maddogs hideaway

James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights into Congress, later said:  “The press has been the beneficent source to which the United States owes much  of the light which conducted us to the ranks of a free and independent nation”  (my book, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance,” Seven  Stories Press, 2004).

But now, with the continuous, instantly accessible flood of information on  the Web, in print, on blogs, in social media, et al., crucial developments  concerning our most basic personal rights and liberties are often covered  minutely, if at all.

The court’s judgment in Millbrook could start to end the immunity of many law  enforcement officials who permit the violations of citizens’ constitutional  rights. These violations may include assault and other harsh treatment of people  in the custody of government enforcement agents, such as prison guards.

Herewith are the brutal facts of Kim Lee Millbrook’s case as retold by John  W. Whitehead, who directs the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute.  Whitehead submitted an amicus brief supporting Millbrook before the Supreme  Court. (If President Madison were still with us, Whitehead would be receiving  the Medal of Freedom.)

Whitehead notes that while Millbrook was “serving a 31-year sentence,  reportedly for drug and gun-related charges along with witness intimidation,” he  was “transferred to a high-security federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa.”  (“Millbrook v. U.S.: Holding the Government Accountable for Misconduct by Law  Enforcement Officials,” John W. Whitehead, rutherford.org, April 1)

A few days after his arrival to Lewisburg, Millbrook got into a fight with  his cellmate, and they were both put in “a shower area.

“Then, according to Millbrook, three prison guards escorted him to the  basement holding-cell area, where one guard choked him until he almost lost  consciousness and a second guard made Millbrook perform oral sex on him, while a  third guard stood watch by the door. Conveniently, no video cameras were  monitoring the basement at the time of the alleged assault.”

Whitehead continues: “A non-lawyer relatively well-versed in navigating the  legal system, Millbrook turned to the courts for relief in January 2011, suing  the federal government for $1.5 million in damages for negligence, assault and  battery and requesting a transfer out of the Lewisburg facility.”

When his case came to federal district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of  Appeals, it was decidedly not received sympathetically. The courts decided that  the prison guards could not – as Millbrook claimed – “be held liable under a  provision of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA), which allows individuals to sue  federal law enforcement officials for misconduct.”

Here we come to the core of this case and why the Supreme Court’s unanimous  decision for Millbrook should have been at the top of the news media around the  country. Whitehead cites WNYC reporter Ailsa Chang, who explains why the Supreme  Court stood up for Millbrook as an American citizen:

“Under the law, the government allows itself to be sued when a government  representative commits a tort. A tort is an act done negligently or  intentionally that results in injury to someone.

“However, if the tort was intentional, the law does not allow the lawsuit to  proceed – except in cases where the defendant is a law enforcement  official.”

What?

“And even in those cases,” she goes on, “the federal government can be liable  only if the officer was acting ‘within the scope of his office or employment’”  (“High Court Rules U.S. Government Can Be Sued Over Actions of Prison Guards,”  Ailsa Chang, npr.org, March 27).

When a prison guard forces a prisoner to commit oral sex on him, is that  within the scope of his employment? If not, what else can the guard do without  punishment?

The federal district court and the 3rd Circuit, explains Whitehead, dismissed  Millbrook’s case on the grounds that “although an egregious wrong may have been  committed by a government employee, they cannot be held liable for money damages  for their behavior.

“Specifically, the courts reasoned that the FTCA only applies to ‘police  officers’ while they are in the process of making an arrest or seizure, or  executing a search.”

Because those three prison guards were doing none of those things, Millbrook  was told, in effect, he had no case. But he disagreed. Adding to the uniqueness  of this case, Millbrook, Whitehead reports, “filed a handwritten petition, in  pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

And on March 27, the Supreme Court, remanding the case, made Millbrook a  citizen again, declaring that the law extends to “acts or omissions of law  enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless  of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement  activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest.”

It should be noted that Justice Thomas has a fair civil liberties record,  except when it comes to prisons; but he did a somersault in this case.

Whitehead summarizes: “Hopefully, the Supreme Court’s ruling … will send a  strong message to the government’s various law enforcement agencies that they  need to do a better job of policing their employees – whether they’re police  officers or prison guards” (“Victory: Unanimous Supreme Court Rules That  Citizens Can Hold Federal Government Liable for Abuse by Law Enforcement  Officers (Police, Prison Guards),” www.rutherford.org, March 28).

The media could help if they’d wake up and tell Americans what happened in  the case of citizen Millbrook.

Meanwhile, now that the Supreme Court has permitted Millbrook to resume his  case against the government for damages, I wish him well. Of course, it would  also help if former constitutional law professor Barack Obama spoke out about  this case.