VAWA: Subtitle Q—Trauma-Informed Training For Law Enforcement: prevent re-traumatization of the victim

“Subtitle Q—Trauma-Informed Training For Law Enforcement

“SEC. 41701. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON TRAUMA-INFORMED TRAINING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

“(a) Definitions.—In this section—

“(1) the term ‘Attorney General’ means the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women;

“(2) the term ‘covered individual’ means an individual who interfaces with victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, including—

“(A) an individual working for or on behalf of an eligible entity;

“(B) a school or university administrator; and

“(C) an emergency services or medical employee;

“(3) the term ‘demonstration site’, with respect to an eligible entity that receives a grant under this section, means—

“(A) if the eligible entity is a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4)(A), the area over which the eligible entity has jurisdiction; and

“(B) if the eligible entity is an organization or agency described in paragraph (4)(B), the area over which a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4)(A) that is working in collaboration with the eligible entity has jurisdiction; and

“(4) the term ‘eligible entity’ means—

“(A) a State, local, territorial, or Tribal law enforcement agency; or

“(B) a national, regional, or local victim services organization or agency working in collaboration with a law enforcement agency described in subparagraph (A).

“(b) Grants Authorized.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising policies and practices to incorporate trauma-informed techniques designed to—

“(A) prevent re-traumatization of the victim;

“(B) ensure that covered individuals use evidence-based practices to respond to and investigate cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

“(C) improve communication between victims and law enforcement officers in an effort to increase the likelihood of the successful investigation and prosecution of the reported crime in a manner that protects the victim to the greatest extent possible;

“(D) increase collaboration among stakeholders who are part of the coordinated community response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

“(E) evaluate the effectiveness of the training process and content by measuring—

“(i) investigative and prosecutorial practices and outcomes; and

“(ii) the well-being of victims and their satisfaction with the criminal justice process.

“(2) TERM.—The Attorney General shall make grants under this section for each of the first 2 fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

“(3) AWARD BASIS.—The Attorney General shall award grants under this section to multiple eligible entities for use in a variety of settings and communities, including—

“(A) urban, suburban, Tribal, remote, and rural areas;

“(B) college campuses; or

“(C) traditionally underserved communities.

“(c) Use Of Funds.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant to—

“(1) train covered individuals within the demonstration site of the eligible entity to use evidence-based, trauma-informed techniques and knowledge of crime victims' rights throughout an investigation into domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including by—

“(A) conducting victim interviews in a manner that—

“(i) elicits valuable information about the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

“(ii) avoids re-traumatization of the victim;

“(B) conducting field investigations that mirror best and promising practices available at the time of the investigation;

“(C) customizing investigative approaches to ensure a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach to the community being served;

“(D) becoming proficient in understanding and responding to complex cases, including cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking—

“(i) facilitated by alcohol or drugs;

“(ii) involving strangulation;

“(iii) committed by a non-stranger;

“(iv) committed by an individual of the same sex as the victim;

“(v) involving a victim with a disability;

“(vi) involving a male victim; or

“(vii) involving a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (commonly referred to as ‘LGBT’) victim;

“(E) developing collaborative relationships between—

“(i) law enforcement officers and other members of the response team; and

“(ii) the community being served; and

“(F) developing an understanding of how to define, identify, and correctly classify a report of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

“(2) promote the efforts of the eligible entity to improve the response of covered individuals to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through various communication channels, such as the website of the eligible entity, social media, print materials, and community meetings, in order to ensure that all covered individuals within the demonstration site of the eligible entity are aware of those efforts and included in trainings, to the extent practicable.

“(d) Demonstration Program Trainings On Trauma-Informed Approaches.—

“(1) IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING TRAININGS.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall identify trainings for law enforcement officers, in existence as of the date on which the Attorney General begins to solicit applications for grants under this section, that—

“(i) employ a trauma-informed approach to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

“(ii) focus on the fundamentals of—

“(I) trauma responses; and

“(II) the impact of trauma on victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

“(B) SELECTION.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall select one or more of the approaches employed by a training identified under subparagraph (A) to test within the demonstration site of the eligible entity.

“(2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall consult with the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime in order to seek input from and cultivate consensus among outside practitioners and other stakeholders through facilitated discussions and focus groups on best practices in the field of trauma-informed care for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

“(e) Evaluation.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall require each eligible entity that receives a grant under this section to identify a research partner, preferably a local research partner, to—

“(1) design a system for generating and collecting the appropriate data to facilitate an independent process or impact evaluation of the use of the grant funds;

“(2) periodically conduct an evaluation described in paragraph (1); and

“(3) periodically make publicly available, during the grant period—

“(A) preliminary results of the evaluations conducted under paragraph (2); and

“(B) recommendations for improving the use of the grant funds.

“(f) Authorization Of Appropriations.—The Attorney General shall carry out this section using amounts otherwise available to the Attorney General.

“(g) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with the due process rights of any individual.”.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1585/text

Protection Order Best Practices

Protection Order Best Pract... by mary eng on Scribd

Matyas allowed this abusive attorney Christopher Palmer, to ridicule me into dropping my antistalking order re; Christopher Guest Duffy

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: mary rose lenore eng <maryeng1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM
Subject: Clatsop County, Judge Matyas
To: <judicial.fitness@oregon.gov>

Mary Eng

box ...

Seaside, Oregon 97138

re: 

Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

Astoria, Oregon Clatsop Circuit Court

6-27-19

Cinddee Matyas

Mary Eng v. Christopher G. Duffy

19SK00289

Re: Matyas clatsop

Early February 2019 i applied for an anti-stalking protective order to protect me from further sexual assault by christopher duffy who solicited me for work at Coast Radio and at the Seaside, Oregon Bob Chisholm Center meals on Wheels program (DHS funded), but then proceeded to harass, grope and pin me down in a violent sexual pindown and continue to harass me, or grope at me, in public places causing me to feel afraid for my safety.

On basis of evidence presented to Judge Matyas, i was granted a temporary protective order. When the assailant was served notice, he obtained counsel of Christopher Palmer, who sought to delay the finalization hearing for the antistalking order.

I am concerned that the ORS applicable to anti-stalking orders was not followed. Attorney Palmer sought to extract discovery materials from me, with extremely overburdensome requests, and insinuations that he would hijack the anti-stalking order to turn the proceeding into a frivolous and prurient disputation of my credibility, despite his client's admissions of impropriety to the police and adult protective services, and via email.

Matyas granted Palmer excessive extensions on the finalization court date, allowing the proceeding to be postponed from March 8, to April 19, to June 14, and July 19, with even further discussion of postponing the 7/19 finalization of the final hearing, during the traumatic motion to compel hearing 6/27.

In this hearing, Matyas allowed attorney Palmer to without any basis attempt to frame this sexual harassment and assault as a "relationship" which i objected to vigorously, as it is a lie, and an additional harassment, that the delusional man who attacked me has circulated rumors thusly, since he assaulted me.

Matyas allowed attorney Palmer to with no basis impugn my credibility and medical history, even allowing him to make vague and unconvincing insinuations of criminal nature about me, as well as bullying about prior crime victimizations from violent men.

Matyas allowed Palmer to imply that my previous assistance of the District Attorney prosecuting a man who attacked a police officer and myself was disreputable, or in some way disproved his client's involvement with a subsequent, unrelated assault.

Matyas allowed this abusive attorney, to ridicule me into dropping my antistalking order. i was shocked she allowed this attorney to say so many things of a verbally abusive nature in the courtroom. i was disturbed that Matyas did not accept evidence of my anxiety and suffering surrounding being bullied by the assailant's attorney. i showed them unopened legal filings, due to the extreme anxiety and stress being stalked by an attorney as proxy for a sexual assaulter,  as the 5+ months of harassment from this attorney, i have always interpreted as proxy-harassment, by the man who sexually assaulted me.

i objected to this proxy harassment early on.

it misses the point of an anti-stalking order, to allow the perpetrator to hijack the proceeding for purpose of delay, evasion, and blaming the victim, and then bullying the victim into dropping the protective order.

the excessive delays of the finalization hearing have interfered with other appointments, and been a constant stressor and worry.

when i announced my intent to motion to drop the order in the courtroom, under threat of more delays and a motion to compel some in camera limited discovery to the sexual assaulter's attorney, i believe Matyas panicked.

Matyas realized that allowing six months + of delays and continuances, and allowing this attorney to badger me in the court-room on behalf of his sexual assaulting client, and allowing the attorney for the man i was afraid of to try to pry into my personal records, terrifying me, had worked into coercing me out of my lawful order.

she then stated "NO WAIT, GIVE IT A FEW DAYS." The bullying of Christopher Duffy's lawyer Christopher Palmer was causing cardiac symptoms i feared to be so severe, that i had no choice but to drop the proceeding, as Matyas was threatening to hand over my private material to a man who abused me, and may continue to abuse me, via lawyer or any other means. Her offer to do In Camera review she offered begrudgingly to the invasive lawyer, and it seemed she was trying to make me feel guilty as well: i object to giving the stalker my private information FOR SAFETY REASONS. and i refused to put any discovery on the assailant, resenting the constitutional violations as a matter of principle  and knowing his admissions to other authorities were significant and sufficient basis to affirm and finalize the order.

I felt pressured by the judge to halt my closing of the case, possibly due to her realizing i was being coerced, and that might call into question her role facilitating that coercion.

Matyas had ignored all my motions and objections to protect the abuser from having access to my private informations, which he sought to use to uphold his prejudice against female survivors of sexual assault, who choose to speak out about the long-lasting and traumatic effects of assault, harassment, and discrimination.

I believe the coercing of me to drop the order was not in my best interests, and resulted from poor understanding of the ORS applicable. The shifting of the burden of discovery on to my back, when i am the ONLY one providing evidence and affidavit VOLUNTARILY and READILY to the court, was an undue and harsh burden on me. I offered documents to the court. Matyas declined them, saying submit them later. she then went forward with signing an unnecessary Motion to Compel, despite my production of documents i offered to the court, and willing online publication of all necessary court materials. This was an unfair and punitive action against me, enacted to retaliate against me for outing sex crimes committed by a a parks district employee. 

The parks employee who refused to come to court for six months, was never cited in contempt.

When i asked Matyas what the penalty for insufficient production of documents was, she said CONTEMPT.

I asked, SO YOU ARE THREATENING ME WITH JAIL FOR REPORTING SEXUAL ASSAULT?

Matyas did not allow me to submit my additional evidence prior to the Motion to Compel, and the letter i provided guiding her to many of the pieces of evidence i would submit, was not taken as good faith rendering of my evidence for my case.

The assailant never appeared to defend himself, and i believe this judge matyas, by allowing extreme latitude to his attorney to continue harassing me via PO BOX for months and months of delay, to be an effective deterrent on victims of stalking or sexual violence to consider using the Protective Order process in Clatsop County.

I believe Federal Rule of Evidence 412 Rape Shield norms were violated, as the assailant's attorney sought to tarnish my name and record to defend himself from explaining his sexual attack on me.

The pressure i felt from Matyas to keep this case open, made me feel even more conflicted and pushed around.

She let the lawyer bully me.

She let the lawyer harass me and harass me through the excessive delays.

Then when i buckled, and dropped the order in order to protect my privacy and health, she said things to urge me not to drop it.

If this was an assurance that she takes sexual assault seriously, and would indeed formalize the order, after going through the motions of the limited in camera discovery, why was i subjected to threat of contempt ruling, which i feared may be the goal of my sex abuser: to put me in jail for daring to seek safety from his abuse and discriminatory practices at a state-funded facility?

Why should a Judge be instrumentalized by a sex abuser to harass and humiliate, embarrass, ridicule and disparage a victim of assault?

The assault was extremely invasive.

Coming forward has been extremely invasive, humiliating, and disappointing.

Judge Matyas granted my Motion to Dismiss on basis of personal reasons and my health being harmed by this process.

If Matyas had followed the ORS and granted my March 8 hearing, might there have been an outcome not so hurtful to the victim of the man who rammed his penis on her while pinning her arms and legs and terrifying her with threats about his herpes?

Why should an abuser be allowed to delay a stalking order proceeding indefinitely, harass a victim over her objection, leaving me feeling more stalked than originally?

That the assailant would hire an abusive attorney speaks volumes.

That the assailant refused to attend any court hearing to try to "clear his name" also speaks volumes.

Why would a judge enable this perversion and miscarriage of justice for what should be a very simple timeline?

Judge Matyas asked if the attorney Palmer wanted my "recipes" which i find to accentuate the sexist atmosphere.

I was called Mister Eng by the Judge, which she quickly apologized for.

I told her it's okay, due to my GLBT status, which i later came out to her about in the courtroom, specifically to refute the heteronomative stereotyping the assailant sought to use to justify his assaults. I explainedthe sex attack was a hate crime against me for telling the assailant i about my GLBT status.

The gendering me as masculine was disconcerting to her, possibly underlying her reasons for allowing the attorney Palmer to bully me for so many months, perhaps Matyas assuming i could "handle it" or "take it" because i am so tough, and she knows of other abuse i endured in this county.

I suggested she may be prejudiced in my favor, knowing i was subjected to a neck-breaking attempt by a delusional man, one year prior to the more recent assailant's predation and attack.

Why would she allow the assailant's attorney to trigger and induce more trauma in the hearing by referring to these other victimizations?

Was this done specifically to induce me to drop the stalking order in fear that he would try to traumatize me in the hearing about a near-homicide i experienced?

His client attacked me, knowing i had suffered thusly, and his client's attack was sadistic and predatory.

Why should Matyas enable an abuser's attorney to bully a victim of Gender Based Violence?

Under coercion from this attorney's demands for my personal papers and files and medical records, i objected to the attorney's aggressive "attack the victim" method. Matyas aided him in preventing the assailant harasser from ever showing his face in the courtroom by allowing excessive delays, all during which attorney palmer continued to harass me via my PO Box to intimidate me into dropping the anti-stalking order i obtained in fear of his client's history of unwanted harassment and violent assault.

Matyas showed prejudice against me for being female, a crime victim, and represented pro se, in denying me a finalization hearing guaranteed by ORS 30.866:

"At the time the petition is filed, the court, upon a finding of probable cause based on the allegations in the petition, shall enter a temporary court’s stalking protective order that may include, but is not limited to, all contact listed in ORS 163.730 (Definitions for ORS 30.866 and 163.730 to 163.750). The petition and the temporary order shall be served upon the respondent with an order requiring the respondent to personally appear before the court to show cause why the temporary order should not be continued for an indefinite period.

(3)(a) At the hearing, whether or not the respondent appears, the court may continue the hearing for up to 30 days or may proceed to enter a court’s stalking protective order and take other action as provided in ORS 163.738 (Effect of citation)."

Matyas by allowing the assailant to dodge out of the finalization hearing, converted this proceeding into six months of delays, via continuance requests by the assailant's counsel, thereby depriving me of Violence Against Women Act anti-stalking protection.

When the sexual assailant tried to breach my private and personal information, i submitted formal objections to the court, offering additional evidence of the abusive behavior. i also submitted motions to protect my private information from the assailant and his attorney, who might use that information to do me harm. I believe that Matyas by unfairly assisting this sexual assaulter evade a finalization hearing, denied me justice, and a chance to defend my need for legal protection from the unwanted sexual harassment and predatory attacks on me, wielded under the pretext of quid pro quo professional opportunities.

Judge Matyas may have given prejudicial weight to the assailant's position in the Seaside Oregon parks district working with the elderly, the position he used to give me the false position he was not a danger. Matyas may have been susceptible to the prevention of scandal in the community, if the sexual assault by a Parks worker became notated in the National Crime Database.

After this disgraceful hearing, I immediately contacted DHS at the highest level, to help them realize that sexual abuse of clients by care workers receiving DHS funding is wrong, as is all attempts to cover up the crime, bully the victim, silence the victim, or coerce the victim from rights to be treated with dignity and respect.

please feel free to contact me

503 ....

i hope no other victims of extreme sexual violence have to undergo such unfair treatment in the future.

I thank the judicial fitness commission for taking my observations and victim impact statement into consideration.

I also thank ORDOJ for the recent of victims compensation to help overcome the negative consequences of this assault and subsequent institutional bullying and attempts to coverup the assault.

ReplyForward

i am sorry your honor i did not scream

https://it-stores.info/i-am/anGoeMuq24LOe6o.html