U.S. Center for Safe Sport, authorized by Title II of Senate 534 Law, is another potential layer of obstruction and bias between states’ jurisdiction of Child Welfare and Protection and Law Enforcement.
U.S. Center for Safe Sport authorized by Title II of Senate 534 Law lacks the Sovereignty for Sovereign Authority of Child Safety and guardiahship of Children.
Like all the other imposed layers in the past of potential obstruction and bias, ‘A thorn by any other name is still a thorn’.
- “States have Sovereign Authority for Child Welfare”
- “Each state, Parens Patriae, is sovereign, in its role as guardian of Children”
- S. Center for Safe Sport does not have the Sovereignty (2) “to exercise jurisdiction with regard to safeguarding amateur athletes against abuse, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, in sports“
- Not have Sovereignty (4) “to implement reporting, investigation, and resolution actions, pursuant to subsection (c), of alleged sexual abuse
We the people, in each United State, are ruled by 2 Governments:
- State and 2. Federal
- For each State Law, the U.S. Government does not have a similar Federal Law; and vice versa; therefore, there should be on conflict between the 2
- Each Law of either is established for a different function and objective
- Together the 2 make one complete Government with different Sovereignties, a dualistic nature, for protection the United States of people.
- “The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but the rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those the citizen has under the other”
- Citizens owe allegiance-to and have protection-from both the State and Federal governments
- Citizens voluntarily submitted to our 2 Sovereignties form of Government, when our great country was founded,
- and cannot legally object or rule otherwise. [The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: 1875 U.S. v Cruikshank]
There have been many obstacles, layers of bias and interfearence, in the way of reporting, investigation and litigaion of Child Physical and Psychological Maltreatment, Sexual Abuse, Neglect and Child Human Rights Violations cases; examples follow.
1. Attorney proceeding of Child Abuse and Neglect cases have not meet quality standards, according to the American Bar Association.
“BE IT RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association encourages individual attorneys and state and local bar organizations to work more actively to improve the handling of cases involving abused and neglected children as well as children in foster care.
Specifically, attorneys should form appropriate committees and groups within the bar to … work to assure quality legal representation for children.”
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN (NACC) Recommendations for Representation of Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “The lack of standards of practice or guidelines for attorneys representing children in child protection proceedings has frequently been cited as a major cause of substandard and ineffective legal representation of children.
2. The Surgeon General, also Identified Many Systems in Crisis, that do not fulfill Public Health Standards and Practices reporting, investigation and litigaion of Child Physical, Psychological Maltreatment, Sexual Abuse and Neglect cases; examples follow.
SURGEON GENERAL 2005 DECLARED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION NATIONAL PRIORITY FOR ALL TYPES AND VENUES OF CHILD ABUSE
• In Every Venue, Included Coach Offenders
• SG Recommended a Prevention Method: The Implementation of Public Health Innovations. This website is one of many Public Health Innovations.
Systems in Crisis that do not fulfill Public Health Standards and Practices for Child Protection identified by the Surgeon General and this editor.
• Failure Doctor Reporting
• Criminal Justice System – Failure Enforcement of Child Protective Laws for Athletes
• Failure of Public Health
• Social and Child Welfare Services
• Education / Awareness services
• Failure of Doctors To increase Awareness and Education about Child Athlete Abuse Syndrome
• Failure of Doctors To Intervene: When Coaches Exercise and Punish Athletes Beyond Physical and Emotional Limitations
• Substandard Sports Medicine: Some Sports Medicine Doctors Have Sold Their Souls To Coaches. They Don’t Take Helmets, Sneakers rather allow Athletes to participate in sports while injured
• Failure Coach Education by High School and University Athletic Associations Concerning Child and Youth Athlete Protection Law
• Coaches and others were targeted as potential Abusers and Perpetrators by SG [Surgeon General’s Workshop on Making Prevention of Child Maltreatment a National Priority: Implementing Innovations of a Public Health Approach, Surgeon General’s Workshop Proceedings, Lister Hill Auditorium, National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, Maryland. March 30–31, 2005. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Surgeon General]
3. It is no secret that innumerable organizations, associations and religions have interposed themselves as layers between the duty of everyone for Child Protection and Law Enforcement. They have declared themselves omnipotent police, judges and juries i.e. religions, sports associations and federations, Olympics, colleges, universities, corporations, businesses, governmental agencies, to name a few,
Laws for Reporting Child Abuse, includig Child Athlete Abuse, have been on the books since passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), most recetnely reauathorized in 2010.
4. “Between 1984 and 1997, 29 states and the District of Columbia adopted legislation providing some immunity from civil suits to all volunteers (see Table 1 and the Appendix). Others protect only specific volunteer categories, such as firefighters, coaches, mediators, or librarians.
“Congress enacted the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act (VPA), which provided immunity for volunteers in states without immunity laws.1 [ 1. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. §§ 14501–14505. [Horwitz, Jill R., co-author]
The Coach Immunity Bill Becames Law, as reported in the Phila. Daily News, May 13, 1986, for general discussion of little league liability. [“Letting Good Deeds Go Unpunished: Volunteer Immunity Laws and Tort Deterrence.” J. Mead, co-author. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 6, no. 3 (2009): 585-635]
Kentuckky passed KRS 411.200 Immunity from civil liability of officer, director or trustee of nonprofit organization. Any person who serves as a director, officer, volunteer or trustee of a nonprofit organization qualified as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as from time to time amended, and who is not compensated for such services on a salary or prorated equivalent basis, shall be immune from civil liability for any act or omission resulting in damage or injury occurring on or after July 15, 1988, if such person was acting in good faith and within the scope of his official functions and duties, unless such damage or injury was caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such person.
Most states passed law so that no person in the state’s jurisdiction could file an action against any volunteer, athletic coach, manager, athletic trainer, team volunteer, health care provider, or sports team official for loss or damage, a civil suit, caused by an act or omission relating to the volunteer’s responsibilities while participating in the sporting activity or in the practice of the activity.
During that era, many assumed, including many in the justice system, all School and Non-School Amateur Sports, Recreation and Exercise volunteers and even compensated personnel, were immune not only for civil, but criminal malbehaviors. Win-At-All-Costs-to-Athletes, no holds barred, by Coaches, parents, doctors and the entire Athletic Community flourished and continues to prosper to this day.
This editor witnessed a trial for Wrongful Death of a 15 year old Athlete, which was tried based on high school athletic association rules for playing the game, as the laws of the case, which did not meet quality legal standards, resulting in an acquital, which was a tragic injustice, rather than litigate the wrongful death based on official Child Athlete Maltreatment and/or death of a human due to negligence, or death with intent to cause harm criminal laws.
5. U.S. Center for Safe Sport, authorized by Title II of Senate 534 Law, is another potential layer of obstruction and bias between states’ jurisdiction of Child Welfare and Protection and Law Enforcement. The new law is on the books.
a. Its $1 million/year budget must be included in the national budget
b. Must survive a potential soverignty test by the Supreme Court:
The Abrogation Doctrine simplified: “In constitutional law, the Abrogation Doctrine refers to the power of Congress to revoke a state’s sovereign immunity and authorize suits against that state. [Legal Information Lawsuit, Cornell Law School]
Abrogation Etymology: “abolish by authoritative act, repeal,” 1520s, from Latin abrogatus, past participle of abrogare “to annul, repeal (a law),” from ab “off, away from” (see ab-) + rogare “propose (a law), ask, request,” apparently a figurative use of a PIE verb meaning literally “to stretch out (the hand),” from root *reg-“move in a straight line.” Form abrogen, from Old French abroger, is recorded from early 15c. [Etymology Dictionary online]
Abrogation Doctirne detailed: “All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent,
“In Supreme Court cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal.
The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here. A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith.
“The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will.
“To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable. (The Federalist Papers: No. 81)
“However, the U.S. Congress and the SCOTUS have established that the 14th Amendment, passed subsequent to the 11th Amendment, so limits the 11th. Respondents do not have immunity from Original Jurisdiction suit before this Court. “The Eleventh Amendment does not bar … the principle of state sovereignty … limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, … the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority.”…”The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States, and they are to a degree restrictions of State power. … Congress is empowered to enforce, and to enforce against State action, however put forth, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial. Such enforcement is no invasion of State sovereignty. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 446 96 S. Ct. 2666, 49 L. Ed. 2d 614 
“The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state’s sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented (i.e., to “abrogate” their immunity to such suits).
“In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress’s authority, under Article One of the United States Constitution, could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. However, the Congress can authorize lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual U.S. states when it acts pursuant to powers delegated to it by amendments subsequent to the Eleventh Amendment. This is most frequently done pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows the Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states and thus overrides states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.
“The doctrine was first announced by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). Bitzer “continued the line of reasoning that Rehnquist had acknowledged in Fry v. United States … that cases involving Congress’ authority under Section 5 present different problems than cases involving the Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.”
“The doctrine has since developed a number of nuances and limitations. In particular, later cases explained that the Court would not infer Congressional intent to abrogate sovereign immunity, but would only uphold abrogations where the Congress has “unequivocally express[ed] its intention to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states in federal court.” In order to do this, the Congress must “mak[e] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985).
“Another limitation that the courts have read into Congressional power to abrogate is the “congruence and proportionality” test, first discussed in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Because the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to take “appropriate” action to enforce rights, the Court has determined that such action must be congruent and proportional to the deprivation of the right that the Congress is seeking to remedy.
“An example of a case where an act of the Congress failed the Boerne test is Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). An example where an act passed the Boerne test is Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003).
- [Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (state sovereign immunity not implicated by the exercise of in rem jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts established under Article I’s Bankruptcy Clause)] 2. [R. Colker & J. Scott, Rehnquist & Federalism: an Empirical Perspective in C. Bradley, THE REHNQUIST LEGACY, 279
Many groups have portrayed themselves the ‘final word’ concerning abnormal maltreatment and abusive behaviors and Athletes, Parents and the Athletlic Community have believed them.
The Promotion of Closed Sports Societies, closed organizations, associations and religions that want to be impervious to the Rules of Law, function freely without outside intervention and govern themselves, have hindered the conduct of states’ rights, soveringry and jurisdictions for Child Welfare and protection .
As Dr. Edwin R. Guise and Dr. Richard M. Ball said in 1981 “Socially Approved Athletic Child Abuse” and “Battered-Child-Athlete-Syndrome” were illegal and remain so today.
Retired Secretary Condoleezza Rice said, “No Sports is a nation unto their own, immune from outside interference by the justice system. No one and no Sport are above the law”.
All U.S. citizens serve the Rule of Law.
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act is a United States law (codified at 36 U.S.C. Sec. 220501 et seq. of the United States Code) is not relevant to this subject per se.
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act charters and grants monopoly status to the United States Olympic Committee, and specifies requirements for its member national governing bodies for individual sports. It is a revision of the previous Amateur Sports Act of 1978 that reflects changes such as the fact that amateurism is no longer a requirement for competing in most international sports, expansion of the USOC’s role to include the Paralympic Games, increased athlete representation, and protection of the USOC against lawsuits involving athletes’ right to participate in the Olympic Games.
“Senate Bill 2119 would make the following primary changes to the 1978 Act. (1) The title of the underlying law would be changed to the ‘‘Olympic and Amateur Sports Act’’ to reflect the participation of professional as well as amateur athletes in the Olympic games. [105th Congress Senate 2d Session REPORT 1998 105–325 Calendar No. 567 OLYMPIC AND AMATEUR SPORTS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998]
[Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. “Jimmy Carter: “Amateur Sports Act of 1978 Statement on Signing S. 2727 Into Law. ,” November 8, 1978″. The American Presidency Project. University of California – Santa Barbara.] [36 U.S.C. § 220501] [36 U.S.C. § 220506]