SECTION 7 TITLE 7.2 NEWMANN STRIKES AGAIN: MALE PRIVILEGE AND AUTHORITY, OVERSTEPPING BOUNDARIES, VIOLATES MY RIGHTS

 

WALLS OF SILENCE

SECTION 7 TITLE 7.2 NEWMANN STRIKES AGAIN: MALE PRIVILEGE AND AUTHORITY, OVERSTEPPING BOUNDARIES, VIOLATES MY PRIVACY RIGHTS

 

Rick Newmann’s recent actions serve as yet another example of unchecked entitlement and the abuse of authority, highlighting a disturbing pattern of interference in my personal life. By tampering with my federally protected mail, he violated the critical safeguards I rely on through the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP). His unlawful actions not only breached federal law but also further exposed the systemic inequities faced by Soulaani people in Minnesota—particularly regarding the disregard for personal boundaries and the denial of fundamental rights.

The Incident: A Calculated Breach of Trust and Privacy

As a participant in the ACP, my mail is routed through secure channels to protect my privacy and safety. Yet, Newmann chose to retrieve mail from an unauthorized location and deposit it into my mailbox using his master key—an action neither requested nor permitted. This interference with my mail caused a cascade of repercussions: I had to invest time and resources to rectify the breach, file additional paperwork, make phone calls, and issue formal notices to prevent the termination of my ACP status.

This breach was not merely bureaucratic; it posed a direct threat to my safety, as it potentially exposed my location to a dangerous stalker—someone I had worked with authorities to incarcerate. It is difficult to overstate the gravity of such an invasion, as it placed me in immediate danger and forced me into a state of heightened vigilance, compounded by the constant administrative burden.

The Emotional Toll of Systemic Neglect

Should I have to explain why such reckless behavior endangers my life? Should I bear the emotional and logistical cost of this breach while navigating an indifferent and discriminatory system? These questions reflect a grim reality: I, like many Soulaani people, am compelled to fight for my safety and privacy in a state that often fails to protect me.

The emotional burden of dealing with the fallout of Newmann’s actions has been immense. Instead of finding rest, I’ve spent hours correcting his mistakes, all while wondering if anyone will take responsibility if something happens to me. The absence of accountability for those who wield power over marginalized communities is a glaring failure of both legal and moral responsibility.

Minnesota’s Systemic Racism: A Pattern of Boundary Violations

Newmann’s actions are symptomatic of a deeper, systemic issue that affects Soulaani people in Minnesota. Over the years, I’ve observed how boundaries and rights are systematically violated when it comes to Black Minnesotans. For white residents, autonomy is upheld, respected, and protected by default. In contrast, Soulaani individuals often face presumptions that their boundaries are negotiable, with actions justified under the guise of "help" or "protection." The moment we assert our rights, the response is frequently punitive, reflecting a deeply entrenched belief that we are lesser and that our rights are not as important.

Newmann’s presumption that he could interfere with my personal affairs without my consent is not an isolated incident. It speaks to a broader issue in which systemic racism perpetuates cycles of violation and harm. The disregard for my privacy and safety is not just an individual failing; it is part of a societal pattern that undermines the autonomy and dignity of Soulaani people at every turn.

The Cost of Disrespecting Boundaries

When personal boundaries and privacy rights are disregarded, the impact is far-reaching. Newmann’s interference has permanently altered my sense of security. His actions not only violated my rights under the ACP but also exposed me to unnecessary danger. The cost of his disregard is a life lived in constant vigilance, a life in which I must shoulder the burden of ensuring my own safety.

His actions are emblematic of the broader issue: the systemic dismantling of Soulaani progress by individuals who exploit their positions of power to assert control and dominance. This cycle of harm continues because such individuals are rarely held accountable for their actions, allowing these injustices to persist unchecked.

A Call for Accountability and Change

It is critical to hold individuals like Newmann accountable—not just for their actions but for the systemic mindset that fuels them. Legal protections, such as those provided by the ACP, exist to shield individuals from the exact kind of overreach he demonstrated. The enforcement of these laws must be equitable and consistent, ensuring that all individuals—regardless of race or background—are afforded the privacy and protection they deserve.

I urge those in positions of authority to respect the boundaries and rights of others. The message is simple: Respect privacy, comply with the law, and uphold the autonomy of all individuals. Anything less is a failure of justice and a perpetuation of systemic harm. It is time to demand accountability for the violation of rights and to ensure that these abuses are no longer tolerated.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

Definition: NIED occurs when someone's negligent actions cause another person severe emotional distress. To prove NIED, you generally need to show:

• The defendant owed you a duty of care.
• The defendant breached that duty through negligent actions.
• You suffered severe emotional distress as a result of that breach.
• In some jurisdictions, you may also need to prove physical harm or symptoms resulting from the emotional distress.

Specifically: Rick Newmann's actions—retrieving your confidential mail without authorization and placing it in an insecure location—could constitute a breach of his duty to respect your safety and privacy. By violating protocols designed to protect ACP participants, he acted negligently in a way that directly caused you emotional distress, especially considering the grave risks posed by exposing your information to a stalker.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

Definition: IIED occurs when someone's intentional or reckless behavior is so extreme and outrageous that it causes severe emotional distress to another person. To prove IIED, you typically need to show:

• The conduct was intentional or reckless.
• The conduct was extreme and outrageous, exceeding all bounds of decency in a civilized society.
• The conduct caused you emotional distress.
• The emotional distress was severe.

Specifically: If Newmann's actions were intentional—such as deliberately disregarding the confidentiality protections of your ACP participation—his behavior could be considered extreme and outrageous, especially if he was aware of the danger you face. By willfully exposing your personal information, he acted in a way that no reasonable person would consider acceptable, and this could give rise to an IIED claim.