Movie Treatment 1823 (Private Property)

paul dewitt goree
‏ @paulgoree2016
Working on movie treatment, (I want to ruin the copyright by Twitter Internet-seeming it's American Public Domain). treatment is titled 1823 (Private Property). Regarding gentleman from North Carolina and his business of run away slaves. The great thing about the gentleman from the great state of North Carolina is that he is a fair gentleman-in that, he would let any freedom paper holding negro know, that if they are not more protective of their papers, they will be destroyed and he will proceed in capturing them-Thus be careful.

Unfortunately our North Carolina gentleman peers plot against him and poison his whiskey, by which he slips into a daze of coma and arrives in the INTERIM 2015 North Carolina. He then proceeds with his rhetorical claim with the bill of purchase and the new paper announcement from 1823 declaring him the owner of run away slave....NAME LISTED...who really is another American citizen who has no ideal of the search the time traveling slave broker is going to pursue in the 21st century. https://www.mountvernon.org/…/the-only-unavoidable-subject…/ …

2017 Time Is Slipping Away : Margaret Finn Compliant

This is a 4 year, in progress review of incidences that occurred between Margaret Finn at South West Behavioral Service and I.  The question of neglect still lingers regarding Margaret Finn. It has become my life purpose to let time be the determinate in the decision, by which Mrs. Finn was negligent and failed to realize her actions set a very dangerous precedence by which I and other clients under her management: could be judged upon the negligence of her failed actions. As a professional she is required to up hold all of the codes of ethics that protect an individual citizen and thus provides a secure environment within the society. Her role as a case manager is pivotal to strength based societal interaction. Seeming Mrs. Finn works within the Behavioral Treatment field, it is even more pivotal that she upholds the highest standards of decent human behavior. To lie, deceive, misinform or to lead a client into false representation would be detrimental to the entire society. The are incidences which occurred while I was under Mrs. Finn client, as she was employed at South West Behavioral Service. It must be pointed out, that at no time was I a direct client of South West Behavior Services. I was a quasi client, receiving housing through a HUD categorical grant.

Case Manager Neglect: The Importance of Civil Liberties: 

http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2015/02/case-manager-neglect-importance-of.html 

...May 2013- Mrs. Finn failed to acknowledge the private property rights of Mr. Goree. All Americans have the right to the TOTAL ownership of their private property and purchases. It is irrelevant if the private property is .10 cent lollipop or $80,000.00 car. If we allow these minute variances become non-acknowledge, then we contribute to our nations decline. My paid invoice from COX Communication guarantee ownership, by which I am the only person who can delegate usage, sale, or transfers: Not Mrs. Finn...

  

Case Manager's Violating Civil Liberties. 

http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2015/02/case-managers-violating-civil-liberties.html 

Regarding the 5th Amendment and the rights of private property. How can Margaret Finn and Johnny Juan Garcia validate their actions as reputable case managers, seeming they both have violated a client’s (a U.S. citizens) civil liberties.  This question is important; we can not have case managers violating the Federal Civil Liberties granted to us through the Bill of Rights and Constitutions.  These action cause more stress upon an individual and prevent an individual from pursuing life and happiness..I established a Cox Communication account September 2012. This account was exclusively for Wi-Fi use....

 

PERSON – ENVIRONMENT and CASE WORKER NEGLECT

https://paulgoree.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/person-environment-and-case-worker-neglect/ 

 Some never realize or maybe simple refuse to recognize the emotional damage they have placed upon another person, with their unethical neglect. And so the victim continue to vent. Meanwhile Margaret Finn, continues to not do the human/professional case manager requirement and provide some closure of the events as they occurred. Professional case workers are ethical required to attend to the code of ethics of their profession. When this is not done, and life changing events occur (including duress) they have failed their client, organization, community, and themselves as being one to encourage, empower and assist.

 Margaret Finn of South West Behavioral Services, LIES about Phoenix Police Department. 

 http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2015/08/margret-finn-of-south-west-behavioral.html

November 2012, Margaret Finn’s clients Paul Goree and Angel Thurman had an incident with the Phoenix Police Department. Client Angel Thurman called 911, and made a complaint against client Paul Goree. The complaint expressed notions that Paul Goree had threaten Angel Thurman with several knives. The 911 dispatched 5 Phoenix Police units to 4802 N 19th Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85015. The police officer after securing the apartment and gathering the report, concluded by providing a CIVIC 101 Lesson of appropriate usage of 911 services to Angel Thurman. The officer then requested the name and phone number of the case manager: Johnny Garcia/Margaret Finn South West Behavioral Services. Finally the officer informed me as he wrote upon his report, that he would be requesting a SEPARATION INTERVENTION, seeming he had concluded that Thurman and Goree’s living arrangement was not going to be practical: and would only result in repeat incidences.

 

 

 

 

 

American Citizen Vs. American Citizen: State of the USA

AMERICAN CITIZEN VS. AMERICAN CITIZEN: STATE OF THE USA

On the subject of citizen verse citizen relationships and Civil Liberties. Sunday an event occur in Los Angeles. It was the kind of event that happens everyday across the nation, but as I watched it unfold, I perceived it as the ripping of the nations-citizen against citizen. Early in the morning at a non-profit faith based breakfast gathering, an individual approached me and explained that his suitcase had been stolen. His suitcase is his livelihood seeming he is a independent sales person and had his inventory in his suitcase. He was in rage about the theft and began to curse God as being ineffective in assisting him. It was awkward for me, seeming as he approached I was praising God, with internal dialogues and thoughts from 2008 Youtube posting Sunrise by Yearsayer https://youtu.be/Wr9KUkiaJlc  and 2012 Youtube posting Pueblo De Jah by Tribo De Jah https://youtu.be/UMEhPqqp30A

So this individual approached me venting disdain for God and his personal anger, not even realizing that he was infringing upon my very blessed disposition at that very moment. Sunday was my birthday and I was just feeling really thankful to God and life in general. Until this individual approached. With his approach, my response seemed to not support him (and it never will) and I jokingly generalized his events (the theft of his suitcase) as personal and a physical reality issue: which should not be associated with a spiritual issue such as God. It's cool if you want to vent, but I can't relate at this moment and I didn't feel it necessary to explain. In our day to day life, we might be confused as if we must attend to all as to assist and be a shoulder to cry upon. But as I have presented thus far, at what point does one let someone else wooos, infringe upon their disposition. Should I jump off the edge with him and curse God also. Of course not and why should I feel guilt that he believes I should be...empathetic to his purpose, which is in direct contradiction than mine. People intentional try to bring a person down- the old statement, "MISERY LOVE COMPANY" is true.

This individual escalated the event, by getting a cup of coffee and throwing it outwardly upon the ground. As he did this the coffee seemed to have fallen upon another individuals car. The owner of the car, expressed his concerns about the coffee and it POSSIBLY hitting his car. At that point another by stander shouted out, "don't tell him not to vent, he has a right to vent!" This was alerting to me, seeming it is what I always express to all, but worded differently. I always express. "Never tell an AMERICAN to shut up because you are infringing upon their 1st Amendment right and also desensitizing the Bill of Rights!" 

When the individual who tossed the coffee as he was venting about God, probed me on the events, I told him I have an issue: for where he believes he has a first amendment right to vent and although I don't have to accept it, I should be empathetic. I informed him that I perceive that you do have a 1st Amendment right and I DO NOT have to attend to it. You can vent all you want  and express what ever you want and I DO NOT have to give any of my time, emotion, devotion or empathy to your expressed reasons. 

But what is more important is you are over looking the rights of the individual who owns the car. He used his 1st Amendment right to express to you, concern about you tossing coffee upon the ground, near his car and almost getting it on his car. Don't you see he was probing his 5th Amendment right of private property and you simply override his intent. Then you escalated it even further by getting a "quasi non-profit personal" from another agency to get involved as an authority - by which that quasi non-profit personal, suggested verbally to the car owner, that he APOLOGIZE to you to resolve the situation. And you expect me to have empathy for you. As I see it you are an ENERGY SUCKER! I walked away from the individual hoping he understand, stay away from me.

So a overview we have citizen against citizen, then a quasi non-profit personal acting on behave of an official, suggests verbally that one citizen apologize to another citizen: as if one citizen is correct and has a RIGHT! This is that state of America today! DESENSITIZED to their rights and entitlement of them. 

Case Manager Neglect: The Importance of Civil Liberties

CASE MANAGER NEGLECT: THE IMPORTANCE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

We the people, of the nation for the people by the people: Value the guarantee of security, found in our civil liberties. These liberties are rooted in the Bill of Rights. They insure that as a citizen of the United States of America no individual or organizations can violate our pursuit of happiness and life!!! Yet case managers like Margret Finn and Johnny Juan Garcia from South West Behavioral Services, have proven these liberties NO LONGER have any weight or security. This passive move of theirs, is being done at a time when our nation is defending us AMERICANS from terrorist. Yet their actions are slowly eroding the core values by which we are subject to a desensitized understanding and acceptance of our rights. I can not and will not let this ordeal be sweep under the rug:because no matter what the out come is-my AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES WILL NOT BE VIOLATED AND GO UNATTENDED!

Margret Finn
South West Behavioral Services
Violated 5th Amendment of Paul Goree (May 2013)

May 2013- Mrs. Finn failed to acknowledge the private property rights of Mr. Goree. All Americans have the right to the TOTAL ownership of their private property and purchases. It is irrelevant if the private property is .10 cent lollipop or $80,000.00 car. If we allow these minute variances become non-acknowledge, then we contribute to our nations decline. My paid invoice from COX Communication gurantees ownership, by which I am the only person who can delegate usage, sale, or transfers: Not Mrs. Finn.

http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2015/02/case-managers-violating-civil-liberties.html

Johnny Juan Garcia
South West Behavioral Services
Violated 4th Amendment of Paul Goree and Guest (June 2013)

June 2013- Mr. Garcia failed to acknowledge that residency privacy is a matter of the property owner/management and the public enforcement (local police). The act of entering a private dwelling is not a decision sub contractual agents (such as case managers at South West Behavioral Services) can decided upon their own. The only people who can enter a property is the property owner/management and the local police (with a complaint or warrant). As Mr.Garcia entered my private dwelling, he violated not only my civil liberties, he also violated my guest civil liberties. My guest was a prior tenant, waiting for Mr. Garcia (property management had called Mr. Garcia’s office) to come and unlock the door to his prior apartment so that he could retrieve his personal items. Mr. Garcia to anxious to delegate the law, order him to leave the premises. After which Mr. Garcia called the police, who upon their arrival informed Mr.Garcia not to continue informing me of who and who can not be in this apartment: other wise he would be violating my civil liberties.

http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2015/02/case-managers-violating-civil-liberties.html

ALL AMERICANS have a gurantee of civil liberties, for more information about civil liberties, visit:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html

Case Manager's Violating Civil Liberties.

CASE MANAGERS VIOLATING CIVIL LIBERTIES.

How can Margret Finn and Johnny Juan Garcia validate their actions as reputable case managers, seeming they both have violated a client’s (a U.S. citizens) civil liberties.  This question is important; we can not have case managers violating the Federal Civil Liberties granted to us through the Bill of Rights and Constitutions.  These action cause more stress upon an individual and prevent an individual from pursuing life and happiness.

https://paulgoree.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/person-environment-and-case-worker-neglect/

Margret Finn’s Violation: May 2013

I established a Cox Communication account September 2012. This account was exclusively for Wi-Fi use, so that I could have internet access for my studies at ASU.  Sometime in May 2013, Mrs. Finn’s and Mr. Garcia’s second client (my roommate) established an account at Cox Communication with, his account was for DSL telephone service, and television. He mistakenly did not get the required Wi-Fi service needed to run the DSL telephone.  One day he demanded that I allow him to use my Wi-Fi service. I was using the service for my studies. The signal could not carry both of us, and thus each time he logged on to the DSL service it kicked me off.

Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia were called to resolve. They arrived and Mrs. Finn instructed me that I had to share my Wi-Fi with their second client. How can these case managers instruct me, as to how I needed  to allocate my private property against my will? This is violating my 5th Amendment rights.

Within the 5th Amendment, it is stated..."to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." Considering this clause, it is important that the following is understood, with regards to private property:

1.) The owner's exclusive authority to determine how private property is used.

2.) The owner's peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private property.

3.) The owner's ability to make contracts or decisions to use, sell, rent, or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private property.

(http://americanpolicy.org/2012/11/07/private-property-rights-defined/)

Johnny Juan Garcia’s Violation: June 2013

There was a visitor in my apartment. The visitor was waiting on Mr. Garcia to arrive so that he could retrieve his personal items. Mr. Garcia finally arrived, and provided me with eviction papers from the program. Then Mr. Garcia proceeded to yell at my guest and tell me that I could not have him in the apartment. Mr. Garcia then told us to hang on, as he went to call the police.  Mr. Garcia returned with the Phoenix Police and began to continue his rhetoric , until he was interrupted by the police officer, who informed him,” not to continue…seeming he would be violating my civil liberties.”  She then proceed to speak informing us all that only the property manger and the police can inform a tenant who has to be removed from the property. But by then it was after the fact, seeming Mr. Garcia had already done this.

Within the social services professional organizations exist to attend to the guidelines by which the profession and the employees and clients are helped. The code of conduct exist to prevent case managers such as Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia from violating a clients Civil Liberties and creating PTSD upon individuals and the society.  The Case Manager Society of America is one of these professional organization which serves as such.

CMSA works to help people understand that a case manager’s involvement is instrumental in providing quality health care to patients nationwide. One of CMSA’s goals is to educate people so that everyone in the U.S. understands what a case manager is and where to go to enlist their services. It is important to realize that case managers can be nurses, social workers, mental health professionals, occupational therapists, and professionals from a variety of settings, including government agencies, long-term care facilities, insurance and health maintenance organizations, nonprofits, rehabilitation facilities and other settings.

Case managers devote hours of time, expertise, and dedication to supporting individuals, family members and caregivers who seek their help and intervention. In turn, CMSA helps support case managers with a variety of tools and resources, including its newly revised Standards of Practice for Case Management (http://www.cmsa.org/SOP), its Case Management Model Act (http://www.cmsa.org/PolicyMakers), as well as CMSA’s Annual Conference and Expo. As the health care industry continues to grow in complexity, CMSA is committed to advancing case managers’ profession, emphasizing professional standards, integrity and quality care.

Case Manager Violating 5th Amendment! What is fair and not in America these days?

All the time this discussion was going on, client 2 was in his room, with a few of the strangers who were not interested in what client 1 had to say. A few days following this discussion, client 2 walked into the apartment with equipment he had purchased from Cox Communication. Client 1 had already had an account with Cox Communication for Wi-Fi service only. The account was established September 2012. Client 2 opened a new account in his own name for DSL telephone service (seeming the apartment lacked the stated telephone for emergency calls) and cable television services (the only television was in client 2’s bedroom). In order for the DSL telephone to function, it needed client 1’s Wi-Fi box and service. At first client 1 had no problem with letting client 2 use the service. However on this particular day, client 1 was working on some class work on his blackberry phone, seeming client 2 had stolen his laptop. Client 2 arrived home and went to turn on the DSL, interrupting the Wi-Fi signal of client 1.

 A confrontation resulted, whereby client 1 unplugged the Wi-Fi box and placed it in his room. Client 2 demanded that client 1 plug it back in. Client 1 refused. Client 2 then proceeded to go to the front office of the apartment complex and call the case workers. Client 2 returned and informed client 1 that both case workers were coming over. When the case workers arrived they attempted to resolve the problem. They did not address any of the prior 6 months of neglect and police reports, or the condition of the apartment, the welfare of the clients, simply the issue at hand. Client 2 explained the event, by accusing client 1 of not allowing him to use the cable signal for a telephone call. Client 1 respondent by informing the case managers that the cable signal is not the problem, the problem is that he was in the middle of doing some class work on his private property, with his private account that he had invested over $700 in over the past 10 months with Cox Communication, and that he did not feel he had to attend to Client 2’s disrespectful demand! Client 1 pointed out to the case managers that not only has he let client 2 use the Wi-Fi box, not once did client 2 show any appreciation with a simple thank you. He was upset with client 2’s constant plug in of the DSL box when both clients have cell phones, and that it cost him $75 dollars deposit for the connection to function, by which client 2 didn’t pay one dime. Thus in order for it to be equally shared doesn’t seem possible, seeming client 1 had the main account first and paid the deposit.

 The case workers respondent by urging client 1 to cooperate and let client 2 share the Wi-Fi signal. Client 1 concluded at this point that these two case workers were incompetent and that actions must be taken to have them reviewed.  A temporary agreement was made, which client 2 enjoyed, but client 1 felt was unfair. How could two case manager instruct a client as to how they need to allocate their private property against their will. This was a violation of client 1’s civil liberties (5th Amendment.). Within the 5th Amendment, it is stated..."be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." Considering this clause, it is important that the following is understood, with regards to private property:

1.) The owner's exclusive authority to determine how private property is used.

2.) The owner's peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private property.

3.) The owner's ability to make contracts or decisions to use, sell, rent, or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private property. (Tom Deweese, 2012).