Justina Pelletier

[psychsurvivor 2]

If you want to join the side that thinks the courts and BCH are all in collusion to effectively imprison this poor girl, more power to you. Just realize the evidence which prompted BCH's actions can't be revealed by the BCH docs, lest they violate HIPAA. Meanwhile, the parents can make as many emotional appeals to the public as they want.

More nonsense from the old fart. Somebody at BCH or DCF leaked HIPAA protected information to the Boston Globe for the articles that published in December 2013. Just as somebody at the court or DCF leaked the March court ruling to the press, all in hopes that "their side" would get a fair hearing in the court of public opinion. The problem is that the court of public opinion -including significant figures both on the left and the right- do not think that any of that warrants stealing the custody of a child. That's the bubble BCH doctors and DCF people live in .

[psychsurvivor 2]

The usual protocol is to trust an obscure diagnosis made by a specialist, not question it as happened in this case. And nobody wants to take a child from their parents. The fact that the admitting physician started the evaluation for medical child abuse suggests something was terribly awry with her presentation and/or parents' behavior.

 

WOW, as somebody pointed out correctly, from thousands of miles away, the old fart claims TO KNOW FOR A FACT, the protocol that BCH doctors use in cases like this.

 

It is one thing to say "in the hospitals where I worked, we did things this way or that way", quite another to claim "magic powers" to know what BCH's protocol (or non protocol) is in cases like these.

 

Here it is, the old fart's arrogance in full display .

[psychsurvivor 2]

That's why I have to laugh a bit when people say "the judge didn't even have any reasoning for his/her decision!" I assure you that the judge did, but to discuss diagnosis and treatment in great length in a matter of public record would amount to a severe violation of the patient's privacy rights.

 

Your theory is a non theory since the ruling WAS LEAKED, namely, it was not a matter of public record. So either there is nothing there (which is the most likely explanation), or the judge knew it was going to be leaked by his own court or DCF. Even if the second possibility is true, don't you think that a judge knowing that the ruling would be leaked would have put something that would make him look better in the court of public opinion, instead of a nonsensical, contradictory ruling which was heavily criticized by people like Alan Dershowitz?

 

This is why I say you people are pathetic. To "rationalize" your point of view, you need to come up with increasingly nonsensical explanations that result in more nonsense and more contradictions. Instead of accepting the Occam razor's explanation: BCH doctors overstepped their authority and for whatever reason, a coward judge doesn't have what it takes to correct their mistake .

[psychsurvivor 2]

HOw many more times are you going to try these lies?

I get that they fool people like gp and drobs...but its funny watching you flail away.

Which lies? The old fart just claimed on this page to have "magic powers" to know what BCH's protocol is in cases like this. He has never worked in BCH or Massachusetts yet from "miles away" he claims to know how BCH handles these cases .

[psychsurvivor 2]

Happy easter mean girls god bless

Happy Easter to you too! The "mean girls", as you call them, are too mean to understand what Easter means .

[IGotWorms 3,382]

Your theory is a non theory since the ruling WAS LEAKED, namely, it was not a matter of public record. So either there is nothing there (which is the most likely explanation), or the judge knew it was going to be leaked by his own court or DCF. Even if the second possibility is true, don't you think that a judge knowing that the ruling would be leaked would have put something that would make him look better in the court of public opinion, instead of a nonsensical, contradictory ruling which was heavily criticized by people like Alan Dershowitz?

 

This is why I say you people are pathetic. To "rationalize" your point of view, you need to come up with increasingly nonsensical explanations that result in more nonsense and more contradictions. Instead of accepting the Occam razor's explanation: BCH doctors overstepped their authority and for whatever reason, a coward judge doesn't have what it takes to correct their mistake .

It's not a "theory", I know from experience how this stuff works from the court's perspective. The order should have been confidential but they can't control what the parties (i.e. the parents) do with that. The records and reports relied on in the order would remain sealed and confidential though, and would not be extensively referenced by the court in it's order precisely due to the potential for certain persons not respecting the confidential nature of the proceedings.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Since some people here like my videos, here comes one very recent on the relationship between SSRIs and violence,

 

 

It contains an interview with David Healy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_%28psychiatrist%29 , who among other things says that http://davidhealy.org/prozac-and-ssris-twenty-fifth-anniversary/

 

There is no research evidence to suggest that anyone’s life is saved by taking an antidepressant but if there are lives saved the research makes it clear that for every life saved there must be another lost. There are probably something between 1000-1500 extra suicides in the US each year, triggered by an antidepressant – an extra 2000 -2500 in Europe.

 

The data is similar for violence. There are probably between 1000- 1500 extra episodes of violence in the US each year that would not have happened without antidepressant input and between 2000-2500 extra episodes in Europe. Some of these will include school or other mass shootings which were unheard of twenty-five years ago.

 

As he explains in the interview, he reached those estimates after having access to data from the pharmaceutical companies as part as his role as expert witness in several legal proceedings.

[psychsurvivor 2]

It's not a "theory", I know from experience how this stuff works from the court's perspective. The order should have been confidential but they can't control what the parties (i.e. the parents) do with that. The records and reports relied on in the order would remain sealed and confidential though, and would not be extensively referenced by the court in it's order precisely due to the potential for certain persons not respecting the confidential nature of the proceedings.

Again, nonsense, if the court or DCF knew that the ruling WOULD BE LEAKED, that was their best shot at laying out a rationale that would paint them in the best light possible. That's probably why the judge included the lines "the father called BCH's doctors Nazis". His problem? Reputed legal experts said that calling somebody a Nazi after these doctors bring hell to your life is not a valid reason in America to award the custody of your child to the state. Even Megyn Kelly, who has not been covering the case lately, made this exact point the day the ruling was leaked. These same experts also said that nothing that was in the ruling would have been enough to award the custody of the child to the state according to Massachusetts own laws. In fact, the judge seems to be well aware of that because he made the decision retroactive to December 2013 to give the parents another change to "side with him". If the situation were as you describe, why give these malicious, abusing parents another chance that they accept Somatic Symptom Disorder as the reason for Justina's problems? And why would the same judge agree that Justina be seen by Mark Korson one week after the ruling?

 

As I said, you should be honest with yourselves. You have blind faith in institutions like BCH and juvenile courts and you see it as a threat to your worldview that a case like this is even possible.

 

In a way you remind me to those people who blindly defend the death penalty on the grounds that our system is so perfect and has so many appeals that miscarriages of justice are impossible. For said people apparently the convictions of these 314 people never happened http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/ .

 

For the record, I defend the death penalty, but at the same time I am well aware that no system of justice is perfect.

[IGotWorms 3,382]

Again, nonsense, if the court or DCF knew that the ruling WOULD BE LEAKED, that was their best shot at laying out a rationale that would paint them in the best light possible. That's probably why the judge included the lines "the father called BCH's doctors Nazis". His problem? Reputed legal experts said that calling somebody a Nazi after these doctors bring hell to your life is not a valid reason in America to award the custody of your child to the state. Even Megyn Kelly, who has not been covering the case lately, made this exact point the day the ruling was leaked. These same experts also said that nothing that was in the ruling would have been enough to award the custody of the child to the state according to Massachusetts own laws. In fact, the judge seems to be well aware of that because he made the decision retroactive to December 2013 to give the parents another change to "side with him". If the situation were as you describe, why give these malicious, abusing parents another chance that they accept Somatic Symptom Disorder as the reason for Justina's problems? And why would the same judge agree that Justina be seen by Mark Korson one week after the ruling?

 

As I said, you should be honest with yourselves. You have blind faith in institutions like BCH and juvenile courts and you see it as a threat to your worldview that a case like this is even possible.

 

In a way you remind me to those people who blindly defend the death penalty on the grounds that our system is so perfect and has so many appeals that miscarriages of justice are impossible. For said people apparently the convictions of these 314 people never happened http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/ .

 

For the record, I defend the death penalty, but at the same time I am well aware that no system of justice is perfect.

Yeah there's just no reasoning with you. The overall point is the child's medical records are sealed and confidential, so everyone trying to attack the court or the doctors is doing so with only that information the family has chosen to leak despite their child's privacy interests. You really can't argue that point

[psychsurvivor 2]

Yeah there's just no reasoning with you. The overall point is the child's medical records are sealed and confidential, so everyone trying to attack the court or the doctors is doing so with only that information the family has chosen to leak despite their child's privacy interests. You really can't argue that point

Let's go to the only point in the ruling that is relevant to this,

 

Point 4- in "EFFORTS TO RETURN JUSTINA TO CONNECTICUT",

 

"At trial there was extensive psychiatric and medical testimony. Voluminous psychiatric and medical records were entered in evidence. Based on credible psychiatric and medical evidence this court has found that Justina suffers from a persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder".

 

That alone is illegal under Massachusetts' own laws per Alan Dershowitz (ie, the incompetent judge does not have a legal right to decide which diagnosis is the correct one). The only thing the judge could have said is that agreeing to the parents plan, that basically meant sending Justina back to Tufts, would endanger Justina's health, which is of course in contradiction with the same judge agreeing that Justina be sent back to Tufts!!

 

In fact, what I would say is that you are so bought into your own dogmatic view about how perfect the justice system is that it is indeed impossible to reason with you .

 

With people like you, the only thing that usually works is that you yourself were caught in a similar situation. Please, avoid me the bs that you would do everything right, ask for help, etc. You deserve to have something like this happening to you, ie, something in which even when you did everything you thought was the legal way of doing things, some nut job with better connections than you made your life difficult .

[OldMaid 1,838]

Hehehehe! Don't be shy, it shows that you were raised in a dysfunctional family, that's OK . I insist that the way you have reacted with your mother doesn't speak well of you. That your family was dysfunctional doesn't mean that you yourself have to be.

It is very funny that then you claim to have tried to have some intellectual discussion when your dismissed Tom Insel commentary that there is indeed a significant portion of people diagnosed with so called "schizophrenia" for which doing what you did to your mother prevents them from full recovery. You have also dismissed as genuine experiences like those who are part of the Voice Hearing Movement saying that nobody can be considered recovered if they hear voices. After expressing your narrow mindedness on this issue, you went on to repeat dogmatically NAMI talking points about "chemical imbalances" and the need to drug people against their will, never mind that the leaders of American psychiatry have abandoned the "chemical imbalance" model.

I guess that it is not surprising that somebody with the intellectual development of a "middle school girl" would think that that's "intellectual quality" .

Great... now you've moved on from misinterpreting your hero Dr.'s, to misinterpreting me. No worries... The smart people in this thread understand my position.

 

I'm dysfunctional? And my actions doesn't speak well of me? I've never had to be institutionalized in a psych ward, like you have. I'd say in the game of life, I'm certainly beating the crap out of you.

 

Have fun spending your entire Easter here, furiously hitting F5 and ignoring the fact that you're all alone and nobody loves you.

 

 

Someone else want to take over here? I'm getting extremely bored with this.

[IGotWorms 3,382]

Let's go to the only point in the ruling that is relevant to this,

 

 

That alone is illegal under Massachusetts' own laws per Alan Dershowitz (ie, the incompetent judge does not have a legal right to decide which diagnosis is the correct one). The only thing the judge could have said is that agreeing to the parents plan, that basically meant sending Justina back to Tufts, would endanger Justina's health, which is of course in contradiction with the same judge agreeing that Justina be sent back to Tufts!!

 

In fact, what I would say is that you are so bought into your own dogmatic view about how perfect the justice system is that it is indeed impossible to reason with you .

 

With people like you, the only thing that usually works is that you yourself were caught in a similar situation. Please, avoid me the bs that you would do everything right, ask for help, etc. You deserve to have something like this happening to you, ie, something in which even when you did everything you thought was the legal way of doing things, some nut job with better connections than you made your life difficult .

I'm not seeing how the judge did anything illegal. When presented with competing explanations/diagnoses, SOMEBODY has to make the final determination based on the evidence presented.

 

You act like this is something really bizarre and limited only to child welfare cases but that's not true. There are plenty of complex cases where the judge must weigh the evidence and expert opinions and make a determination as to which side is "right", or at least whether a jury should hear certain evidence in the case of a jury trial. That's just the way our system works.

 

Now if the judge applied the wrong standard or something, sure. My understanding is he used a clear and convincing evidence standard. That is almost certainly correct as this is not your standard civil proceeding where a preponderance of the evidence standard would reign or a criminal proceeding where guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I'm dysfunctional? And my actions doesn't speak well of me? I've never had to be institutionalized in a psych ward, like you have. I'd say in the game of life, I'm certainly beating the crap out of you.

Have fun spending your entire Easter here, furiously hitting F5 and ignoring the fact that you're all alone and nobody loves you.

Someone else want to take over here? I'm getting extremely bored with this.

If your metric in the game of life is "forcing psychiatry onto people" I would say that you have showing your dysfunction better (or shall I say in a more evil manner). I was a victim of my parents dysfunction, something that I have corrected by disowning them. You, on the other side, have victimized YOUR OWN MOTHER with your dysfunction.

 

It's like saying that "in the game of life" being a rapist is better than being a victim of rape. Sure, the victim of rape suffers more, but I am not so sure that people would agree that being a victimizer instead of a victim gives somebody the higher moral ground .

[drobeski 3,061]

Correct. He insulted me first with no provocation:

Unless one thinks mocking one's professional expertise is complimentary?

suck it up nancy, careers have always been a target around here, your pomposity makes you think you're above that but that isnt the way it works.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I'm not seeing how the judge did anything illegal. When presented with competing explanations/diagnoses, SOMEBODY has to make the final determination based on the evidence presented.

You act like this is something really bizarre and limited only to child welfare cases but that's not true. There are plenty of complex cases where the judge must weigh the evidence and expert opinions and make a determination as to which side is "right", or at least whether a jury should hear certain evidence in the case of a jury trial. That's just the way our system works.

Now if the judge applied the wrong standard or something, sure. My understanding is he used a clear and convincing evidence standard. That is almost certainly correct as this is not your standard civil proceeding where a preponderance of the evidence standard would reign or a criminal proceeding where guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary.

That somebody is, according to Massachusetts' own laws, the parents, unless the court can show that the parents were neglectful, which is something that has not been shown to anybody's satisfaction. You said that he used the standard "clear and convincing evidence" but the reality is much less assuring. A dispute in diagnosis IS NOT "clear and convincing evidence" even though the incompetent judge thinks it is. Again, do not trust my word, trust Alan Dershowitz's which I am sure knows a lot more than you do both about civil procedure and Massachusetts' own laws.

 

And how do we know that there is nothing more? Because again, the judge has agreed to give the parents a second chance (something that would not have happened with neglectful and harmful parents). We also know that the judge has agreed to have Justina's care be returned to Tufts. And more importantly, Connecticut's DCF has REFUSED to charge the parents with abuse and neglect or to get involved in the case AFTER HAVING SEEN ALL THE FACTS.

 

Still, you have a blind faith in the system. As I said, my wish for you is that you find yourself in a similar situation. If your children are too old for this, then my wish if for your children to find themselves in a similar situation with their own children. If you do not have children, my wish for you is that something like what happened to the Texas man happens to you. You get the idea. Nothing changes minds in matters of institutional abuse like enduring in your own skin what you approve for others .

[penultimatestraw 473]

Yeah there's just no reasoning with you. The overall point is the child's medical records are sealed and confidential, so everyone trying to attack the court or the doctors is doing so with only that information the family has chosen to leak despite their child's privacy interests. You really can't argue that point

 

 

You know, you guys could stop responding to him

[penultimatestraw 473]

suck it up nancy, careers have always been a target around here, your pomposity makes you think you're above that but that isnt the way it works.

I don't really care. I quoted that for Shonuff's benefit.

[psychsurvivor 2]

 

Old fart, I guess that the same applies to you too. You don't respond to me directly but there are some indirect responses to my points when you respond to others . You keep spewing your nonsense even after admitting explicitly that your only motivation is bias in favor of MD degree holders that make accusations of child abuse .

[OldMaid 1,838]

If your metric in the game of life is "forcing psychiatry onto people" I would say that you have showing your dysfunction better (or shall I say in a more evil manner). I was a victim of my parents dysfunction, something that I have corrected by disowning them. You, on the other side, have victimized YOUR OWN MOTHER with your dysfunction.

It's like saying that "in the game of life" being a rapist is better than being a victim of rape. Sure, the victim of rape suffers more, but I am not so sure that people would agree that being a victimizer instead of a victim gives somebody the higher moral ground .

ZOMG! You were raped when you were institutionalized against your will? Is that how you contracted HIV? Now I feel bad that I made fun of you. That's focking horrible!!!!

 

You know... living today with AIDS is not a death sentence. They've come a long way with treatments. You should be able to live a 1/2 way normal life.

 

I will pray for you.

[IGotWorms 3,382]

That somebody is, according to Massachusetts' own laws, the parents, unless the court can show that the parents were neglectful, which is something that has not been shown to anybody's satisfaction. You said that he used the standard "clear and convincing evidence" but the reality is much less assuring. A dispute in diagnosis IS NOT "clear and convincing evidence" even though the incompetent judge thinks it is. Again, do not trust my word, trust Alan Dershowitz's which I am sure knows a lot more than you do both about civil procedure and Massachusetts' own laws.

 

And how do we know that there is nothing more? Because again, the judge has agreed to give the parents a second chance (something that would not have happened with neglectful and harmful parents). We also know that the judge has agreed to have Justina's care be returned to Tufts. And more importantly, Connecticut's DCF has REFUSED to charge the parents with abuse and neglect or to get involved in the case AFTER HAVING SEEN ALL THE FACTS.

 

Still, you have a blind faith in the system. As I said, my wish for you is that you find yourself in a similar situation. If your children are too old for this, then my wish if for your children to find themselves in a similar situation with their own children. If you do not have children, my wish for you is that something like what happened to the Texas man happens to you. You get the idea. Nothing changes minds in matters of institutional abuse like enduring in your own skin what you approve for others .

So you agree the judge used the right standard, but in your own opinion the evidence didn't meet that standard. Do you realize how absurd that is when all you have heard is the father's version of the facts? You're examining just a sliver of the available evidence and from that concluding that the Judge was wrong.

 

As for the rest, it is not at all inconsistent with the judge's ruling. The judge surely recognizes that being "in the system" is not a good outcome for any child. Is it better than being with abusive parents? That is frankly debatable depending on the severity of the abuse. So to give the parents a chance to clean up their act and get their child back is eminently reasonable--that would be the best case scenario for the child.

 

Same goes for not criminally charging the parents. What does that accomplish? Now the parents are in prison and the child is truly and irrevocably left at the mercy of the system. And what effect would it have on a child to have to witness and probably participate in the criminal prosecution of her own parents? What damage would be done by putting her on the stand in a criminal trial for the whole world to see? Not to mention differing burdens of proof--clear and convincing evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Connecticut refused to get involved because the father has threatened to sue the hell out of them if they take custody. In a perfect world the Connecticut agency would have the courage to do the right thing anyway, but sadly you often see blame-shifting and cowardice in these situations. Massachusetts is left holding the bag and Connecticut is content with that.

 

There are perfectly reasonable explanations for all of this and yet you see some massive conspiracy at every turn, a conspiracy the hospital, the child welfare agency, and the courts are each involved in and perpetuating. And for what? To take a child from her parents without cause? What possible reason would they have for that?

 

You, sir, are delusional, just as I said when you first popped your crazy head up in this thread.

[IGotWorms 3,382]

 

 

Yes I realize I failed to heed my own advice. I guess we all have our sticking points--you being a member of the medical profession, Old Maid with her own experiences of having a severely mentally ill family member, and me as a fake member of the legal profession.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Which lies? The ol fart just claimed on this page to have "magic powers" to know what BCH's protocol is in cases like this. He has never worked in BCH or Massachusetts yet from "miles away" he claims to know how BCH handles these cases .

Henever claimed he nor the bch docs had magic powers...lie one.

He nor any of us have claimed the bch doctors are god like or infallible.

You continue to post over the top crap as a lie hoping it will do something. Congrats, what you havedone is convince two mental midgets to support you. However, its obvious they only support you for going up against pen who was kicking their ass again.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I don't really care. I quoted that for Shonuff's benefit.

I know he has slung the insults first several times. I also know im not taking the time on my phone to search and have him start the denial.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Old fart, I guess that the same applies to you too. You don't respond to me directly but there are some indirect responses to my points when you respond to others . You keep spewing your nonsense even after admitting explicitly that your only motivation is bias in favor of MD degree holders that make accusations of child abuse .

You really suck at reading comprehension.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I hope you realize that by rationalizing the situation you are incurring in the same contradictions the judge is incurring in ,

 

So you agree the judge used the right standard, but in your own opinion the evidence didn't meet that standard. Do you realize how absurd that is when all you have heard is the father's version of the facts? You're examining just a sliver of the available evidence and from that concluding that the Judge was wrong.

 

I didn't say the judge used the right standard, I said he claimed to be using "clear and convincing evidence", and that he only cited a dispute in diagnoses (the point 4- mentioned above) to make that claim. Alan Dershowitz, who is more qualified than any of us in these matters -including the judge- said that a dispute in diagnoses DOES NOT meet the standard under Massachusetts law to take the custody of a child.

 

As for the rest, it is not at all inconsistent with the judge's ruling. The judge surely recognizes that being "in the system" is not a good outcome for any child. Is it better than being with abusive parents? That is frankly debatable depending on the severity of the abuse. So to give the parents a chance to clean up their act and get their child back is eminently reasonable--that would be the best case scenario for the child.

Same goes for not criminally charging the parents. What does that accomplish? Now the parents are in prison and the child is truly and irrevocably left at the mercy of the system. And what effect would it have on a child to have to witness and probably participate in the criminal prosecution of her own parents? What damage would be done by putting her on the stand in a criminal trial for the whole world to see? Not to mention differing burdens of proof--clear and convincing evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

More nonsense, which only comes from somebody who has blind faith in "the system" as the better decision maker than the parents. Get this, that whole rationale is contrary to our laws which start with the assumption that "the system is evil", meaning, our laws, both at the federal and state levels, have been constructed under the assumption that by default rights belong to individuals and that "the system" can only intervene in extraordinary circumstances (not by default). This is not to say that "the system" always abides by this principle, but those cases in which it doesn't we call them for they are: "miscarriages of justice" or "abuse of power", pick your word.

 

There is no evidence that the judge met the standard required to take the custody of Justina away from her parents, making the rest of your points moot. If the parents had been abusive and neglecting, the right course of action is to charge them. If there is not enough evidence to charge them with any crime (which it is implied by the decision of Connecticut to refuse to charge them with anything after reviewing that mythical "confidential information" that you keep referring to), then the right course of action is for the judge and DCF to shut up and to return Justina's custody to their parents. Under our system of laws there is no other legitimate outcome, period.

 

But wait, it gets even better. If your hero judge were truly motivated by what you say, even though it would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the law, isn't he implicitly admitting that DCF is a rotten agency that should have no power to take over the parents? If DCF's outcomes are so bad (including close to 100 children that have died on DCF custody), what is the rationale to still give the custody to DCF over the parents?

 

Connecticut refused to get involved because the father has threatened to sue the hell out of them if they take custody. In a perfect world the Connecticut agency would have the courage to do the right thing anyway, but sadly you often see blame-shifting and cowardice in these situations. Massachusetts is left holding the bag and Connecticut is content with that.

 

If the case was as clear cut as you portray it to be, there should have been no fear. It would have been a PR opportunity for Connecticut DCF given the attention the case is receiving. That they didn't says only that Connecticut DCF reached the conclusion that they would not have been able to win the case under Connecticut's own legal standards, which again, makes your whole "trust the system" argument totally ridiculous.

 

There are perfectly reasonable explanations for all of this and yet you see some massive conspiracy at every turn, a conspiracy the hospital, the child welfare agency, and the courts are each involved in and perpetuating. And for what? To take a child from her parents without cause? What possible reason would they have for that?

You, sir, are delusional, just as I said when you first popped your crazy head up in this thread.

 

I have not claimed any conspiracy whatsoever, neither explicitly or implicitly. Of course there are perfectly reasonable explanations: self interest on the part of BCH, DCF and the judge each of which has an interest that Justina remains in state's custody:

 

- BCH because that would open the gates of civil lawsuits from other families who found themselves in similar situations but preferred to collaborate with BCH instead of facing the hell Justina's parents are facing.

 

- DCF because it is a very troubled agency responsible for the dead of at least 95 children in the last 10 years. The last thing they want is another adverse result with the publicity this case is receiving. A favorable outcome for them is great PR that they need desperately.

 

- The judge Johnston would have to face disciplinary action if he were to admit that granting the custody originally to DCF, even temporary custody, was wrong.

 

If you think that the above is not a reasonable explanation is because you probably failed your civics high school class. It is regularly said that immigrants to the US know better about the US laws than many native born Americans. This must be an instance in which this happens to be true.

 

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

 

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

 

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

 

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

 

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

 

[psychsurvivor 2]

ZOMG!

You were raped when you were institutionalized against your will? Is that how you contracted HIV? Now I feel bad that I made fun of you. That's focking horrible!!!!

You know... living today with AIDS is not a death sentence. They've come a long way with treatments. You should be able to live a 1/2 way normal life.

I will pray for you.

Where did I say that I was raped? I was abused against my will, just as you abused your own mother when you forced her on drugs, which of course is comparable to rape. Many survivors do make the analogy "involuntary commitment/drugging" to rape.

 

With respect to HIV. Glad you bought the topic. Sure, people live longer, but HIV/AIDS still kills. Not only that, HIV continues to be a stigmatizing diagnosis (only comparable to a diagnosis of so called "mental illness").

 

But still you are missing the point. Shrinks should have no right whatsoever to impose what "level of fear of HIV" is reasonable. In all honestly, at least on paper, they don't have that right in the US, God bless the USA!!! Even more, no employer can impose that either (except for occupations for which being in close contact with HIV positive people is part of the job) thanks to the ADA. As I have said numerous times, I am very happy that I live in the US.

 

With that said, it goes against my nature to know about a blunt abuse and ignore it. What my experience did was to open my eyes to the largest single source of human rights abuses that is going on in the Western world: psychiatry. I could have done like the millions of Americans who remained silent about the Jim Craw laws during the civil rights era. I have chosen to do differently. Now all my activism is anonymous, but I plan to out myself at a time when there will be no threat to my livelihood (meaning, that I have enough cash reserves that even if I were to become unemployable because of my activism, it wouldn't matter). I anticipate that that will happen in the next 10 to 20 years. That should also probably tell you that I am making a very comfortable living in spite of my fear of HIV which provides confirmation that my own abuse was totally unwarranted .

[psychsurvivor 2]

You really suck at reading comprehension.

And you suck at civics 101. If I were a US born citizen, I would be ashamed that some random immigrant knew more about US laws than me .

[Sho Nuff 720]

And you suck at civics 101. If I were a US born citizen, I would be ashamed that some random immigrant knew more about US laws than me .

Why do you think you know more?

Ive said little, if anything, about US laws.

Meanwhile you keep lying and making false claims about what people havesaid.

So you can pretty much just piss off.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Why do you think you know more?

Ive said little, if anything, about US laws.

 

Meanwhile you keep lying and making false claims about what people havesaid.

 

So you can pretty much just piss off.

I forgot that you guys are "middle school girls", you probably never made it to high school .

 

The type of conversation we are having here requires at least civics knowledge at the high school level (and from a high school with rigorous standards, not one designed to please the teachers' union ). You and the girls are obviously ignorant about the principles of the American Revolution and things like "the presumption of innocence", "the burden of proof is on the accuser" and the rest .

[Sho Nuff 720]

I forgot that you guys are "middle school girls", you probably never made it to high school .

 

The type of conversation we are having here requires at least civics knowledge at the high school level (and from a high school with rigorous standards, not one designed to please the teachers' union ). You and the girls are obviously ignorant about the principles of the American Revolution and things like "the presumption of innocence", "the burden of proof is on the accuser" and the rest .

You make a terrible assumption and leap in logic claiming this simply because I refused to jump thru hoops on my phone to find what I already know to be tru and know without a shadow of a doubt that you would deny the truth.

No ignorance of anything on my part...so another failed attempt by an unreasonable person.

[crackattack 513]

Awwww. Nobody loved you enough as a kid or adult. It's ok to hate the world cause daddy/mommy/wife didn't hug/love you enough. They probably tried to help your crazy a$$ and just gave up... and I can see why. Enjoy the rest of your lonely existence on this earth. At least you have the voices in your head to keep you company. Big hug your way

[OldMaid 1,838]

It was awful. I was repeatedly sodomized by a gay Dr. with HIV. He would come to my room every night at midnight. He would drug me, and then preform sexual acts on me. I know this, because I would wake up in the morning with bloody underwear. And he didn't even have the decency to leave me one of those plastic blow-up rings, so I would have trouble sitting down during the day. It wasn't until I was released, that I found out I was HIV positive.

 

Thank you so much for finally acknowledging the pain that I suffered at the hands of my captors Now you finally understand why I am so passionate in my beliefs that all psychiatrists are evil.

 

My God! That certainly is a horrible thing for you to have suffered. My deepest condolences.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Awwww. Nobody loved you enough as a kid or adult. It's ok to hate the world cause daddy/mommy/wife didn't hug/love you enough. They probably tried to help your crazy a$$ and just gave up... and I can see why. Enjoy the rest of your lonely existence on this earth. At least you have the voices in your head to keep you company. Big hug your way

Whatever... I don't hate anybody except for psychiatrists .

[psychsurvivor 2]

My God! That certainly is a horrible thing for you to have suffered. My deepest condolences.

WOW, you have all the hallmarks of evil, including "making up" stuff. Well, you probably not see anything "wrong" into forcing your own mother on drugs, but that's because, as I stated earlier, you are probably the product of a dysfunctional upbringing and you have your notion or "right" and "wrong" reversed.

 

I bet you are single because you couldn't find anybody who would put up with you and your dysfunction . Married to government because no man would ever give a thought at marrying you. You fit the stereotypical profile of the "single woman" that the Democrats so much love .

[OldMaid 1,838]

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself.

 

It's hard to get over the trauma of being raped and given a deadly disease. We're here for you, though.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself.

It's hard to get over the trauma of being raped and given a deadly disease. We're here for you, though.

I hope you realize that you are providing evidence of being delusional .

 

Everybody can see what I actually wrote, and what you report to have read . For instance, I said (removing some smileys because otherwise the board complains),

 

WOW, you have all the hallmarks of evil, including "making up" stuff. Well, you probably not see anything "wrong" into forcing your own mother on drugs, but that's because, as I stated earlier, you are probably the product of a dysfunctional upbringing and you have your notion or "right" and "wrong" reversed.

 

I bet you are single because you couldn't find anybody who would put up with you and your dysfunction . Married to government because no man would ever give a thought at marrying you. You fit the stereotypical profile of the "single woman" that the Democrats so much love .

but

 

WOW, I have all the hallmarks of evil, including "making up" stuff. Well, I probably think it's "wrong" forcing your own mother on drugs, but that's because, as I stated earlier, I am probably the product of a dysfunctional upbringing and I have my notion of "right" and "wrong" reversed.

I bet I am single because I couldn't find anybody who would put up with me and my dysfunction . Married to anti-psych because no woman will have me because I am damaged goods.. I am the stereotypical profile of the "crazy man" that the Republicans so much love .

 

Well, be careful next time you take your mom to the psychiatrist. If he/she is reading this, it might be you who ends up with a prescription of Zyprexa.

[OldMaid 1,838]

I hope everyone realizes that I am providing evidence of being delusional . Everybody can plainly see that I'm a whack-a-doodle-do!

Yes... yes we can.

 

But we have a better understanding, now that we know you were sodomized and are HIV positive. I'd be bitter, too.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Yes... yes we can.

But we have a better understanding, now that we know you were sodomized and are HIV positive. I'd be bitter, too.

I am not kidding. What you claim to have read (vs what I actually wrote) fits the definition of delusion,

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=delusion

"psychotic belief ((psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary) "

 

At this point you are objectively psychotic . If your level of anger were to increase, you could be committed against your will for being dangerous to others .

[OldMaid 1,838]

[crackattack 513]

I've seen crazy, but not sure I've seen it at the level he's at!!