June 22, 2014 at 7:24 pm #43554
I have been exchanging letters with our Chief Psychiatrist and the Minister for Mental Health over a couple of legal matters. It has been a frustrating exercise as I seem to ask a couple of very simple questions, and then receive answers to questions I have not asked. Does 2 + 2 = 4?, answer oranges. So I thought i’d post a thread here and hopefully see where it is that my questions are being misinterpreted.
Our Mental Health Act (MHA) can be viewed here;
The issue relates to the matter of referral for an examination by a psychiatrist. The Chief Psychiatrist has the primary responsibility of upholding the objects of the Act (Section 5). This includes the “proper protection of patients as well as the public“. To do this one would imagine that he would be aware of the protections afforded patients and the public by the Act. The Minister gets to write the Act, so one would imagine an awareness of the purpose of the Act.
The process of referral involves an assessment by an Authorised Mental Health Practitioner (AMHP, Part 2, division 3). The criteria for referral is set out in PART 3 — Involuntary patients, Subdivision 1 — Criteria. In brief the criteria for referral requires 4 standards to be met. The AMHP must identify an illness (defined in S.4 of the Act), a serious risk, the illness must be treatable, and the least coercive method must be used.
Part 3, subdivision 2 (S 28-35) sets out the referral process.
The AMHP is given the power to refer a person in S.29 (1) of the Act. It states that;
“Subject to section 194, a medical practitioner or an authorised mental health practitioner who suspects on reasonable grounds that a person should be made an involuntary patient may refer the person for examination by a psychiatrist.”
In order for the detention to be lawful they must meet the criteria set out in S 26. How would we know if the criteria have been met? In their wisdom our legislators brought into existence a Form 1. This is a statutory declaration set out in S 33 (Form of referral under s. 29). It is an important document and requires the AMHP to “specify the facts on the basis of which it is suspected that the person should be made an involuntary patient”.
So, the power to detain a person requires that the reasonable grounds standards of S 26 be met, and there is an accountability measure in place should the referral be contested (Form 1). We can check that the reasonable grounds standard has been met by checking the Form 1. The community is protected from being referred based on nothing more than the whim of an AMHP. It is the duty of the Chief Psychiatrist to ensure that this is being enforced.
The AMHP is to “specify the facts” on the Form 1. As it is a statutory declaration the standard to be met is set out in the Oaths, Affidavits, and Statutory Declarations Act (2005).
When is a fact not a fact? Section 16 of this Act states that;
“The validity of an oath, affirmation or statutory declaration is not affected by the fact that the person taking or making it does not use the exact words required as long as the words actually used do not materially affect the substance of the exact words and are not likely to mislead.”
Materially affecting or making misleading statements is not permitted. The Form would be invalid and the detention unlawful if this was done. So what would be the consequences if someone were to fill out the Form 1 and misrepresent matters? Legislators were obviously aware that this may occur and have further protected the community. The Criminal Code contains the following offense.
“336. Procuring apprehension or detention of person not suffering from mental illness or impairment
Any person who, by the production of a false certificate or other document, knowingly and wilfully, procures any person, not suffering from mental illness (as defined in the Mental Health Act 1996) or mental impairment, to be apprehended or detained, pursuant to that Act or any law relating to mental impairment, upon insufficient or unreasonable grounds, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.”
Therefore, it is vital that the AMHP complete the Form 1 specifying the facts. To not do so would constitute a criminal offense. This all seems fairly obvious to me, and surely should be understood by the person responsible for the administration of the Act (Chief Psychiatrist) and the Minister for Mental Health. It is a model that contains protection for the community from being deprived of their liberty without any reason.
What sort of community would allow a public officer to turn up at someones home, detain them without reason? So there are laws to stop this from occurring. Excellent.
A public officer (AMHP) turned up at my home, asked me a few questions and then detained me with no reasonable grounds. Fact. I therefore obtained the documents and had a lawyer make an official complaint to the Chief Psychiatrist, the person responsible for protecting the community. The complaint set out the reasons that the matters stated on the Form1 were nothing more than fabrications and misrepresentation, and therefore the detention was unlawful.
The response of the Chief Psychiatrist to my contention that the “facts” stated on the Form 1 were nothing but fabrication and misrepresentation was thus.
“The referrer [AMHP] has only to ‘suspect’ on grounds they believe to be reasonable that the person requires examination by a psychiatrist”
He then dismisses my contention of the facts as being “justifiable explanations”. Note the change in Section 29 (1) of the MHA? The referrer “who suspects on reasonable grounds” becomes the referrer who “‘suspects’ on grounds they believe to be reasonable.” This is a substantive change of S 29 (1) of the MHA.
Suspect on reasonable grounds is a legal standard, and is used in various pieces of legislation. It is usually accompanied by an accountability measure such as a Form or statutory declaration.
What does this change mean? It means that in order to determine what reasonable grounds are we would need to ask each individual referrer what they thought was reasonable. It removes the standard set in S 26 of the Act of reasonable grounds of identifying an illness, risk, treatablity, and least coercive method. The Form 1 would be pointless as the referrer could write the word tomato on it and quite legitimately claim that they thought this was reasonable.
An objective legal standard that can be tested, becomes a subjective interpretation that can not.
My question is this. If it is the “primary responsibility” of the Chief Psychiatrist to protect the rights of patients and the community shouldn’t he know what the protections contained in the Act are? Certainly the AMHP who detained me knew what these protections are, or he would not have any need to misrepresent matters on the Form 1 to make his detention appear lawful.
Is it merely a coincidence that the rewritten version of this Section of the Act means that my complaint is no longer valid?
I have put this to the Chief Psychiatrist in a number of letters, and somehow my question becomes something other than what I ask. I have been directed to another agency to make a complaint, and had a definition of what a referrer is under the Act. These irrelevant responses have taken 6 months, and 2 months to receive, and only after I have requested a time frame for a response.
I just feel that it is important for the Chief Psychiatrist to know what his duties are. If he is not going to recognise the protection afforded by the Act, how can he possibly ensure compliance? And it means that a public officer can go to anyone’s home and detain them without any reason whatsoever.
Personally, I believe that the Chief Psychiatrist is both dishonest and has no integrity. He is turning a blind eye to corrupt acts by AMHP’s and providing an environment of carte blanche to detain anyone without reason, and zero accountability when they do.
Shame on you.
Is it clear what i’m saying here, or is my ability to communicate this matter breaking down somewhere? i’d appreciate any comments.
BoansJune 23, 2014 at 5:53 pm #43577
As I have stated above, one would expect that the Chief Psychiatrist and Minister for Mental Health would have a fairly good understanding of the legislation that relates to the area of mental health.
The second question that I have asked relates to when during the referral process does a person loose their right to consent. It is a very important issue, and one i’m sure has been debated.
The referral process is set out in PART 3 — Involuntary patients, Subdivision 2 — Referral for examination. It is during this process that a person looses their right to liberty. S. 36 is particularly important in this regard. It sets out what is to happen to the referred person. I quote the full section;
36 . Detaining referred person in hospital
(1) A person who is referred under section 29 for examination by a psychiatrist in an authorised hospital —
(a) is to be received into the hospital; and
(b) may be detained there for up to 24 hours from the time of reception.
(2) A person is not to be so received if more than 7 days have elapsed since the referral was made.
(3) Being received into an authorised hospital under this section is not admission to the hospital for the purposes of this Act.
(4) If the person has not been examined by a psychiatrist within the period specified in subsection (1)(b), the person may not be detained any longer.
Note that the person is not admitted to the hospital, and is therefore not a patient. The Act seems quite clear to me that what is to occur is that the referred person is simply detained until an examination can be conducted by a psychiatrist, and they can then decide if the person should have their right to consent removed IF it is decided that they are not able to exercise this function.
So, the referred person losses their right to liberty as the AMHP ‘suspects on reasonable grounds’ that the person should be made a patient, and they are held until examined by a psychiatrist who is to make that decision. The referred person is thus protected from being subjected to forced treatment unless the psychiatrist exercises their power under the Act.
My question to both the Chief Psychiatrist and the Minister has been “At what point during the referral process does a person loose their right to consent?” The answers have been that I can complain to another authority. I have responded explaining that I know who to complain to, but would like confirmation of what I believe to be true, that the only person who can remove the referred persons right to consent is a psychiatrist. A fairly simple question?
There are a number of reasons why this is important.
During a referral I was subjected to a physical examination by a doctor. Knowing what my rights were, I specifically denied this doctor the right to examine me. “I do not give my consent to this examination, and it will constitute an assault if you touch me” were my exact words. The doctors hands started shaking, though he went ahead with the examination under the threat of having me restrained. He knew and I knew it was an assault. I made a complaint about this to the Chief Psychiatrist who stated that the doctor had “a designation and authority under the Act”. I responded by asking where in the Act this authority was, and he has ignored the question since. Its simply not there.
On another occasion I was referred for an examination and was in the same position, lost my right to liberty, but not my right to consent. The doctor wanted me to take medication to make me sleep, and I did not wish to take it as I knew it would cause me stomach problems. I insisted to the nurse that I would not take the medication. I was then surrounded by 12 staff (security guards and nurses) and the doctor held up a large needle. I said “your not coming near me with that” to which he replied “I’m the boss around here”. Fearing that if I did not take the oral medication I would be restrained and injected with an unknown substance, I ‘voluntarily’ took the pills.
I have written to the CP and Minister asking about this because I wonder if this method of obtaining consent could be used in other circumstances. For example If the doctor above is on a date, takes someone out for dinner and a movie, and then requests sexual relations from the person and they deny, could he then have them surrounded by 12 bikers and pull a knife to obtain consent? Would this be acceptable? It certainly was when done in a hospital.
So my question stands. At what point during a referral does a person loose their right to consent? I don’t think that hospital staff like the fact that people have rights, and rely on ignorance of the law and the fact that the person is vulnerable. Once again I think the Chief Psychiatrist is turning a blind eye to the rights of the community.
For attributing powers to doctors under the Act when they don’t have any, attempting to mislead me by claiming they do, and not clarifying what rights the community is entitled to under the Act I once again say shame on you.June 23, 2014 at 7:31 pm #43585
I would also note in relation to the assault by the doctor noted above, where I specifically denied consent to touch me, that I made a written complaint about this matter.
After being examined by the doctor I requested a complaint form and the use of a pen from the nurse.
Being an ex public officer I wrote out my complaint and stated that his behaviour constituted misconduct under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act S.8. I then gave this form to the nurse and requested that I be given a copy, and he obliged.
The nurse then made the doctor aware of my complaint, and request that he be dismissed from his post, and put the form into the appropriate tray for action.
I was released from the hospital later that day.
After a couple of weeks I contacted the hospital and asked what action had been taken about my written complaint. They had no knowledge of my complaint, and could not find the form. It is my belief that the doctor who had been made aware of my complaint ensured that it ended up in the bin.
The complaints officer did a formal investigation, could not find the form, said that the nursing staff had been reminded of the importance of ensuring that written complaints were forwarded to the complaints officer, and could they please have a copy of my copy.
This I found strange because if the complaints officer had done an investigation, then she would have spoken to the nurse and would know that he did what he was supposed to do (ie put the form into the appropriate tray). I asked my lawyer if I should provide them with a copy, and she said that she would be reluctant to say yes. So I didn’t provide them with one.
Now, the written complaint, as it related to an allegation of misconduct by a public officer is a document that may be required by the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC). They would need it as evidence, if further action was required. The CCC Act 2005.
171 . Destroying evidence
A person who, knowing that a document or other thing is or may be required by the Commission or Parliamentary Inspector, wilfully destroys it or renders it illegible or undecipherable or incapable of identification, with the intention of preventing it from being effectively used in evidence, is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of $60 000.
Nice one doctor. By throwing my written complaint about your assault on me in the bin, you just committed a further serious offense. And the complaints officer tried to get a copy from me to cover the crime that you committed. I’m getting the feeling that these people don’t deserve the trust that is placed in them.June 23, 2014 at 9:05 pm #43589
I hope it can be seen that these two legal matters have been dealt with by the Chief Psychiatrist by rewriting the relevant section of the Act to remove the “reasonable grounds” standard, and accountability measure, and attributing powers to doctors where they have none. Criminal acts simply disappear into the ether.
There were two other matters raised by me in relation to this first referral that were also put to the Chief Psychiatrist. There are somewhat interrelated. I will explain them briefly because I think it says something about the way that complaints are dealt with by the person who is meant to protect the rights of consumers, carers and the community.
Before calling mental health services to request that I be assessed by them, my wife decided that it was a good idea to drug me without my knowledge.So, whilst making a drink for me she put Benzodiazepines into my drink and didn’t tell me. This is a criminal offence under S 305A of the Criminal Code, intoxication by deception. There are 4 drugs which are classed as stupefying drugs, and action will be taken by the police if they are administered in this fashion, Ketamine, GHB, Rohypnol, and Benzodiazepines.
I fell asleep, and she called mental health services. She informed them that she had ‘spiked’ my drink with Benzos, and this was written down by the AMHP who then came to our home. I was dragged out of bed by police with tazers ready and then interviewed, and referred for an examination by a psychiatrist. The AMHP who interviewed me, the doctor who assaulted me, and the psychiatrist who assessed me were all aware that I had been drugged without my knowledge, and yet none of them informed me of this fact.
The Chief Psychiatrist was asked why I was not informed. It seems to me that this is information that I should have been provided for a number of reasons. I should have been aware that my behaviour would be affected when being interviewed. I should have been aware that my wife was drugging me without my knowledge to be able to defend myself from this behaviour in future. I should have been aware that I was under the influence of a stupefying drug before being released from the hospital to drive a car at high speeds on a freeway. One would imagine that there was a duty of care here.
How did the Chief Psychiatrist respond to this? He begins by excusing the AMHP for not informing me because there was no medical emergency. He then states that the doctor who assaulted me and the psychiatrist who assessed me no longer work at the hospital, and that “they are the only people who can explain the reasons for their decision.” So I called the hospital and the doctor has certainly left, but the psychiatrist does still work there to this day.
So I write to the Chief Psychiatrist and inform him that he is wrong about this. He admits his “error of fact” but does nothing to rectify his error. An honest person would rectify their ‘mistake’. Of course the Chief Psychiatrist doesn’t want to hear what the psychiatrist has to say, and so therefore doesn’t do anything. A simple phone call would have done.
At this point in his response to my complaint, I’m getting the feeling that he is deciding what outcome he would prefer, and then making the evidence fit his preferred outcome. Sounds a bit like the method of thinking what mental illness you want a person to have, and then make the evidence fit the illness. Don’t look at any evidence that doesn’t suit you Doctor.
Once again I say shame on you.June 23, 2014 at 9:52 pm #43590
He begins by excusing the AMHP for not informing me because there was no medical emergency. He then states that the doctor who assaulted me and the psychiatrist who assessed me no longer work at the hospital, and that “they are the only people who can explain the reasons for their decision.”
As if there could have been any “reason” for them to put your life at risk! This guy sounds like a real goon. I’m so sorry you’re having to deal with that, boans, after everything else you’ve been through. How awful, to have your spouse poison you and then go through the hospital assault experience and now to have to deal with this guy, who seems as if he’s just trying to cover his own backside by minimizing what happened. So no, it doesn’t sound to me like a communication breakdown; it sounds like a covering up and attempted gaslighting.June 23, 2014 at 10:14 pm #43591
So, drugged without my knowledge, jumped by 2 police and 3 mental health workers whilst asleep, unlawfully detained by an AMHP, assaulted by a doctor at the hospital, then examined by a psychiatrist who says there is no mental illness and the only risk is that he is angry about the way he has been treated. I’m released 7 hours later.
I know that I was detained unlawfully so make application under the FOI Act to obtain my documents, 4 days after being released. I didn’t know that these documents contained an admission of a criminal act by my wife of drugging me with Benzos. My wife calls the FOI officer and they make an agreement to deceive me so that I can not obtain these documents. My wife pretends that she is assisting me to get the documents, and the FOI officer doesn’t tell me what is required to obtain them. This is a breach of her duty under Section 4 of the FOI Act.
I engage the services of a lawyer to assist with a complaint, and the FOI officer and my wife panic. Why? From the Criminal Code;
135. Conspiring to pervert etc. course of justice
Any person who conspires with another to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
I am being mislead by the FOI officer into making appeals to obtain documents that were bound to fail. The lawyers however have a right to have the documents, and will quite possibly recognise what has been going on, and why. So my wife and the FOI officer make two attempts to have me sign documents that will release them from this conspiracy. It is complex, and I will not explain here the details.
After 8 weeks of being run in circles, and my wife finally realising that the lawyers will get the documents, she decides to tell me about drugging me. Great, the person I trusted most in the world has been stopping me from getting the documents I needed to demonstrate the unlawful detention. She had been having ‘accidents’ with the documents I did have, costing me hours and hours of work. She had also been calling the FOI officer and informing her of the efforts being made by the lawyers. I was obviously discussing this with her, thinking she was trying to help me.
Despite the law requiring the FOI officer to provide the documents to the lawyers, she never did this. I’m assuming she was hoping that it would all just go away. And in many ways it has.
To be fair with the Chief Psychiatrist, all this was not put to him. The lawyers merely asked why the documents that were requested had never been provided. His response was basically “I don’t know”.
The complaints process has been particularly interesting. A letter is sent to the Chief Psychiatrist and he doesnt respond for 6 and a 1/2 months. Sorry for the delay but the manager of the hospital was away over Christmas. A letter is the sent outlining why his response is inadequate and another 2 months go by. Sorry for the delay, what was your question again? Another letter is sent……..Oh I dont want to actually examine the evidence I’ll just say your claim is not supported because I’m the Chief Psychiatrist (argument from authority).
There have been some twists and turns among this that demonstrate how far this people will go to not examine the matter objectively. I won’t go into it all but will say I have it all documented. Of course those who are charged with being responsible simply won’t look at the evidence and facts.
My personal opinion is that these people are dishonest, and have no integrity. They are enabling an environment where abuse and misconduct is widespread. My hope is that one day they will be held accountable. The laws are not perfect, but the person who is responsible for ensuring that consumers, carers and the communities rights are upheld is being negligent in his duty, and enabling these abuses. It certainly makes it easy for staff to get the job done, and the cost is borne by those who are subjected to these abuses. Any complaints and we will subject them to an abusive complaints process until they either commit suicide or give up in frustration.
You people are a disgrace to the offices you hold. If anyone ever wonders why the system is in a mess, look no further.
Shame on youJune 23, 2014 at 10:52 pm #43592
As if there could have been any “reason” for them to put your life at risk! This guy sounds like a real goon. I’m so sorry you’re having to deal with that, boans, after everything else you’ve been through. How awful, to have your spouse poison you and then go through the hospital assault experience and now to have to deal with this guy, who seems as if he’s just trying to cover his own backside by minimizing what happened. So no, it doesn’t sound to me like a communication breakdown; it sounds like a covering up and attempted gaslighting.
Thanks uprising. It’s only those who have been subjected to this process that can understand what happens to your state of mind as a result of these ‘interventions’. In many ways I was an experiment in what happens to someone who doesn’t have a mental illness and is subjected to it. I can only begin to imagine what it must be like for someone who is unwell.
I’ve been fortunate to get an education, and have always been one for documenting everything (phone calls, letters, diary notes etc). What I witnessed in that 7 hours was atrocious. I could not believe I was in the same country. This is what I’ve been paying taxes for all my life? How can these people be abused and not even be aware of it? Of course what I found out after I stepped in front of a truck as a result of these event was that they are aware that they are being abused in many cases, they have simply given up trying to have anything done about it.
My life is over, I died the day they woke me and dragged me off for nothing more than being concerned about a threat that had been made to assault me (family conflict). If this is the direction my nation is heading the I no longer wish to be part of it. I just hope that my attempts to have these matters dealt with fairly demonstrate to anyone who does care how this abusive environment is being enabled. Imagine what happens when the people in this environment know that they can break the law and absolutely nothing will be done about it.
I may at some point describe what happened for my wife to call these people for ‘help’ as I think it is a significant part of my story. And how the AMHP managed to make what was a person who was being subjected to domestic abuse and violence, into a violent psychotic, drug abusing wife beater.
Had I known that the law was merely window dressing, and that the community has no protection even in their own home, how different things would have been. If only eh?
Anyway, in this quiet little corner of the internet is my truth. How I wish it wasn’t.
Once again thanks Uprising. I enjoy reading your comments in the articles and here in the forums. Someday I believe we will be heard, and action will be taken to end these abuses of our fellow human beings.
BoansJune 26, 2014 at 3:01 am #43724
This sounds crazymaking and outright Kafkaesque. Good on you for standing up for yourself and what’s right.June 26, 2014 at 3:55 am #43726
God, boans, this is awful. We’re living in the Twilight Zone for goddsake. I wish there was something I could do-I wish I had organizing skills.
This site is a first step, I think, and I would love to contribute somehow but I live in poverty-now using leaky wi-fi in neighborhood because I can’t afford my own connection. RW’s recent post about the future of MiA speaks of money issues-how can I help without money?
boans I am so sorry this shit is going on. I hope there are good moment for you occasionally. Sometimes I watch the birds and notice how they just live-no thoughts for yesterday or tomorrow. Just now.
I’m trying to be like that.June 26, 2014 at 4:53 am #43727
I really appreciate your comments, and taking the time to read my posts. It certainly reminded me of Kafkas’ The Trial when it all happened Emmiline. Still does, and how I wish it was all a figment of my imagination. Unfortunately I have the documents that demonstrate quite clearly that what I’m saying is the truth.
I thought through what I’ve said so far and would like to back track a little. On the day that this all started my wife called mental health services and gave them some information. This was noted by the AMHP before attending my home to do his ‘assessment’ There is then the Form 1 that he filled out at my home in order to detain me. And finally there are some post ‘assessment’ notes made back at the hospital when I was delivered there by the police.
These documents are instructive. The pre ‘assessment’ triage notes show quite clearly the information provided by my wife, and around which the AMHP structured his interview. He was fully aware that my wife had been blackmailed, and that I had got angry about this with the person who had done it. It also shows that a family conflict had resulted from this. That I was asleep when she called the mental health service, and some other matters that are significant but that I will not detail here. Suffice to say that it is clear what the AMHP knew before attending.
There is then the Form 1 that as stated in my first post is a statutory declaration that requires the AMHP “specify the facts”. It is an important document, and there are severe penalties for not completing it accurately. It should be kept in mind that the measure of a misrepresentation is that the words used do not matter as long as “the words used do not materially affect the substance of the exact words and are not likely to mislead”.
Finally there are the post interview clinical notes that also demonstrate what the AMHP was aware of. These notes are not as clear as the Triage notes, but certainly support what I am claiming has been done. For example it is noted that I was asleep when they arrived, that my appetite was poor, and that there had been a conflict with an individual named XXXX.
I sent a letter to the AMHP about the matters stated on his Form 1 asking that he explain himself. I now post the extract of the matters stated for you to examine and decide for yourself if these matters are “materially affected” and are likely to “mislead”. I will make some comments about what occurred when this Form 1 was used by the doctor, and psychiatrist to structure their assessments of me. This is not a comprehensive analysis of the matters but does, I believe show how the AMHP managed to make the matters appear to be “reasonable grounds” to detain. The matters are divided into Observed and Communicated matters. Observed matters are more important than communicated matters.
1. Guarded but concerned re internet, being observed by neighbours.
You were made fully aware of the conflict that had arisen with my in laws who own the property next door. My concerns regarding the “internet” were not actually concerns about the internet at all. You were informed that the two homes shared a modem router, and that my concerns were that my in laws, with whom I was in conflict, had access to my computer.
Being observed by neighbours is a little misleading too. They were my in laws and have kept an eye on the property for me and my wife since the house was built. We did not even speak about any other neighbours.
What you have done is take a situation where I had some legitimate concerns about a conflict with my significant others, and created irrational concerns about generalised others. One is a symptom of little clinical significance; the other is evidence of paranoia. Very clever Rob.
2. Not sleeping/eating.
You were informed that my sleeping and eating habits had been disturbed for a couple of days. I informed you that I had been eating and was sleeping, just not as much as regular. I asked you if there was some legislative requirement that I needed to meet. Not sleeping and eating is very different to disturbed sleeping and eating. It is clinically significant as you would be aware. Misleading Rob? Not trying to make me look manic are you?
An observed behaviour? I was asleep when my wife rang you (see your triage notes) and you woke me up when you arrived at my home Rob. Of course making this an observed behaviour give it more weight. Dr XXXX in his response to my complaint writes that “Of importance is the observed behaviours of the patient which can represent a risk to the person or other”. This matter was communicated to you, not what you observed.
3. Thoughts of harming others.
Of course this relates to what you noted before leaving the hospital, the issues with XXXX. So singular to plural. Other becomes others. And of course when we spoke about the disagreement with XXXX you were informed that it had occurred three weeks before (it was actually 4, but I did say to you 3). Do you find that misleading? I mean I did have thoughts of harming him, but that was in the heat of the moment after he had attempted to blackmail my wife. I’m sure that everyone has at some point in their life had thoughts similar to these, but is it really evidence of a mental illness? Would you not be angry with someone who had threatened your wife Rob? And I did explicitly inform you that I had no intention of harming XXXX.
The omission of significant information creates a current risk to generalised others, when what you were informed of was a historic risk to a significant other. This is similar to your verbal gymnastics with item 1.
You were also provided with information about my wife attempting to stab me in the chest with a carving knife whilst I was lying down, two days before. She confirmed this assault to you. This was as a result of me telling her I was going to leave her. You were also aware that she had drugged me without my knowledge with benzodiazepines. So I have thoughts of harming someone who attempts to blackmail my wife, three weeks before and this is a problem, my wife is committing assaults against me and actually attempting to harm me within the last two days and that isn’t?
I realise you were attending to me at the request of a damsel in distress, but are you not capable of recognising that a victim of domestic violence can be male? I think your assumption that turned into a fact on your Form 1 is instructive in this regard. See Item 7.
4. Refused to answer re substance abuse.
This is an oxymoron Rob. The only fact conveyed by it is that you have no fact. You did ask me about cannabis use, and I said that I would need to speak with a lawyer before answering your question, because of the presence of the police. I deferred your question; I did not refuse to answer. Of course it paints a pretty picture for anyone reading the Form.
I can’t help but wonder if the presence of police during your interview may have played a role in your decision not to inform me that my wife had drugged me without my knowledge. This drink spiking by my wife with benzodiazepines was obviously a criminal act that you were aware of. It was in your triage notes before you left the hospital. Were you ensuring that no action was taken over this crime? I would have thought it ethical to inform me that I was under the influence of a stupefying drug before conducting an interview. You expect me to do something that you wouldn’t, and then use that as evidence?
5. Agitated and pacing.
If you remember Rob, I was sitting on the boot of my car when you interviewed me, with a police officer either side of me and three mental health workers in front of me. I was in no position to be pacing. Agitated? I was joking with you until you informed me that I was going to be detained under the Mental Health Act. At that point I became agitated, and walked up and down the driveway with police a couple of times. How can something that occurred after I have been detained be grounds for detaining me? Of course we discussed this on the 8 Nov 2011, and you admitted your ‘mistake’.
6. Potential for damage to reputation and meaningful relationships.
This applies to every living person on the planet. I would however like to remind you of the actual damage you did to my reputation and meaningful relationships by having me searched and locked in police van in front of my mother and father in law. Parking on their lawn was not a good idea in the first place. Not the only serious damage that occurred, but I won’t go into the other effects your behaviour. I do however feel it important to note that I had potential, you did actual damage.
7. Wife fearful for her safety.
My wife and I had some arguments over this matter Rob, when I finally got access to my documents. I wondered why she would lie to you. Of course she didn’t say any such thing to you according to her. Why would she fear for her safety, her concerns were about XXXX, and the conflict between us. Of course without this, you really had no risk as the only other item, thoughts of harming self or others, wouldn’t be adequate once tested by the psychiatrist. You needed to invent a risk, or fail to meet the standards of the Act. Putting words into her mouth as well as mine.
What I find interesting about this matter is the way it escalated. My wife tells me that it was the Triage nurse (you?) who said to her that if she was concerned for her safety to call the police. It is written in your Triage notes. On your Form 1 filled out at my home, you write the above, wife is fearful for her safety. And then your notes from the hospital, post interview state that my wife feared being assaulted by me. The assumption that my wife was fearful has turned into a fact, in your mind at least.
8. Stockpile heavy objects/knife for self-protection.
A couple of points here Rob. When I was woken I was searched by the police, and they found no knife. Whilst I agree that it may have been something communicated by my wife, it seems that what she was speaking about was a tool I used whilst working.
I remember your questions about this as clearly today as if it was yesterday. “Do you have any heavy objects?” I answered that of course I did and pointed to a large number of items around my yard. That was the basis of what you have written.
“Do you have a knife?” and I informed you that I had a drawer full of them in the house. “Do you have knife you carry around with you?” and I told you about the knife I used around the shed etc. when I was working. “What do you use it for?” and I answered for stripping wire, cutting plants etc. “Could you use it for self-protection?” and of course the answer is yes. This is called loaded questioning Rob. I know you’re not a lawyer, but feel sure you understand that by using this interview technique you could get any answers you wanted. It’s unethical.
9. Damage to photograph.
Yes, that’s right I did do some damage to a photograph, that cost me 20 cents to repair. The Act S26 states that a person should be detained if they are at risk of doing “serious financial harm” or “serious damage to property”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider 20 cents worth of damage to a photo to fit into either of these categories.
Why bother mentioning it? Because you needed it to sound like a problem, not because it was. Also, this was an observed matter; remember I took you back into the house to actually see it? Of course stating on the Form 1 that you had seen it might raise issues later.June 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm #43763
Anyone reading about this train wreck of an ‘intervention’ may be wondering about why my wife would drug me with benzos and call mental health services. Surely there were reasons for them to become involved? Looking back over the events that occurred I can see how it happened, though question some of the decisions that were made. To understand why I need to step further back and will describe briefly what happened, and the explanations that were given for these acts. It should be understood that my wife was engaged in lying and deceiving me after the ‘intervention’ and it has been difficult to extract the truth. I would have liked to believe that it was done with malice, but that is simply not the case.
On the 1st of September 2011 my wife received a call from her nephew, who attempted to blackmail both of us. To ensure compliance with this blackmail was going to cost a couple of thousand dollars worth of work and goods. I am sure that if we had complied that this would not have been the last ‘payment’ that we would have had to make. I got angry and called her nephew back and told him in no uncertain terms that the reason for the blackmail no longer existed, and that he was to stay well away from us both.
I then sent an email to his father (wife’s brother) saying some things about his son that were ugly, though true. It was an angry email, though it definitely did not constitute a threat. Unfortunately his mother opened the email and distributed it to the rest of the family. A couple of days pass and I receive a phone call from the blackmailers sister. She is wondering about what is going on. We have a heated exchange and I make what she later claimed was a threat to harm her brother. I do not believe that this was what I did, but that was how she interpreted it. Was I angry? Yes, but my intent was to ensure that the blackmailer stayed away from my wife and I.
I am summoned next door to speak to my father in law. He is not fully aware of the situation, and defends the balckmailer, telling me that his offensive behaviour is “none of your business”. Anther heated exchange and I leave. I receive phone calls from the blackmailers father who is verbally abusing me, and another ‘meeting’ with my father in law that ends with me asking him to leave our home. I am accused of sending my angry email to all members of the family.
As I see it (and I admit that I may be wrong here) I was being subjected to domestic abuse by my in laws. We lived in two houses separated by 20 meters, but had always been very close. When leaving my home I was likely to run into the people with whom I was in conflict, and was subjected to nasty looks. Okay, I can deal with that.
After a couple of weeks my wife returned home from her parents house, after her brother had been there. He was there basically every day. She told me that he didn’t know what to do about me, whether to call the police, or his son in law had offered to get some of his big mates together and have me assaulted. Two points should be made about this. The first is that going to the police was not an option, his son was involved in serious criminal activity, and had attempted to blackmail. The second option was the realistic one.
The person offering to get his friends together and have me assaulted was a known meth amphetamine user, who had a history of doing home invasions. He used to brag about this to the rest of the family. Needless to say I was concerned. I started receiving telephone calls when my wife left our home, and the caller would hang up. There is a possible explanation for this, though at the time it added to my concerns. So i went about ensuring that if the threat to assault me was carried out, i was able to protect myself in my own home. As I said above, I did not go to the lengths of having firearms in my home, but was certainly going to defend myself.
After three weeks of this situation developing I explained to my wife the stress the situation was causing me. She had made an appointment with a psychiatrist I had seen almost a year before about another matter (work related). I explained that it wasn’t necessary for me to see a psychiatrist about a family disagreement, and that it was going to cost a large sum of money that could be put to better use. The appointment was therefore cancelled. She then made an appointment with a psychologist I had been seeing about the work matters. I once again explained that it was unnecessary, and that I would not be attending.
27th September 2011 (Tuesday evening). My wife and I were discussing these matters, her family’s behaviour towards me etc.I was sitting on a couch in our bedroom with my feet up. I explained to my wife that the situation was becoming dangerous, and said that I was going to leave our home. She wanted to come with me, and I explained that she couldn’t, I had nowhere appropriate to go, and she needed to care for her mother and father. She was in the kitchen and picked up a large carving knife and ran at me screaming at the top of her lungs, attempting to stab me in the chest. She is much larger than me. I swung round and the knife hit my foot. She then stepped back and held the knife out for me and started screaming “stab me, stab me”. I said to her “you’ve got to get some help” and that her behaviour was unacceptable.
Was I happy about having to leave my home? No. And I damaged a photo of the person who had made the threat to have me assaulted. Stupid, but understandable given the circumstance. I adored my wife, and was being forced from my home. I wasn’t sleeping well and my appetite wasn’t good.
29th September 2011 (Thursday) This was the day that my wife had made an appointment with the psychologist for me. I told her that it was pointless. Both the psychologist and my wife had been told that I did not wish them to speak to one another. My wife decided that she would attend the appointment instead of me. I wasn’t happy about it but thought perhaps she may get some help regarding her behaviour towards me.
My wife returned from the appointment and I asked her if she got what she wanted. I can still see her face when she answered to this day. “There were lots of ‘i’m not at liberty to says’, but I got what I needed” was her reply. Early the following morning she slipped benzos into my drink, I fell asleep and as described above, I was woken by the police and mental health services.
The situation developed over a number of weeks. The nephew attempted to blackmail us, I got angry and sent an email, my in laws turned on me and subjected me to verbal abuse and threats. I therefore was going to remove myself from the situation, not an easy decision, but a rational one. When I did my wife attempted to stab me, and then went to see my psychologist.
Of course once I had been detained by mental health services, petrol was effectively poured on the fire. Sabotage, lies and deceit were entered into to ensure that I didn’t find out about being drugged without my knowledge, and it has taken some time to unravel these.
It is important to note what I eventually found out about the meeting between my wife and my psychologist, and to examine what information was given to mental health services when my wife rang them.
My wife had obviously discussed these matters with my psychologist, and expressed concern that I was ill. There was an exchange of emails between myself and the psychologist after I found out about the drugging that is particularly informative. It became apparent that at this meeting they discussed drugging me without my knowledge, and how to get mental health services to attend. I’m sure that the psychologist said something along the lines of ‘I can’t suggest that you drug him but….’. I also questioned my wife about how she even managed to get mental health services to attend, to which she replied “you just have to know what to tell them”. Perhaps i’m over-stating my case but I got the feeling that this meeting between my wife and psychologist was nothing more than a discussion of how to set me up.
My psychologist later claimed that she only spoke to my wife because she attended her office in tears, and advised her to call mental health services because I had not attended the appointment. This doesn’t make a lot of sense because she would have known I didn’t make the appointment, and she could have quite easily called me from her office that evening whilst my wife was there. With regard the drugging I questioned her ethics, and she explained that my wife had been considering drugging me before having it suggested that she call mental health services.
My wife was to later claim that my saying I was going to leave our home was “controlling behaviour”, and therefore domestic abuse. I didn’t see it this way. To me it was a difficult but rational decision given the situation.
My wife, my psychologist, and mental health services saw the situation differently. Their solution (one that I got no say in I might add) was that I should be locked up and drugged until I was capable of dealing with the domestic abuse and violence I was suffering.
My wife was trying to convince me over this period that I was suffering from a mental illness, and made appointments with a psychiatrist and psychologist that I deemed unnecessary. I was doing my utmost to resolve the situation in the best way I knew how, remove myself from the situation until things cooled down and I could possibly return to my home. If my wife was correct that I was suffering from a mental illness then her behaviour may be considered justifiable. If not it was nothing more than ‘gaslighting’. This of course can only be decided post hoc.
I was examined by a psychiatrist and he found no mental illness. I was therefore being ‘gaslighted’. Controlling behaviour?
It is significant that the situation described above was known to the mental health worker who ‘assessed’ me, and decided that I needed to be detained under the Mental Health Act. It is clear from the Triage notes that my wife made them aware of the family conflict (though her emphasis was on my reaction to the events). The mental health worker obviously questioned me about these events, and it must have been patently obvious that I was being subjected to domestic violence and abuse, and was in the process of removing myself from this situation. His solution? Lock em up and drug em.
I can’t begin to describe how I felt when told that I was going to be locked up in a mental institution for making a perfectly rational decision to remove myself from a dangerous situation. I was furious. What I did not understand was that a finger had been pointed at me and the mental health worker had a liability issue. If he did nothing and anything occurred he may be seen as being responsible. Ergo, he fabricated the reasonable grounds required to detain by failing to mention any of the situation that was occurring, and it looked like I was behaving in a totally irrational manner. Fortunately I got examined by a competent psychiatrist before the nurses managed to drug me further. Once the information that had been omitted by the mental health worker on the Form 1 was given to the psychiatrist, it was apparent that there was nothing wrong with me, and that detaining me was only making matters worse. Oh how right the psychiatrist was.
I hope the reader can see that there were some competing interpretations going on in this situation. I understand these somewhat, though am still unsure about some information I have as a result of having to examine everything that was said and done. The deceptions involved in obtaining outcomes have been difficult to unravel.
What I do know is that if the mental health worker had performed his duty, rather than using the corrupt practice of ‘verballing’ to detain me, then the situation may have been resolved and my life would not have been destroyed. He did manage to avoid any liability, and of course as I have shown above, no one is prepared to hold him accountable for the use of this corrupt practice. Can’t have the laws designed to protect the community being enforced, that would make the job difficult.
Please feel free to comment if there is anything that the reader feels is unclear. That is the main purpose of me posting this information. I do not wish to be misunderstood on these matters.
I will post further about other matters that occurred after this ‘intervention’ soon. I realise this is somewhat disjointed but is a start on getting to the point where there is no communication breakdown.
BoansJune 28, 2014 at 7:06 pm #43764
I think it is important after describing the situation to examine the Form 1 matters minus the reasons they are misrepresentations. Does it describe the situation accurately?
1. Guarded but concerned re internet, being observed by neighbours.
2. Not sleeping/eating.
3. Thoughts of harming others.
4. Refused to answer re substance abuse.
5. Agitated and pacing.
6. Potential for damage to reputation and meaningful relationships.
7. Wife fearful for her safety.
8. Stockpile heavy objects/knife for self-protection.
9. Damage to photograph.
Commissioner Kennedy describes the corrupt practice of verballing thus;
“Verballing is the false attribution of a confession or admission to a suspect. On the evidence before the Royal Commission, the practice of verballing ranged in degree between the fabrication of an entire record of interview or statement, in which a full confession is made, to a subtle change of words to cast greater suspicion on a suspect.” (My emphasis. See Kennedy Royal Commission Vol. 1 Part 1 p 96 – 101 describes the practice in detail.)
It is very clear to me that what the AMHP has done is precisely this, used a subtle change of words to cast greater suspicion on a suspect (in this instance someone suspected of having an illness).
Neighbours? No my in laws. NOT sleeping eating? No, disturbed sleeping eating. Thoughts of harming others? No, one other and thoughts three weeks ago. Prepared to defend myself if threats to attack me were carried out. Refused? No deffered. Substance abuse? What fact? Agitated and pacing? Didn’t happen until I was detained unlawfully. Wife fearful? No, you assumed this. Stockpile/knife? Loaded questions. Damage to photo? Cost 20 cents.
It sure sounds like “reasonable grounds” though. It is important to note that I have spoken to others who have had this done by the same AMHP. He doesn’t need to observe the laws that protect the community. He simply makes up the required grounds and makes it sound like he had reason. I don’t know if creative writing is part of their training, but this is precisely what is involved here. A statutory declaration requires facts, and the use of literal language. Not sleeping and eating is the use of figurative language.
This is a crime that is difficult to detect. There were 5 ‘independent’ witnesses to the ‘assessment’ who know what was discussed. The documents clearly show how these reasonable grounds were achieved. If the Chief Psychiatrist is prepared to defend this document, then I would question the whole system. How many people are being drugged and given ECT based on these types of misrepresentations? Is this the ‘scientific method’ being used in the profession? If so it demonstrates quite clearly why these people should not be trusted one iota. This is not science, its storytelling, and if that can be passed of as science then there are very good reasons why these people should not be trusted.
My hope is that the Chief Psychiatrist does attempt to defend this document, because it will clearly show the fraud that psychiatry is. The document is indefensible.July 7, 2014 at 6:30 am #44325
Today I received another letter from the Ministers office. A brief note that can only be described as a use of the “broken record technique”. I would like to review the complaints process at this point only as it relates to the misrepresentations on the Form 1 used to detain me. I have outlined many of the reasons that this document is false above. I encourage anyone who believes that the “specified facts” on this Form are accurate and reasonable to explain the reasons why.
After receiving a copy of the Form 1 I first approached the AMHP who completed it. I went through the items with him and he confirmed at least that he was aware that I had not been “agitated and pacing” until after I had been detained. I explained in no uncertain terms that I was not happy about the use of fabrication and misrepresentation in order to detain me, and that I was going to see that he was held to account. At this statement he laughed at me, and commented along the lines of ‘good luck with that’. He was obviously sure that his corrupt practice of ‘verballing’ statutory declarations was being supported by his superiors. I foolishly believed that this criminal behaviour would be examined and action would be taken over the matter.
A sent a letter to the AMHP briefly outlining our conversation and the reasons that his “facts” were nothing more than fabrication and asked that he explain himself. It is also worthy of note that I sent a letter to the FOI officer expressing my disgust at her deliberately misleading me regarding access to the documents. I received a telephone call from the Operations Manager at the hospital requesting a meeting in relation to the matters. This was arranged for the 23rd December 2011.
I attended this meeting with my wife, and the Operations Manager and a representative of the Community Mental Health Team (a Consultant Psychiatrist)were present. I placed the Form 1 on the table and stated that the Form was nothing but fabrication and therefore my detention was unlawful. Both of the hospital employees claimed that it didn’t matter what was written on the Form. This of course is ridiculous. It was decided that the Operations Manager would conduct a “formal investigation” into the matters stated on the Form 1.
About a month later I received a letter setting out correctly what my complaint was, that I had concerns about the “information that had been entered onto the Form 1″. The outcome of this formal investigation into this was that ” All qualified nurses are bound under their professional registration requirements to report accurately all concerns, and in carrying out his duties under the Mental Health Act must be able to provide a rationale for these actions”. That was it. How does telling me that he has a duty answer the question of whether this duty was complied with? Is simply doesn’t.
Speaking to a number of other patients who had made complaints about various issues including thefts and assaults it became apparent that a ‘formal investigation’ was nothing more than an information gathering exercise used to identify relevant evidence and making sure that this was not examined. So one waits a month for an investigation and then get told what you knew in the first place. I knew what the AMHPs duties were that was why I made a complaint. They had identified what they couldn’t examine, and then ensured that they didn’t examine that information.
I then called the Operations Manager at the hospital and explained that this did not fit the definition of an ‘investigation’ and that they had failed to examine the evidence, and had simply ignored the issue of the FOI officer and her alleged criminal behaviour. I was then told that if I spoke to anyone about this alleged criminal behaviour that the hospital would bring action against me. No surprise that they needed to resort to threats of legal action given that if the matters were examined objectively, as it was likely charges would be laid.
At this point I was evicted from my home for daring to complain to my wife about her drugging me and having me detained by mental health services on two occasions. I was left with the clothes I stood in, and ended up living in a car park for almost six months. Eventually I stepped in front of a truck. Information has come to me since this time that demonstrates how organised this eviction from my home was. I wont go into details at this point as I am awaiting documents that will prove what I am claiming. Needless to say that another man moved into my home with my wife two weeks after I left. During the two weeks my wife had been away having a “superb break” in the country town where this new man lived.
After my suicide attempt I spent six months in the same hospital, seeing the same psychiatrist whom I had been released by when I was originally detained. The complaint was lodged by the Law Centre with the Chief Psychiatrist. Six and a half months later he responded. The excuse given for the delay was that the hospital manager had been away over Christmas.
I have detailed the response to this complaint above, he simply rewrote the law to exclude any standard or accountability. The Law Centre was flooded with clients as a result of an unqualified psychiatrist treating people at one of our large hospitals. 200 clients and therefore their resources were stretched. They therefore were unable to assist me any further.
I therefore began acting for myself. I sent a letter to the Chief Psychiatrist detailing how he had reworded the relevant section, and that his assertion that the detention was unlawful was not valid. I then received a reply after another two and a half months referring me to another government oragnisation.
At this point I have sent 5 letters to the Chief Psychiatrist asking that he clarify his rewritten version of the Act, and examine the evidence provided to him demonstrating that the Form 1 has been “verballed”. The responses have referred me to this other government department, despite it being clear in the Act that the responsibility is his.
I began sending the Minister copies of the letters sent to the Chief Psychiatrist. The minister responded with a letter that was a copy of the one sent by the Chief Psychiatrist with the names changed, and then responded with a letter that suggested the Chief Psychiatrist now recognised the section of the Act he had rewritten.
So I have now been requesting confirmation from the Minister that the community is protected by the Act, and have received a response where my question has been re framed, and an incorrect answer has been given. All very nicely worded that they are sorry that I remain unsatisfied with their previous responses.
So the situation at this point is that the person who is responsible for ensuring that the community is afforded the protection of the Act (Chief Psychiatrist) and the Minister are not prepared to put in writing what those protections are. Why would this be the case?
It is my belief that the Chief Psychiatrist is fully aware that the corrupt practice of ‘verballing’ is being used in order to overcome the protections afforded by the Act, and is neglecting his duty to ensure that the community is being protected. When called out he has attempted to distance himself from this negligence by referring me to another authority, and ensuring that should his negligence be identified in future he can claim ‘plausible deniability’. He is enabling an environment that results in mental health services detaining anyone they wish in the community without “reasonable grounds” and zero accountability. And the community believes that they are protected.
The Minister has to this point refused to confirm or dismiss my claims that the community is protected by the Act. Is she not aware of what these protections are? A simple yes or no question results in referral to other government bodies who can not answer these questions? Why would the Minister not be aware of the purpose of the Act?
I have made it very clear to both parties that if I am incorrect in my assertions about the protections, than I do not have a legitimate complaint to make. They are both suggesting that I engage in a complaints process not knowing if the protections even exist. A good analogy would be asking a police officer if it is illegal to run a red light, and being referred to the manufacturer of traffic signals.
I suppose that the loss and destruction of peoples lives in the community is seen as being secondary to enabling an environment where the law does not need to be complied with. Stating that people in the community actually have rights would mean that they would then need to be observed. Best they remain silent on these rights, and then they cannot be held accountable when it is demonstrated that they have been doing nothing to ensure compliance. And of course the loss and destruction of lives is costing them nothing.
I’m not holding my breath on receiving an answer to my two very simple questions. I’m sure that both parties are too busy washing their hands of any responsibility.July 7, 2014 at 8:26 am #44334
Hi boans, and we wonder just who is crazy here…You write some clearly, it’s so obvious. I’m so sorry. A friend told me yesterday that the only reason I grew up thinking there was justice and fairness in the world is because I am a white amerikan. Disney and all that shit. It’s just a lie…is it easier for the third world people to live their lives? Are their expectations more realistic, and are they more content as a result?
You got it all down, here…my mind has been damaged by the drugs, and I don’t think I could possibly document the shit like you have. You should be proud you still have your mind. Take good care, boans, I’ll check back later.July 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm #44349
Thanks humanbeing. It’s important to me that I am understood about these matters, I need my daughter and grand children to understand what has been done to me when I finish the job these people started. They should just issue this man with a 9mm and simply shoot people in the back of the head rather than subject them to this type of nastiness. “Oh we couldn’t allow that” i hear some say, why not its basically the same outcome drawn out as long as the victim manages to survive. And one need only look at the figures objectively to see the results of these interventions. Count the bodies.
Funny you mention Disney and all that. The lies I was fed at school just astound me these days. And I’ve certainly wondered about the ‘third world’. I had a great discussion about this with an Afghan friend of mine. He would laugh about the ‘westerners’ sitting alone in their homes saying how sad it was that those poor women on the television had to cart water from a well so far from their homes. He said those women are talking to each other and sharing stories when they are doing this, these people watching them on television are afraid to talk to their neighbours. They have not lost the meaning of community, we have.
I’m sorry to hear about the damage that has been done by drugs humanbeing. It is an absolute disgrace what these frauds have done to so many people. I guess in some ways the good news is as Jim Morrison said “no one here gets out alive”. Let them try and stuff their wealth and property into the hole in the ground that is waiting for them. They will not be missed for long in this place, and have the devil to pay on the other side.
You take care too humanbeing. And thanks.
The forum ‘Community’ is closed to new topics and replies.