A point that needs correcting. Above I refer to myself as meeting the standard of being a “referred person” under the Mental Health Act, and NOT an “Outpatient”. This is incorrect as on closer examination of the documents it is noted that under the section where it requires a “Referral Source” the answer is written as “Unknown”. The whole point of my wife and the Private Clinic Psychologist discussing what items needed to be ‘planted’ on me (to meet the requirements of s. 68 e of the Criminal Code [in possession of a weapon and illicit drugs]) once I was incapacitated with the ‘spiking’ with benzos was to provide police with justification to make a referral post hoc (ie once I had been ‘verballed’ on the statutory declaration). THEY DID NOT DO THIS. And thus the Community Nurse was simply going to need to run with the lie that I was his “outpatient” and create the appearance that I was a Police referral (under s. 196 of the MHA) for his colleagues when police delivered me to the locked ward. So if I wasn’t an “outpatient”, and I wasn’t a “referred person” what was I? Well, and I know this is a little inconvenient for some people, I was actually being kidnapped after being tortured. A victim of crimes, but it just didn’t look like it (which is kind of clever really). Now one of the problems I am faced with is that I wanted to get a divorce, and was concerned about the lawyers providing the fraudulent set of documents to the Federal Court. I mean I get it that they find it easy to “edit” the legal narrative and fool me (and of course by threatening the lawyers and witnesses, they are quite happy to look the other way) but …… a Federal Court judge might just notice. I doubt they would appreciate being put in such a compromising situation myself. But nice move on the part of the hospital to get others to utter with their fraud, and leave a trail back to the Clinical Director of the hospital who I believe was unaware that he had authorised the fraud to be distributed (it’s not really “editing” when you change legal narrative to conceal such serious offences is it?). One other point I should note for anyone following up on the Josef Hartinger ‘link’. Consider the situation when a doctor went into a police station here and admitted killing a terminally ill patient (the State being responsible for any corrupt actions by it’s officers. see Corrina Horvath comments by the U.N.). What would Himmler do? well, we were told that more than 90% of the public wanted Euthanasia Laws (no proof of the figure provided. And if were going to pass laws based on public support, more people actually support Capital Punishment, but I don’t see that being promoted by Politicians in the media) and the laws were pushed through Parliament with little ‘opposition’ (one guy I think, the rest went to the football while the matter was ‘debated’. See Facebook photos of the party). [still no answer on the ability to “edit” documents relating to the ‘treating’ of patients wishing to access this legislation]. However, the laws have now been passed and killing is a form of treatment for the terminally ill (amendments soon to follow allowing access for the mentally ill no doubt). A question I have is; Do they swab the persons arm with alcohol to ensure that they do not get an infection from the lethal injection? And would they be neglecting their duty of care if they didn’t?