Knowing or should have known fall under this rule, as it implies that there is an owed duty of care from one individual or entity to another. For instance, if a hazard led to an accident and the manager knew or should have known about the hazard, it creates liability for the accident.

The premised can be abused as a racket, asserting someonie needs a racketeering layer of protector-agents when the protector-agents merely positioned themselves as predatory entanglements.

Targeting disabilities including stygmas as entrance point to creating a special victim, such as an over 60 status to assert the fault of nearness to scantily clad younger women should be assessed as the fault of over 60.

Stigma as a barrier to employment: mental disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Teresa L Scheid ¹

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 16112732
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2005.04.003

Abstract

In a controversial expansion of workplace civil rights, the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) extended anti-discrimination protection to individuals with “mental impairments.” One of the most critical barriers to the employment of individuals with mental disabilities is the degree of social stigma such disabilities incur, and there is compelling evidence that employers have stigmatizing attitudes and have discriminated against those with mental disabilities. This study examines the role played by stigma in employers’ response to the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA). A stratified sample of one hundred ninety employers were surveyed in 1996-1997 in a major Southern metropolitan area. Telephone interviews were completed with one hundred seventeen employers (response rate of 61.6%). The article describes employers’ experiences with employees with mental disabilities and accommodations, specific employment practices, and attitudes towards those with mental disabilities. Stigma played an important role in conformity to the ADA (operationalized as either hiring or having specific recruiting policies for hiring individuals with mental disabilities). Furthermore, employers expressing coercive (fear of a lawsuit) as opposed to normative (belief that it is the right thing to do) rationales for compliance were more likely to hold stigmatized attitudes. Employers’ beliefs about mental disability form a crucial foundation for truly supportive work environments (those that value difference and diversity), and further research is needed to determine if over time the ADA is successful in changing attitudes as well as behavior.

What Is Disability Stigma?

The word stigma comes from the Greek word for “mark.” Generally, stigma is a negative set of beliefs about people with specific characteristics. For example, ethnic or sexual minorities, or people with unusual facial appearance may encounter stigma.

People with disabilities have been stigmatized throughout history. In many cultures, disability has been associated with curses, disease, dependence, and helplessness. Disability stigma can play out in a number of ways, including:

• Social Avoidance – People with disabilities may be left out of social activities, or they may find that friends become more distant after they develop a disability. People may be hesitant to make eye contact or start a conversation with someone who has a visible disability.
• Stereotyping – People with disabilities may be presumed to be helpless, unable to care for themselves, or unable to make their own decisions. People with one disability, such as a speech impairment, may be presumed to have other disabilities they don’t have, such as an intellectual disability.
• Discrimination – People with disabilities may be denied jobs, housing, or other opportunities due to false assumptions or stereotypes about disabilities. This still occurs today, despite disability rights laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• Condescension – People with disabilities may be coddled or over-protected due to perceptions of their helplessness.
• Blaming – People may be blamed for their disability, or accused of using their disability to gain unfair benefits.
• Internalization – People with disabilities may themselves adopt negative beliefs about their disability and feel ashamed or embarrassed about it.
• Hate Crimes and Violence – People with disabilities may be targeted in hate crimes. They are more likely to be victims of physical or sexual violence than people without disabilities.

Uses of poor grammar to assert mental incompetence is one of them espically in draft or ongoing work.

Use of methods of deceit such as staged encounters, trying to get words spoken thought they have a secondary ambigous meaning that will be fraudulently constructed, acts that represent the manufacture of fraudulent outcomes by manufacturing fact not true.

When acts of fraud or bunko are used the party knew or should have known against avoiding clarity. Often “known” is proved when the person creating the fraudulent element relies upon a conspiratorial act, an alternative explanation of the fraudulent conduct that can be used to avoid direct confrontation on the real fraudulent conduct.

Refusing to correct fraudelent records, asserted facts, meanings, or activties. Being a profiteer on the outcome of fraud are all in legal traditions proof of criminal intent in fraud.

Creating harmfull situations facilitating access of criminals to the victim, such as conspiracy against my housing and secure common areas within housing properties.

I have not looked this over closely in terms of jurisidiction of law or exact meaning but the giest of it is correct.

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The “defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute.” United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

The word “defraud” in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff’d, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

As a general rule I am said to be incompetent and making mentally incompetent assertions (if you were to ask Government Social Services) that a Behavioral Health is operating a State-Actors-Involved Racket.

The non believability of me undermines my assertions, and that is depended upon and created as a context by the fraudsters.

The very act of calling my assertions of Gov misconduct a mental health issue (at least 30 times) is use of retaliation against the speech of asserting misconduct by others, retalation by the State in violation of 14th Amendment and I continue to assert illegal retaliation for my police and other reports.