I know that for those with limited knowledge of the law, much like myself, it can be hard to understand the court documents in my case and what is filed in response to them. All that I can say is take the time to understand the basics and, like any other field, gain an understanding of the vocabulary.
One of the reasons that we have asked (and continue to ask) law schools and law reviews everywhere to consider my case for study, is the complexities, so know you aren’t alone in having questions and wanting answers.
The argument that I have not, over the years, shown “due diligence” is a failing effort by those that can’t cover up the horrible violations of the constitution that leave us where we are now. In the process of trying to explain part of the law, I am forced to try and explain it in broad terms and, to do that, I will be relying on other means and people.
If I do not give you the context by which to consider the words used and how, then it is like asking you to understand a foreign word that has no English equivalent. Bare with me, I want and need you to understand and, in the process, you will either agree or not with circumstances as you see them.
Upon searching for “due diligence”, Black’s Law Dictionary, a dictionary specifically used to look up words used in the law, tells one to see “Diligence.” Diligence is defined as the following:
“vigilant activity; attentiveness or care, of which there are infinite shades, from the slightest momentary thought to the most vigilant anxiety. Attentive and persistent in doing a thing; steadily applied active; sedulous; laborious; unremitting; untiring. The attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence.”
There are of course different degrees of diligence and their corresponding degrees of negligence, but let us limit our search here to what is needed to grasp the meaning of what is before us.
You have seen what diligence is and now I will define its opposite, again using Black’s Dictionary to ensure both are adequately explained. As you consider if we have been due diligent, I ask that you consider how many on the other side were negligent in doing their job.
“Negligence” is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; it is a departure from the conduct expectable of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances.
In the current case, involving Judge Walls’ manipulation of the legal system to protect his pedophile son and those that enabled his molestation of hundreds of children, you might consider gross negligence, imputed negligence, negligence in law, and lastly, wilful, wanton or reckless negligence of their actions.
I bring these words to your attention in an effort to ask for your consideration, because in saying that I have not been diligent is to say that I was negligent. If I have been negligent, I have not done what a “reasonable man guided by ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do.”
Is it your belief that someone that had endured what I had, severely abused for a decade sexually and mentally, would be able to do what one who hadn’t could? Is the psychological evidence in countless studies enough to show you that children that are abused and used grow up with distorted thinking, misguided motivations, and reasoning that suggest altered logic?
After enduring a decade of molestations, rapes, forced deviant sexual behaviors with others, being forced to endure being hunched by a dog to discipline me, is it reasonable to imagine what I suffered both mentally and emotionally? Does any of that sound ordinary to you?
It is our experiences that offer us context by which to make decisions, so what kind of rational ability would you possess in that situation?
If the abuse, trauma, witnessing my family dying, and being sent to prison for life deprived me of the “ordinary considerations” standard mentioned in the definition of negligence, how could I be diligent without outside assistance?
“Due diligence” is such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent man under the particular circumstances, not measured by any absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special case. Based on Black Law’s definition, would you say that my case would offer the special circumstances that would make it extremely difficult for me to be able to get what so many worked to deny and destroy?
As a victim of a decade of abuse, denied the counseling that the other victims got, how would I have timely grasped and overcome the abuse to objectively present arguments before a court? In prison, where the psychologist didn’t believe child sexual abuse caused any long term effects (see the transcript of Dr. Moneypenny), where men sought to dominate and use one another sexually, I was expected to ignore all that and be able to function on a level no other victim could.
The court and Attorney General have suggested that as a victim of severe sexual abuse, I should know my own experiences and be able to present them more timely for consideration. Sadly, this contradicts their own beliefs in the need for child advocacy centers, because they exist to enable children to process and talk about their experiences without them being re-victimized in the process. It also goes against the need for any woman to need professional help working through a rape, because as an adult she should be able to share it in a way that informs the court of the crimes, right?
What of men in prison that are raped, who endure things that violate their whole sense of self, and the resulting mental impact that has lead to the creation of the PREA Act being passed? Is it reasonable to expect all those victims to become survivors without outside therapy and counsel, or believe that they could face their abusers in court to discuss what happened to them?
I suffer the mental and physical symptoms of PTSD every time I write about and share what we endured at the hands of Charles “Jack” Walls, III. It literally throws my system into shock, makes me physically sick, causes nightmares and ruminations, forces me to doubt and distrust others’ intentions and motives, and it takes weeks sometimes just to work my way through that.
The truth is that a group of individuals with connections to the Walls family did everything in their power to keep me from presenting a timely appeal to the courts. If it hadn’t been for the investigative excellence of Samantha Jones, offering to take documents and listen in confidence, we would have only gotten a portion of what was gathered, if anything at all.
People still fear the power and influence of the Walls family, the secrets that Judge Walls gathered, the secrets that Jack Walls helped create, and over 20 years later people fear sharing the truth. Why? Did law enforcement fail to investigate for decades for favor? Did the prosecuting attorney’s office fail to lead investigations to maintain their position for reelection?
You might consider if maybe this isn’t about due diligence, but diligence that is now due from all those that failed to offer it. I was not trained in the law or psychology, but it doesn’t take a professional to see that many failed to be diligent to the truth, law, and society.
@hopeforheath Tweet me!!
heathstocks.info Research me!!
email@example.com Email me!!
(see Testimony of Dr. Moneypenny at the trial of Damian Echols of the West Memphis Three.)