Reply #29: "bankruptcy lawyer"! You guys are the only ones with a growing clientele. Regarding the 2nd, some

[jody]

people don't know SCOTUS says government is not responsible for protecting individuals, i.e. self-defense is a personal problem.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154) 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

As we said in Harris v. McRae:
Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference, . . . it does not confer an entitlement to such {governmental aid} as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.
448 U.S. at 317-318 (emphasis added). If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot {p197} be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.