Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Levin v. United States :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2013

Levin v. United States :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia.com Opinion Summary: The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity from tort suits, 28 U. S. C. 1346(b)(1), except for certain intentional torts, including battery; it originally afforded tort victims a remedy against the government, but did not preclude suit against the alleged tort-feasor. Agency-specific statutes postdating the FTCA immunized certain federal employees from personal liability for torts committed in the course of official duties. The Gonzalez Act makes the FTCA remedy against the U.S. preclusive of suit against armed forces medical personnel, 10 U. S. C. 1089(a), and provides that, “[f]or purposes of this section,” the FTCA intentional tort exception “shall not apply to any cause of action arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical ... functions.” Congress subsequently enacted the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, which makes the FTCA remedy against the government exclusive for torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, 28 U. S. C. 2679(b)(1); federal employees are shielded without regard to agency or line of work. Levin, injured as a result of surgery performed at a U. S. Naval Hospital, sued the government and the surgeon, asserting battery, based on his alleged withdrawal of consent shortly before the surgery. Finding that the surgeon had acted within the scope of his employment, the district court released him and dismissed the battery claim. Affirming, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Gonzalez Act served only to buttress the personal immunity granted military medical personnel and did not negate the FTCA intentional tort exception. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Gonzalez Act section 1089(e) abrogates the FTCA intentional tort exception, allowing Levin’s suit against the U.S. alleging medical battery by a Navy doctor acting within the scope of employment. The operative clause states, “in no uncertain terms,” that the FTCA intentional tort exception “shall not apply,” and confines the abrogation to medical personnel employed by listed agencies.

Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email


NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
LEVIN v. UNITED STATES et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 11–1351. Argued January 15, 2013—Decided March 4, 2013
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from tort suits, 28 U. S. C. §1346(b)(1), but excepts from the waiver certain intentional torts, including battery, §2680(h). The FTCA, as originally enacted, afforded tort victims a remedy against the United States, but did not preclude suit against the alleged tortfeasor as sole or joint defendant. Several agency-specific statutes postdating the FTCA, however, immunized certain federal employees from personal liability for torts committed in the course of their official duties. One such statute, the Gonzalez Act, makes the remedy against the United States under the FTCA preclusive of any suit against armed forces medical personnel. 10 U. S. C. §1089(a). The Act also provides that, “[f]or purposes of this section,” the intentional tort exception to the FTCA “shall not apply to any cause of action arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical . . . functions.” §1089(e). Congress subsequently enacted comprehensive legislation, the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (Liability Reform Act), which makes the FTCA’s remedy against the United States exclusive for torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1). Under the Liability Reform Act, federal employees are shielded without regard to agency affiliation or line of work.
Petitioner Levin suffered injuries as a result of cataract surgery performed at a U. S. Naval Hospital. He filed suit, naming the United States and the surgeon as defendants and asserting, inter alia, a claim of battery, based on his alleged withdrawal of consent to operate shortly before the surgery took place. Finding that the surgeon had acted within the scope of his employment, the District Court released him and substituted the United States as sole defendant. The Government moved to dismiss the battery claim, relying on the FTCA’s intentional tort exception. Levin countered that the Gonzalez Act, in particular, §1089(e), renders that exception inapplicable when a plaintiff alleges medical battery by a military physician. The District Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss. Affirming, the Ninth Circuit concluded that §1089(e) served only to buttress the immunity from personal liability granted military medical personnel in §1089(a), and did not negate the FTCA’s intentional tort exception.
Held: The Gonzalez Act direction in §1089(e) abrogates the FTCA’s intentional tort exception and therefore permits Levin’s suit against the United States alleging medical battery by a Navy doctor acting within the scope of his employment. Pp. 8–15.
(a) To determine whether the Government’s immunity is waived for batteries, the Court looks to §1089(e)’s language, “giving the ‘words used’ their ‘ordinary meaning.’ ” Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103 . Levin claims that the operative clause of §1089(e), which provides that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception “shall not apply” to medical malpractice claims, is qualified by the provision’s introductory clause “[f]or purposes of this section,” which confines the operative clause to claims alleging malpractice by personnel in the armed forces and the other agencies specified in the Gonzalez Act. The Government, in contrast, argues that §1089(e)’s introductory clause instructs courts to pretend, “[f]or purposes of” the Gonzalez Act, that §2680(h) does not secure the Government against liability for intentional torts, including battery, even though §2680(h) does provide that shelter. The choice between the parties’ dueling constructions is not a difficult one. Section 1089(e)’s operative clause states, in no uncertain terms, that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception, §2680(h), “shall not apply,” and §1089(e)’s introductory clause confines the abrogation of §2680(h) to medical personnel employed by the agencies listed in the Gonzalez Act. Had Congress wanted to adopt the Government’s counterfactual interpretation, it could have used more precise language, as it did in §1089(c), a subsection adjacent to §1089(e). Pp. 8–11.
(b) Under the Government’s interpretation of §1089(e), the Liability Reform Act would displace much of the Gonzalez Act. That reading conflicts with the view the Government stated in United States v. Smith, 499 U. S. 160 . There, the question was whether a person injured abroad due to a military doctor’s negligence may seek compensation from the doctor in a U. S. court, for the FTCA gave them no recourse against the Government on a “claim arising in a foreign country,” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). In arguing that such persons also lacked recourse to a suit against the doctor, the Government contended that the Liability Reform Act made “[t]he remedy against the United States” under the FTCA “exclusive.” §2679(b)(1). This interpretation, the Government argued, would not override the Gonzalez Act, which would continue to serve two important functions: Title 10 U. S. C. §1089(f)(1) would authorize indemnification of individual military doctors sued abroad where foreign law might govern; and the Gonzalez Act would allow an FTCA suit against the United States if the doctor performed a procedure to which the plaintiff did not consent. Adopting the Government’s construction, the Court held that §2679(b)(1) grants all federal employees, including medical personnel, immunity for acts within the scope of their employment, even when the FTCA provides no remedy against the United States. 499 U. S., at 166. Under the Government’s current reading of §1089(e), the Liability Reform Act overrides the Gonzalez Act except in the atypical circumstances in which indemnification of the doctor under §1089(f)(1) remains possible, while under Levin’s reading, the Gonzalez Act does just what the Government said it did in Smith. Pp. 11–13.
(c) The Government attempts to inject ambiguity into §1089(e) by claiming that 38 U. S. C. §7316, a parallel statute that confers immunity on medical personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, expresses Congress’ intent to abrogate §2680(h) with the unmistakable clarity the Gonzalez Act lacks. But this Court sees nothing dispositively different about the wording of the two provisions, and neither did the Government when it argued in the District Court that §1089(e) and §7316(f) are functionally indistinguishable. Pp. 13–14.
663 F. 3d 1059, reversed and remanded.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, which was unanimous except insofar as Scalia, J., did not join footnotes 6 and 7.



Sunday, March 3, 2013

BillWindsor_CriminalComplaints37Cyberstalkers2013

policemanstop0004-200wBill has filed 37 Complaint of Cyber Stalking
Right ON www.lawlessamerica.com  Also in www.mncourts.gov  E-Filings
 
13Like · ·
  • watchdog.org
    By Kevin Mooney | Watchdog.org BOSTON, Mass. If the allegations are true, it means that
  • Bill Windsor has filed Criminal Complaints against 37 Cyberstalkers
    • PDF

    On February 25, 2013, Bill Windsor filed criminal complaints against 37 cyberstalkers..
    Included were Allie Overstreet, Mark Supanich, Sean Boushie, Claudine Dombrowski, Lorraine Tipton, Shannon E. Miller aka Elizabeth Hope Hernandez, Jennifer Herbert aka Jennifer Dotson, Kimberly Wigglesworth, Brannon T. Bridge, Connie Bedwell, Justin Thompson, Loryn Ryder, Cheryl Sosby, Gail Lakritz, L. Wilson, Lisa Jones, Trinity Baker, Diane Gochin aka Diane Rose aka Diane Rostesky, Curtis Butler, Edward Hernandez, Jay Roland, and others.

    Georgia Code Section 13A-11-8: Harassment or harassing communications.

    (a)(1) HARASSMENT. A person commits the crime of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she either:
    a. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him or her to physical contact.
    b. Directs abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture towards another person.
    (2) For purposes of this section, harassment shall include a threat, verbal or nonverbal, made with the intent to carry out the threat, that would cause a reasonable person who is the target of the threat to fear for his or her safety.
    (3) Harassment is a Class C misdemeanor.
    (b)(1) HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS. A person commits the crime of harassing communications if, with intent to harass or alarm another person, he or she does any of the following:
    a. Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of written or electronic communication, in a manner likely to harass or cause alarm.
    b. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication.
    c. Telephones another person and addresses to or about such other person any lewd or obscene words or language.
    Nothing in this section shall apply to legitimate business telephone communications.
    (2) Harassing communications is a Class C misdemeanor.

    Georgia Code Section 16-5-90: Stalking; psychological evaluation:

    (a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms "computer" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term "contact" shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term "place or places" shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.
    Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has). The separated acts that make up the intrusion may not always by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect).
    Internet technology has enabled online groups of anonymous people like this to self-organize to target individuals with online defamation, threats of violence, and technology-based attacks.
    In this case, there seem to be some "professional" stalkers at work. According to online posts, the American Mothers Political Party (a hate group) teamed up several years ago with a group of "Joeys" who operate a hate website at http://joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com.
    They have published lies, doctored photographs, threatened violence, posted sensitive personal information, e-mailed damaging statements to many people, and are manipulating search engines to make damaging material about me more prominent.
    I fear for my safety and the safety of my family. I am in fear of bodily harm to myself and my family, violent injury to my property, and more.
    On February 25, 2013, I filed my second criminal complaint. This named at least 37 people and entities. Included were online aliases such as Ginger Snap, Petunia Pigg, and others.
    My complaint is for stalking, harassment, harassing communications, threats (including death threats or veiled threats of bodily harm by four people).
    There is absolutely no question that these people have followed me online and contacted me online for the purpose of harassing and intimidating me. They have attempted to terrify, threaten, harass, annoy, and offend me with lewd and profane language, lewd and lascivious acts, threats to inflict physical harm, and more.
    Virtually all of the stalking and harassment has been cyberstalking, the use of the Internet and email to stalk and harass me and those acquainted with me.
    The stalking includes the making of false accusations and false statements. These include that I am a pedophile, a pedophile lover, anti-gay, bigoted, a tax evader, a criminal operating a scam, and much more.
    The stalking includes monitoring, as the stalkers claim to be tracking my Internet activity. Some stalkers participate in my online radio talk shows to monitor and/or to disrupt the calls and the online chat. The monitoring includes repeated online posts of libelous, threatening, harassing statements.
    I fear identity theft as they say they have my social security number.
    Many of these perpetrators spend a lot of time gathering information that may be used to harass.
    The stalking is apparently motivated by a desire to control me and interfere with my activities. Their sole goal is to damage me and my charitable efforts.
    The initial cyberstalker was a person who I do not believe I know. He was joined by people I do know and many more who I wouldn't know from Adam. These stalkers have solicited involvement of other people online who do not even know me.
    The libel and slander is truly unbelievable. These stalkers invent one false claim after another. People who I don’t know make statements in writing that have no truth whatsoever and can be easily proven to be false. It’s like they feel they can say anything and get away with it.
    The stalkers have repeatedly violated my privacy rights and copyright by using photos and videos of me that they have no legal right to use. Photographs of me have been doctored. Absolutely sickening videos have been produced about me. The worst is one that has one scene after another of feces – big piles of shit in various settings – and it’s all attacking me.
    They have created fake blogs about me containing defamatory content.
    Internet technology has enabled online groups of anonymous people like this to self-organize to target individuals with online defamation, threats of violence, and technology-based attacks. They have published lies, doctored photographs, threatened violence, posted sensitive personal information, e-mailed damaging statements to many people, and are manipulating search engines to make damaging material about me more prominent.
    It would take a team of people full-time to capture all the stalking and slander. I have 882 megabytes of evidence, but it is a fraction of what is out there.
    Any reasonable person in possession of this information would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.
    I have massive civil charges that I intend to bring against these folks.
    I say to all of the people cybertsalking me, slandering me, libeling me, defaming me, etc., CEASE AND DESIST. I consider your actions to be both criminal and civil violations, and I intend to file criminal charges against each of you. I also plan to file a civil action against each of you. And you will be featured in one of two new movies, Slanderella or Slanderfella.

    NOTHING LIKE A DAY WITH THE POLICE, SHERIFFS, AND COURTHOUSE FOLKS.

    policemanstop0004-640wThe highlight of my day was walking into the Temporary Protective Order Office in Marietta, Georgia. A woman looked at me from behind her desk and said, "you look familiar." I looked at her with a puzzled look I would imagine, and then she said, aren't you Lawless America?" Her officemate, Kylee Elliott, also knew Lawless America. I thought that was pretty cool. I have had people recognize me in the strangest of places.

    It's always frustrating when you have to spend time in those kinds of places. Lots of to-ing and fro-ing. I did manage to file a criminal complaint against 37 people/entities for stalking and related harassment and threats. I now have a case number and know what I need to do where these folks live. The police requested a DVD of my evidence, hate videos, downloads of hate websites, etc., and I will deliver that to them tomorrow.

    Hope springs eternal that law enforcement will do something, but one young officer talked about a call he had just been on where someone defecated in someone's driveway. He seemed more interested in that than the hate video about me with mountains of feces. These guys almost always at least start with an arrogant attitude. I had to call him on it, and he finally took that face off and was a very genuine, likable person underneath.

    Now it's over to the FBI. That's always SO PRODUCTIVE. :-(

    What if you are Cyberstalked?

    Ask the person or persons to cease and desist. This is especially important if libel and slander is involved. Check your state statutes as asking folks to stop and issue a retraction may be required in your state.
    If you are receieving unsolicited emails, reply with CEASE AND DESIST notice. As soon as it is violated, reply with another CEASE AND DESIST inside an email that you send to the person's email service provider. It is against the policies of email service providers to allow unsolicited emails. You should check the email service provider's website for their procedures for abuse complaints. You may be able to cause the stalker to lose their email account.
    If you are stalked on Facebook, file reports.
    And keep records of everything. If you don't have a program to make screenshots easy, get one. There are free programs available online. We use one that was purchased called Snagit. I keep it minimized, and when I need a screenshot, I click on the icon, and then I capture the page with a few clicks.
    Move quickly as stalkers will often realize they stepped over a line, and they will delete their posts.
    If you are being stalked, libeled, slandered, and harassed by websites, get a service that will regularly copy and download the entire site. We use www.cloudpreservation.com. You can also accomplish a lot of this yourself using Adobe Acrobat.
    Know how to capture the IP addresses of people who stalk you by email. With Outlook 10, I open an email, click File > Properties, and a window opens that shows the email header. In that data is a spot that identifies the originating IP.
    To block people from following your Internet activity, a program such as HideMyAss works great. That's what we use.


    William M. Windsor

    I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.


    Last Updated on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 22:50

    Comments

    #4Allie Overstreet2013-03-02 14:56