Tort Law that could pertain to the Laurie Klausutis tweets by Trump...and an Unrelated but set of concerns about the Tom Drew missing person case in Ct from 2007
From what I've read online with Yahoo News and NY Times reporting, Twitter allows Trump to tweet freely as a public official because it is important for the world to know what a leader is saying, true, false or otherwise (although not if inciting violence per se.)
That said, the impact of what Trump tweets and is broadcast by QAnon to 80 million followers is not without grounds for lawsuits from others. Here is a quote about Tort Law standards from tne NY Times. ..."Landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision. Under this test — designed to free public debate from being unduly constrained by fear of legal liability — Mr. Scarborough must prove that Mr. Trump made his defamatory comment either with actual knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or false."
Former Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough in 2001 has been the focus of serious allegations by President Trump. Now a broadcaster, Mr. Scarborough has been critical of Trump on programs on MSNBC. Trump alleges the Joe Scarborough may have 'gotten away with murder' of a Congressional staffer Laurie Klausutis even though Scarborough was in DC at the time of her passing.
The cause of death from a fall in his Florida office was deemed linked to her "floppy mitral valve disease." Her widower Tim Klausutis has complained formally to Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter.
Going forward Twitter is tagging some of Trump's tweets as questionable or false with links to other resources.
The overall growing discussion while causing Tim and his family more emotional pain and grief, is one that is waking the country and world up to the 'power of the press' whether true or not.
This arena of allegations in print or played out with news coverage because 'someone said it' or 'something is being done to investigate an allegation' is also grounds for learning about liable suits for defamation of character or another called intentional infliction of emotional distress.
There are many news stories in print and on television or the internet if not explored in books and movies which are based on 'what if' scenarios but presented in ways that the public and others may take as 'more likely than not' or true.
Sometimes there are misprints due to human error and many who 'believe rumors' whether they realize they are rumors or not.
Some situations are more challenging than others to get to the truth about. One such case is if someone goes missing and may not be found due to something else happening or being lost and not found even with extensive search efforts. These are the possiblities that become the basis for more pointed allegations of wrongdoing by one or two caregivers, accidentally or intentionally, or possibly by other people as well, in many articles and a book called Searching for My Missing Father by Allison Drew.
Sprinkled with a variety of facts or references from other situations, the theories she explores mainly as allegations, paints some difficult scenarios for the people who were caring for her father to consider.
With skilled interviewers, people who are lying can be 'caught in the lie' with body language and inconsistencies.
The main regular male caregiver returned from a day away just 15 minutes after Tom Drew left the home. He did not have good recall of the events of the day at a later date. The female fill-in person was consistent in recounting the day's events even months later in a deposition and was believed by skilled police interviewers.
There is a need for a skilled team to interview people who are willing to cooperate readily, as both caregivers did for five hours in search efforts after alerting police.
Likely to not be accused of something one did not due based on misinterpretation, all people should likely consult with an attorney before giving statements to police or even answering questions.
Some youtube.com talks describe how 'things can be turned around' to create 'reasonable doubt' or detain someone, so knowing one's rights is critical in these modern times.
In the Tom Drew case however, that both caregivers were ready to help in any way possible that day and for as much as possible with follow-up interviews.
Those were witnessed by a few police officers could give the public more assurance that there was no foul play regarding their accounts of when he left the home, even without witnessing him exiting a door, likely a back kitchen sliding door.
As explained in the the NY Times regarding the intentional infliction of emotional pain grounds for a tort law action, the courts developed that "precisely to condemn wanton cruelty to another person who suffers emotionally as a result.
This tort is sometimes called “outrage.” In the current case about Trump and Scarborough, the New York Times goes on to explain that this applies to Mr. Trump’s tweets about Ms. Klausutis. "They were intentional and reckless, and were 'extreme and outrageous' without a scintilla of evidence to support them."
Regarding the Tom Drew case of Salisbury CT, Allison Drew bases her severe disbelief of what happened on two people saying that the female fill-in caregiver was indicating that Tom 'wasn't there' earlier in the day or that she wanted help looking for him earlier in the day.
One of those reports came from her daughter and the other from a family member or friend. The fill-in caregiver reports telling her daughter that Mr. Drew 'wasn't there' in terms of not in the room within hearing of the conversation, not that he was not home.
The other person may have simply mixed up their dates of Saturday and Sunday, as Tom went missing around 7:15pm on Saturday night July 21st, 2007. Both caregivers were at the Drew home until 11pm with many people around them.
The fill-in then left and had a deer that brushed up against her car as she was driving home. That left a small dent on her car. She let police know about when asked about that. Allison Drew alleges that the caretaker may have hit her father by mistake in the driveway and then taken him away.
That is one of a half dozen allegations of 'what might have happened.' Those are in contrast to the extensive deposition and other reports and 35 pages of notes shared on the internet discussion.
Those were given on a few occasions even months later regarding the routine events of the day by the fill-in. The day involved the caregiver being in the same room or area or in close contact checking on Tom Drew every ten minutes if apart briefly.
It was during watching a movie in the den, 'Too Young to Marry" when Tom got up to 'get going' which the caregiver thought meant stay right outside the front door on a stone pathway, walking about 10 feet and picking grass out of the stones.
She checked on him a few minutes later but the front door was locked so she thought he went to use the bathroom upstairs even though there was one downstairs.
She waited about five minutes and went to check and realized quickly that he was not upstairs at all.
The panic that set in was immediately high but then for the next few minutes she thought there would be logical place he went, and she found that the sliding door of the kitchen was not locked.
They had spent quite a while on the patio a couple steps down from the kitchen trimming hedges and resting in chairs. So for a moment she thought she'd find him any minute.
But with the remote location with woods at the edge of an expansive lawn, the scene started to take on another level of concern when she couldn't find him anywhere around the house.
After running all through the house again, the other caregiver pulled in down the half-mile hill of a driveway. She ran to the door hoping to hear he had found Tom walking up the drive. But quickly they realized he was not out where they could see him.
They both searched along with a friend that returned with the caregiver, with them going in their car back up the drive to look at the edges which were hilly.
She ran around a large back yard after going to check at a bridge where the caregiver said he found Tom once the month before (but hadn't thought to tell the other caregivers about it since it was just that one time.)
What followed was a report to police to try to get help as soon as possible due to dusk setting in.
There is extensive coverage with many allegations but no one really thinking about how to prevent such situations of someone wandering with community guidelines and networks for checking on people's care and home safety plans.
Locking doors, having gates and fences, keeping a close watch on someone who has dementia, which Tom Drew had in a progressive manner over the prior year yet which both of his daughters insist had nothing to do with his exiting the home and grounds.
That kind of inconsistency is at the foundation for many people not facing what their family, friends, social group or other more public outreach efforts may require in terms of having someone understand they are at risk for wandering, falling, self-harm, driving unsafely or leaving the stove on or not being safe in bathroom (taking a shower or bath and possibly falling and getting hurt on the hard surfaces.)
Tom Drew had lost his balance a time or two and usually did not walk quickly or even go outside much. The kind of variation that a person may have whether due to hearing about others taking hikes (which was one news story that he'd heard from a local paper that day) or movies about going places and doing new things. That was what the movie he was watching entailed in terms of teens going off to college and deciding to get married since only one got into the desired college.
The movie may have made him uncomfortable even though it was not graphic, but again anything that may have factored into him wanting to have his own space in his home or want his regular caregiver back (even though he couldn't recall his name but rather called him 'friend' sometimes according to the deposition he gave.)
Those depositions could be made available to more people to help them plan for safety and guidance for caregivers. Officials have followed up to interview the caregiver watching over Tom Drew that day many years later.
There was one discrepancy regarding whether the caregiver had been paid for about ten nights she stayed 'for free' since she was told by the main caregiver that the family did not want her to be there, but rather to leave Tom home alone.
The family has asserted in the news that they had agreed with the main caregiver to pay the other one $50/night as she had offered rather than an hourly rate.
The fill-in never received payment for any of those nights however from the main person who was in charge of paying her. In general the fill-in felt the situation was tenuous but mainly working out and she was supportive of the main caregiver's role.
She was seeking to find volunteers and telling other agencies of her concerns that more help was needed than the family seemed able to afford or willing to pay for.
Most said to let the family decide what to do. Two people did come by to visit to consider the situation and both let the police know that was the case.
That is a lot of 'extra information' but as it can prove helpful, maybe that's how this can help others not make human errors that can result in great grief, extensive searches running many man hours, animal search efforts and costly other endeavors by helicopter, on horseback and for training others.
Free calls to check on people and put up safety gates and alarms, fences and have a cell phone or GPS tracker for any person at risk for falls or harm makes sense and are more common now in 2020.
The daughters of Tom Drew, Allison and Bettina Drew, sued the fill-in caregiver in civil court for negligence and emotional pain. Without evidence to that point, the fill-in caregiver was informed she could countersue for 'vexatious litigation', which was pursuing a legal action without sufficient grounds.
As Allison recounts in the book, at least one police officer said that when the fill-in caregiver who was watching Tom suffered a personal tragedy of a close family member dying even while trying to help others, that the feeling among many was 'what goes around comes around.'
That kind of wording from the police officer could have been couched with the clear theoretical 'IF' she had done something Then maybe this is payback. The history
of US laws emanated from the Hammarabi Code of Laws (over 250 laws from ancient times in the Fertile Crescent and Mesopotamia which is basically the area of modern Iraq. The ideas spread to Greece and Rome, to Europe and England and to the new colonies. Falsely accusing others was a serious crime from the oldest times,
punishable by death even.
Perjury in court and other 'contempt of court' charges for not cooperating with even voluntary guidelines (to limit interactions or what someone says about another that could impair someone's work or personal reputation or even get people to have gag orders about a legal process such as a family court matter) are all important aspects of our modern world to help youth and adults understand Before they break the law. That could also inform how people are encouraged
to think about Hypothetical Possibilities and not insist on theories not based on facts or evidence. A current concern sweeping the world is about whether people can
discuss science and theories about the efficacy or risks about vaccines in general and the legality of mandating and regulating not only vaccines (such as for the Corona Virus or other ones to attend school or receive public assistance etc.)
Whether controversial topics can be discussed or not is eliminating freedom of speech and protection of even personal liberties. All of these 'isolated issues over the course of history' and modern concerns are indicators of the fabric of our society. The media is often the message and 'bought and sold' with strategy for the benefit of corporate wallets.
A lack of discussion, a campaign to silence independent view points and even personal interactions in the name of shaming, blaming, or staying in the dark about truths and the power of free interactions even among well-intended, intelligent people wanting to create healing forums and ways to share information and offer support.
That's in a sense what this Livfully.org blog aspires to do, as well as to set an example of what one person can do with some effort over time, even sharing other's ideas and creating a community forum and conversation and promoting more advocacy. Supporting independent efforts is a helpful strategy more could promote rather than put down or diminish.
Iraq.)
Without being more discerning about 'potential realities' rather than asserting and basically affirming rumors, that creates a bigger level of disconnect and mistrust on many levels.
These are heartbreaking issues to live through and to even think through the potential 'what if' scenarios. Allison explores the idea of what if an accident occurred or the caregiver was found to be with someone (as in affair at the home) and was covering up harming Tom directly or in an emotional upset or by hitting him with her car and not realizing it then covering it up?
Consulting a dozen psychics results in half saying the caregiver at the time had something to do with it, and the others not so much or no.
Another theory that led to a search of a farm digging for Tom's body supposedly was based on a dream the caregiver said she had that Tom was okay, resting in his bed and was going to have his feet washed. The 'high' dresser was interpreted by Allison and police to be a clue to look at a farm in another town with the name "Haut" which means high apparently.
With the fill-in caregiver's son being friends with someone at the farm, that was enough to cinch the case apparently. The allegation that she must have needed help to move the body brings in the idea that others showed up to do just that. At which point could the made-up theories and allegations be underlined or printed in red ink?
Maybe a big warning on the front cover would suffice that aside from a few basics that Tom Drew went missing and the fill-in caretaker at the time was interviewed and believed by investigators.
She was there that night for several hours and returned a time or two to try to help those at the home, and gave extensive depostions with details many others supported (about other phone calls made to get donations for a nature center's event for instance, a tradition she'd been part of for a decade.
That she was a regular church-goer having been raised Catholic then attending a Congregational Church regularly for years and asked the other caregiver and his friend to pray with her that night before the police arrived.
She had enjoyed caring for Tom and had many positive experiences, none of which the Drew sisters wanted to hear about at any time.
She had met Bettina Drew briefly and knew that she was leaving her father unsupervised for hours each day, trusting he liked to be alone in his own home.
She would not allow the caregiver to donate time or visit longer. There are many other helpful things to consider realizing a family or even regular caregivers may not understand the needs of a person who needs care.
There are plenty of reasons and ways to improve the offerings for all people, even with remote visits online, support groups and daily phone calls a few times a day or more as needed.
Thanks for thinking these things through and best to all keeping up with good self-care and more extensive caregiving for others, whether younger,older or otherwise needing help with movement, transfers, or ADLs, activities of daily living.
