and
(II) to make recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child;
February 1, 2012
Whoever gets to define words gets to control society...
Donald Moeller was convicted in 1997 of raping and killing a 9-year-old girl. Moeller was sentenced to death, in South Dakota.
Last year, Moeller filed (yet) another appeal. This time, his reasoning was, "The State's insistent use of the term predator and repeated characterization of the crime as a butchering went far beyond 'the facts surrounding the murder' ... [and its] persistent use of the terms 'predator' and 'butchered' painted a vivid picture of Mr. Moeller as a continuing threat to society and elevated the presentation of evidence beyond mere descriptions of the crime." And the example they used to illustrate the point?
Moeller's appeal was denied. And if you want to read the complete filing, click here.
Last year, Moeller filed (yet) another appeal. This time, his reasoning was, "The State's insistent use of the term predator and repeated characterization of the crime as a butchering went far beyond 'the facts surrounding the murder' ... [and its] persistent use of the terms 'predator' and 'butchered' painted a vivid picture of Mr. Moeller as a continuing threat to society and elevated the presentation of evidence beyond mere descriptions of the crime." And the example they used to illustrate the point?
[The word predator] has an interesting and rather contorted history. During the 1980s the word was used in a sexual sense in the literature of serial murder, both crime fiction and true crime, where it appears in book titles alongside phrases implying primitivism, animal savagery, stalking and hunting. Particularly influential in this regard were popular crime writers like Andrew Vacss [sic] who regularly used the word in his novels and newspaper columns, often in the context of revealing pseudo-scientific language. In a typical passage, he argued that:
Chronic sexual predators have crossed an osmotic membrane. They can't step back to the other side-our side. And they don't want to. If we don't kill them or release them, we have but one choice. Call them monsters and isolate them . . . I've spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism—an endangerment of our species. (Vachss 1993)
Moeller's appeal was denied. And if you want to read the complete filing, click here.
December 28, 2011
It's the holiday season
So here's a gift: a song written from the point of view of Ghost, from Shella:
http://vachss.com/media/music/ghost.mp3
http://vachss.com/media/music/ghost.mp3
December 14, 2011
Once again, Florida lives down to its reprehensible record on "child protection"
Once again, Florida lives down to its reprehensible "child protection" record. State attorneys have charged 12-year-old Cristian Fernandez as an adult, and are holding him responsible for the death of his 2-year-old brother. He faces life in prison without parole if convicted.
This boy's mother was herself only 12 years old when she gave birth to him. And what became of her? She is in jail facing manslaughter charges for leaving the 2-year-old in Cristian's "care," and for concealing previous injuries to the toddler. In contrast, the human who sexually assaulted her was hit with the staggering sentence of ... probation!
That child-rapist not only avoided any prison time, but is described as an "absentee father" in news reports that also referred to him as "dad."
What was Florida's first clue that a little more intensive supervision of Cristian's "home" might be required? That the "dad" didn't pay child support? That the "dad" didn't defend his son? That instead of reporting the abusive human his former child-victim moved in with—after all, she was an adult herself by then, and entitled to make such choices—the "dad" just moved on? Didn't Florida even consider the obvious danger of using a 12-year-old boy as a "babysitter" for a toddler? Didn't they think that toddler might be "at risk"?
So, a female child is sexually assaulted. That child gives birth at 12! The magic of "family reunification" puts her baby back together with the child who gave birth to him. And the result is ... another dead baby.
At least this time, since he's being tried as an adult, Cristian will have a lawyer. The state of Florida doesn't appoint attorneys for children in abuse/neglect proceedings, but only non-lawyer volunteers. Of course, Florida doesn't have to worry about providing one for Cristian's little brother—he doesn't need one, not anymore. And the next time some Florida senatorial candidate runs on a platform to make America a "Christian country," the Devil might just die laughing.
© 2011 Andrew Vachss. All rights reserved.
November 30, 2011
25 years later...
Rep. Sam Johnson just authored a bill that would eliminate Social Security's publicly released Death Master File, which (he points out) has been used by thieves to commit identity theft of dead children "for at least a decade." A decade, of course, bring us back to 2001. But ...
Flood
was published in 1985, and included this:
The proper way (and the way I fixed up my computer-junkie friend) is simply to find someone who died soon after birth with an age and race similar to the person you want to fix up. Then you apply for a duplicate birth certificate in that person's name, which becomes your name when it's issued. This perfectly legitimate piece of paper opens the door to all the rest—driver's license, social security card, you name it. And that paper is perfectly good. To get a passport, for example, all they want is a birth certificate, which you can get certified at the Health Department for a couple of bucks, and a driver's license or something similar.
The finishing touch is to hire some local lawyer and tell him you want to change your name for professional reasons, like you want to be an actor or something equally useful. Then you put an ad in the paper announcing to the world, including your creditors, that you want to change your name. Most dead people don't have too many creditors, especially those who have been in such a state for a couple of decades or so. When nobody comes forward to object to the change of name, the court will give you a certified order so you can change your name legally on all the other documents. This adds another layer of smog to what was phony to begin with, and it's more than enough to keep a step ahead. The whole package costs less than $500 from start to finish. It's a bargain—you'd pay more than twice that just for a phony passport.
The next thing you do is run up some credit accounts. It doesn't take much—most of the charge card companies will issue one of their pieces of magic plastic to someone on welfare. Then you pay the bills, not exactly on time but close enough. When a cop stops you, there's nothing like the American Express Gold to make him think you're a solid citizen, especially if you're outside New York.
The proper way (and the way I fixed up my computer-junkie friend) is simply to find someone who died soon after birth with an age and race similar to the person you want to fix up. Then you apply for a duplicate birth certificate in that person's name, which becomes your name when it's issued. This perfectly legitimate piece of paper opens the door to all the rest—driver's license, social security card, you name it. And that paper is perfectly good. To get a passport, for example, all they want is a birth certificate, which you can get certified at the Health Department for a couple of bucks, and a driver's license or something similar.
The finishing touch is to hire some local lawyer and tell him you want to change your name for professional reasons, like you want to be an actor or something equally useful. Then you put an ad in the paper announcing to the world, including your creditors, that you want to change your name. Most dead people don't have too many creditors, especially those who have been in such a state for a couple of decades or so. When nobody comes forward to object to the change of name, the court will give you a certified order so you can change your name legally on all the other documents. This adds another layer of smog to what was phony to begin with, and it's more than enough to keep a step ahead. The whole package costs less than $500 from start to finish. It's a bargain—you'd pay more than twice that just for a phony passport.
The next thing you do is run up some credit accounts. It doesn't take much—most of the charge card companies will issue one of their pieces of magic plastic to someone on welfare. Then you pay the bills, not exactly on time but close enough. When a cop stops you, there's nothing like the American Express Gold to make him think you're a solid citizen, especially if you're outside New York.
November 14, 2011
Child Sexual Abuse within the Circle of Trust
For many years, I’ve explained that the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse is not committed by the kind of roving serial perpetrators who can be “profiled” for trash TV. Most child sexual abuse takes place within the child’s
circle of trust
, starting with parents and radiating outward to teachers, coaches, religious authorities, babysitters. Offenders in the circle access their victims through a process of entrustment by parents, who believe they are actually providing a special experience for their children. Sadly, that experience is “special” only in its horrific consequences.
And the circle of trust has another unique characteristic. Once an offender within the circle is exposed, that circle begins to fold in around itself, acting as a protective barrier for the offender. Those who are “mandated reporters” may intentionally pass the buck; instead of reporting the abuse to police or child welfare authorities, they inform a superior within their own organization, sometimes offering only a sanitized version of the offense. This does not comply with the law, but quite the opposite, as it flouts the law’s unambiguous intent. That same circle of trust that enabled the offender, often for decades, now serves as his protection. And those who deliberately evade their legal and moral obligation to report child sexual abuse to law enforcement are themselves protected. After all, they “reported,” didn’t they? Of course they haven’t, but the mandated reporter laws have proven to be toothless tigers, especially in matters involving what we hold sacred: religion and football.
A teacher who is made aware that a child is being sexually abused cannot simply tell the school principal. Nor can a coach, once aware, get off the moral and legal hook by passing the information along to the school’s athletic director. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the District Attorney who decided against prosecution of the serial offender within the Penn State “football community” disappeared. Certainly, that is the position of the authorities, who see no connection whatsoever, despite the fact that the DA’s body has never been found. He has been declared “legally dead.”
No such final judgment has been rendered as to the alleged perpetrator of many, many sexual assaults of children, stretching out over many, many years … and known to the Penn State “football community” for a dozen years! Charged with 40 counts relating to the sexual abuse of children he groomed through a charity he created for “troubled youth,” the alleged perpetrator is free on bail (granted by a judge who volunteers with his charity). He’s returned home, the backyard of which borders an elementary school.
No candlelight vigil is going to shine a light on the cold reality of circle of trust violations. Whether there was avoidance of responsibility is no longer a debatable issue at Penn State. What remains is learning whether there will be an avoidance of truth.
© 2011 Andrew Vachss. All rights reserved.
And the circle of trust has another unique characteristic. Once an offender within the circle is exposed, that circle begins to fold in around itself, acting as a protective barrier for the offender. Those who are “mandated reporters” may intentionally pass the buck; instead of reporting the abuse to police or child welfare authorities, they inform a superior within their own organization, sometimes offering only a sanitized version of the offense. This does not comply with the law, but quite the opposite, as it flouts the law’s unambiguous intent. That same circle of trust that enabled the offender, often for decades, now serves as his protection. And those who deliberately evade their legal and moral obligation to report child sexual abuse to law enforcement are themselves protected. After all, they “reported,” didn’t they? Of course they haven’t, but the mandated reporter laws have proven to be toothless tigers, especially in matters involving what we hold sacred: religion and football.
A teacher who is made aware that a child is being sexually abused cannot simply tell the school principal. Nor can a coach, once aware, get off the moral and legal hook by passing the information along to the school’s athletic director. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the District Attorney who decided against prosecution of the serial offender within the Penn State “football community” disappeared. Certainly, that is the position of the authorities, who see no connection whatsoever, despite the fact that the DA’s body has never been found. He has been declared “legally dead.”
No such final judgment has been rendered as to the alleged perpetrator of many, many sexual assaults of children, stretching out over many, many years … and known to the Penn State “football community” for a dozen years! Charged with 40 counts relating to the sexual abuse of children he groomed through a charity he created for “troubled youth,” the alleged perpetrator is free on bail (granted by a judge who volunteers with his charity). He’s returned home, the backyard of which borders an elementary school.
No candlelight vigil is going to shine a light on the cold reality of circle of trust violations. Whether there was avoidance of responsibility is no longer a debatable issue at Penn State. What remains is learning whether there will be an avoidance of truth.
© 2011 Andrew Vachss. All rights reserved.
September 28, 2011
Blood on their hands
A little girl was raped, and Texas Governor Rick Perry could have prevented it. Since 2007, Protect has been telling politicians about "the map": an image of the US lit up with 500,000+ red dots, each dot representing an identifiable human trading in child porn. We (because all of us at the Zero are members of Protect) have demonstrated through crime statistics that more than 40% of the humans who trade in child porn are themselves victimizing children. And we have been summarily ignored. Politicians have not provided the ICAC programs with the funds they need to investigate these humans trading in child porn. Now one of them—Rodney Williams of Houston, Texas—has been arrested. For raping and sodomizing a 5-year-old girl. Williams was on that map; Texas politicians knew about him in 2007. But they did not commit the funds to investigate him. They could have prevented the rape of that little girl. Click here to read Grier Weeks' op-ed, "Blood on Their Hands."
September 16, 2011
Michael Vick...
I'd like Michael Vick to have to play by the same rules he made his dogs play by--if he wins, he lives; if he loses, he's tortured to death.
