Tagged: Line crossed
August 27, 2014 at 2:27 pm #46599
Uprising, save your heart until you find someone who deserves it.
My partner and I found each other because both of us were broken beyond repair.
We are still knitting ourselves back together.
He spent the first 13 years of his life
With a vacuum cleaner cord
By his enraged father.
Being told that he “deserved it”.
Please do not give your love or your pain to someone who
Cannot comprehend it.
I would tell you to
Sink your rage into telling your story…
But you are already doing
So much love to you all
Don’t cast your pearls before swine.August 27, 2014 at 7:09 pm #46612
Oops! This reply was meant to be for humanbeing.
I keep getting the three of you confused with each other in the colander I like to think of as my brain.
Thanks again to all three of you.
It took ten years and three strangers to get that story off my chest.
I feel much lighter now.
Stay with us.
You are so needed.
August 27, 2014 at 7:12 pm #46613August 27, 2014 at 8:51 pm #46616
- This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by schizoeffective.
did I kill this thread..
In my headlong rush to thank you?
I’m far from healed.
Watching “little big man ” tonite. With Dustin Hoffman.
Understand that the feminine is broken,
In that brokenness,
Even the love we try to extend, exterminates.
What have we done????
Women have a lot to answer for.
I will keep trying to confront the weight of what we
I remember a restaurant my family took us to
It was called “little big man”.
I remember the taste of that pizza.
I remember the joy in playing space invaders at the arcade the restaurant
I don’t remember much from my childhood.
THAT.August 27, 2014 at 9:11 pm #46617uprisingParticipant
No, I don’t think you killed this thread. I think you gave it a life that it could never have had without you. I wish I had something to say right now that I felt comfortable with, in terms of being an adequate representation of my feelings at having read what you have written here. I hope it’s enough for now to just say, “Thank you.”August 27, 2014 at 10:31 pm #46619
On my phone, but wanted to make a couple of notes that I may forget if I dont.
Something that may be lost in what I have said about the loss of my relationship. I loved my wife, but I also loved who I was, and that loss is possibly as important. Narcissism? Oh yes. This is worth exploring further.
I post this as a partial explanation
The other thing I will note is a plant analogy. A plant produces a flower, a thing of beauty. But there is a whole lot more going on here. It is not just the flower, but the whole plant that produces this beauty. We focus on the flower, and tend to ignore the rest of the plant. The same is true of mind, we focus on the brain, and ignore the rest of the being. This is only one direction though. Can beauty be destroyed and the biology stay the same? The analogy is limited, and im not being clear.
I really appreciate the comments here. I couldn’t begin to tell you how much. Your good deeds are being recorded in a book, and will not go unnoticed. I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Till later.August 28, 2014 at 10:27 am #46627
I start with The Doors – The End.
A wilderness of pain.
Today has been a day of revelations.
The documents provided by the law centre yesterday has revealed information that confirms my allegation that my wife and the FOI officer conspired to pervert the course of justice.
Three applications made to the hospital for the documents.
1. By myself under the FOI Act (1992). Access to documents obstructed by FOI officer by failing to perform her duty under S.4 (a) which states that Agencies are to give effect to the Act in a way that “assists the public to obtain access to documents”. Neglecting to tell me what was required to access the documents, and misleading me into an appeals process does not fit with this stated duty. It did however ensure that my wife’s criminal act was not exposed.
2. By XX S.C. under S 160 of the Mental Health Act (1996). The lawyer waited three months, made numerous calls inquiring when the application would be processed, and then received partial documents despite an Operational Directive from the Chief Psychiatrist to the contrary. The documents that were provided excluded the admission by my wife of the criminal act. This once again ensured that my wife’s criminal act was not exposed to the lawyer. A formal complaint was made by the lawyer to the Chief Psychiatrist.
3. By XX lawyer under S 160 of the Mental Health Act (1996). This application was rejected on the technicality that I had never been an “involuntary patient” and therefore NO documents were provided. Once again access to the admission by my wife of a criminal act has been obstructed.
Worthy of note here.
Two lawyers (one of them a ‘silk’) from a law centre who deal ONLY with mental health law do not know how to make application for documents from a hospital? I think not.
Continuing to block access to these documents from the lawyers ensured that they would not have the evidence of the criminal conspiracy, and therefore they would not be able to act.
Two attempts to have me sign documents.
1. On the 8th Sept 2011 I received three letters from the FOI office. One of these letters required a signature from me. What was not apparent to me at the time was the consequences of signing this document. It would have allowed the FOI officer to claim that I had never requested the documents containing the admission of a criminal offense, and therefore that she had done nothing wrong. My wife, being in contact with the FOI officer tried to get me to sign this document, despite knowing that it would not provide me with the documents I required, claiming that I could “sort it out later”. I refused to sign the document and persisted with my attempt to get what I had requested.
2. Once informed of the criminal act by my wife, I called the FOI officer and told her that ‘the game was up’, and that she should provide me with the documents I required. An attempt was then made to get me to sign my medical records over to my wife. The claim was that if I did this I would receive my documents quicker. I had made an application for MY documents 8 weeks ago, and yet my wife can have them sooner? I have the email exchange between my wife and the FOI officer explaining this. I refused to do this, stating that it was ludicrous that another person could have my documents but I couldn’t. I also had a working knowledge of the FOI Act by this time and pointed the FOI officer to S 10 (2) (a) (b) which basically states that it is none of her business what I want the documents for, or what she may think I want the documents for. It was only when I would not sign the documents over to my wife that the FOI officer performed her duty and informed me what was required to obtain the documents.
I do not know what the plan was by getting me to sign my documents over to my wife, but I suspect this. I sign the documents over to my wife. The FOI officer has now got evidence that she has not obstructed access to me, and therefore no offense has been committed. My wife then receives the documents and removes the two references of her admission in the documents (the FOI officer would have been aware that there were only two mentions of the crime). She then provides me with virtually all of the documents, I can find no reference to the crime, and therefore do not have evidence of it. She may have admitted it verbally, but this would not be accepted by police. And even if I figured out that this had been done, the FOI officer would merely claim that it was my wife who had obstructed access (by removing the significant documents), and that she had nothing to do with it. Speculation on my part, but this would have meant that the conspiracy to pervert would not have been demonstrable.
Also worthy of note. During this 8 week period when I was attempting to obtain the documents I made a large number of calls to the FOI officer. I was pushing hard to get them. My wife made at least double the calls to the same FOI officer, claiming to me that she was trying to assist. She was doing the opposite, providing information to the FOI officer about my discussions with the lawyers and what we were doing to obtain the documents, misleading me every opportunity she could, and sabotaging my files and paperwork. Once the lawyers made an application, my wife then had a personal meeting with the FOI officer at the hospital, and was exchanging emails with her. This was an unexpected turn of events.
It is my belief that when they originally engaged in the plan to deceive me to obstruct access to the documents, that it was going to be easily done. Once the lawyers became involved they would have realised that what they were doing was a criminal act, and have tried to find ways of escaping detection. Hence the lawyers never being provided with the documents containing the admission, and the attempts to have me sign documents that could be used as a defense should it be detected.
I have had verbal admissions of this offense from both my wife and the FOI officer who told me in a discussion about this that she had done what she had because my wife “didn’t want you to know”. And she assisted with obtaining that outcome.
My question becomes one of which crimes she will assist in covering up for members of the public. I don’t know how clear this is to readers but it is patently obvious to me that what they did was a crime, and once they realised that they might get caught they both started wriggling around trying to get out of it. All of the documents demonstrating this are there.
I must admit that this has not been put to the Chief Psychiatrist in any detail, and I would not expect him to realise what has occurred from the information he has been provided. I do not believe he would be the person to deal with this type of criminal behaviour by an FOI officer. He doesn’t even understand the provisions of the Mental Health Act, I could hardly expect that he would understand the FOI Act, Criminal Code, or the Corruption and Crime Commission Act. And given the way he has dealt with the complaint about my unlawful detention, he would simply refuse to examine the evidence and claim “nothing to see here, move along”.
I understand there may be conditions where access to documents needs to be restricted. Infidelity, drug or gambling problems etc, that one might not want ones partner knowing about. But this was a crime, and they both knew it. That changes the matter significantly. I get the feeling that the FOI officer thought that she could overstep the mark and cover this for my wife using the methods regularly available to her. That is not a mistake, it’s criminal and ignorance is not an excuse. The lengths that they went to in order to cover this demonstrates that they knew what they had done was wrong.
I know I’m repeating what I have said in the other thread, but the new information from the law centre should be included. If this is not clear at any point please feel free to raise questions or point out anything that is vague, because I do believe that I will be making a complaint to the relevant authorities on this matter.
I think it’s also important to note that if I didn’t ask for the documents, it is not the responsibility of the FOI officer to report it, despite her knowing. But I was asking for the documents from the AMHP from the moment I was being detained by police. He made three excuses as to why he could not provide the Form 1 to me, later exposed as lies. But that’s another matter. I (and my lawyers) were requesting these documents, had a right to them, and access was obstructed to ensure my wife’s crime was not exposed.
To be continued…August 28, 2014 at 11:33 am #46631
I find myself at this point looking back at events and considering them in the context of what I had to say about attitudes, beliefs and values in a post above.
Three people at this hospital committed serious criminal offenses. Two of them against my person (AMHP, SMO), and one against the administration of justice FOI officer). To me this attitude that serious criminal offenses can be committed in order to obtain desired outcomes is of great concern. To have such attitudes one would have to believe that one was not going to be held accountable. How would such a collective belief come about? Certainly one way would be if one never saw anybody being held accountable. For example, a young police officer works with an experienced officer who regularly assaults suspects to obtain confessions. He sees this done on a number of occasions, and even when a complaint is made nothing is done to the officer. It thus becomes clear to this young officer that he is free to commit assaults against suspects and he will also not be held accountable. A corrupt culture develops.
But I find myself wondering what value is at the core of these beliefs and attitudes. It is a balancing act with regards corruption for those charged with oversight of areas of government such as police, or mental health. To me it is not a lack of money that is the problem at all. The problem is that in order to process large numbers of people, corrupt acts are used to keep pace with workloads. Sticking to the rules is going to result in fewer people being processed, and present an image that the job is not being done. The trade off is one of quantity versus quality. Driven by statistics a system is always going to shift toward quantity. And thus corruption will rise as the need to drive up statistics to appear effective. Quality outcomes of course are difficult to measure, though would allow mental health workers etc time to stay within the laws designed to protect those subjected to forced interventions etc. Reducing the numbers of persons processed, and accountability would result in not only better outcomes, but would also slow down the ‘revolving door’.
So I think that the extreme levels of corruption that I, and others, have experienced in the mental health system may be the result of a core value of bang for the buck, quantitative, statistically driven model of government. Those in power need to be seen to be doing something about community issues, and the only way they can do this is via this model. Screw quality, the community can’t count that. The ‘problem’ could be relatively easily fixed by those in power, but they would also not remain in power unless the community saw the results of a qualitative model. And that would take some time so…. exit anyone who tried to implement such a system.
I fear that we are stuck with this quantitative model, and have very little to look forward to without someone with the courage to make the necessary changes to improve quality. The mental health ‘crisis’ has been produced by this drive for quantity. Perhaps a visionary will come along and make the necessary changes. Accountability, effective distribution of resources, and people who uphold the values of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Oh well, too late to help me, I’ve become a statistic that adds to the crisis that they claim they need more resources to deal with.
Another thing that stands out to me is that there were a number of suicides by people who had presented at the hospital and who were turned away. They wanted to be locked up and treated. No beds and they were labelled as having Borderline personality disorder. And yet I can be locked up for having a disagreement with my wife’s family? No wonder there are no beds available, because they are full of people who have nothing wrong with them. This may relate to what I’m saying above about statistically driven model. Those who are trying to be admitted, mental health workers are aware that they have already failed these individuals. By dragging people who have very little or nothing wrong with them, it looks much more like they are achieving success.
Once they have damaged an individual beyond repair by trying to ‘help’ them, the game becomes one of keeping them OUT of the hospital, rather than dragging them in. So those most in need of help are refused access, and those who don’t want help are forced into the system via detentions. Quite a balancing act really.August 28, 2014 at 2:23 pm #46648
A further revelation.
Today I realised I have made a mistake in my analysis of the Form 1 (referral for an examination by a psychiatrist). I posted this in the thread “communication breakdown”. It was in the form of an extract of a letter to the AMHP and detailed why his “facts” were misrepresentations. I have conflated two issues into one in this analysis. I intend to try and rectify this here rather than in that thread.
I post a link to the Mental Health Act (1996) as a means of checking my claims about the Act.
In the other thread I set out the way in which there is a protection afforded the community in the MHA. This consisted of the power of 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” (S.29 (1)) The “reasonable grounds” of who should be made an involuntary patient are set out in S 26 Criteria, and by default S.4, Mental Illness, defined (the standards). In order to check that an AMHP has met the required standards, an accountability measure is created in the form of a statutory declaration in S. 33 (the Form 1).
This protection then means that an AMHP who detains someone, completes the Form 1, and if the detention is contested then we can check that they have met the reasonable grounds standard. There are severe penalties for anyone making a false declaration to stop anyone from simply fabricating the evidence required to detain. This is fairly basic law.
In S. 31 of the MHA it is stated that there is to be no referral without personal examination. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. One wouldn’t wish to give the power to detain someone under the MHA without even looking at them first. S. 31 (2) is interesting as it states that “facts communicated to the referrer, although not of themselves sufficient grounds for suspecting that a person should be made an involuntary patient, may be considered in forming the opinion”. This means that the information communicated to the AMHP can not be the basis of the decision to make the referral. This is designed to stop the abuse of what I term a ‘finger point detention’. For example, If I were arguing with my neighbour about a fence, and I rang mental health services and said “this guys crazy” and made a bit of stuff up about the ‘crazy’ things he was doing, this should not be the “reasonable grounds” for the AMHP to detain. I might have lied to the AMHP, and so they should check that the information I have communicated to them is factual. There is provision for this in S. 33 of the MHA.
This is where I have conflated the issues on the Form 1 analysis.
S. 33 states that “A referral is to be in writing and is to —
(e) specify the facts on the basis of which it is suspected that the person should be made an involuntary patient; and
(f) distinguish from the facts known because of personal observation by the referrer, any of the facts which have been communicated to the referrer.”
S. 33 (e) requires the AMHP to “specify the facts”. This is where my focus has been in that the AMHP has made misrepresentations on the Form 1, and his ‘facts’ do not comply with the requirements of S 16 (1) of the Oaths, Affidavits, and Statutory Declarations Act (2005). The facts provided are both “materially affected” and were not only likely to mislead, but ACTUALLY misled three Doctors. This is a breach of S. 33 (e). I believe I have covered this fairly well in that extract, though I will need to go back and present it in a better format.
S. 33 (f) requires the AMHP when completing the Form 1 to record “observed matters” and “communicated matters” The Form 1 has two separate boxes to be completed in this manner. I will redact names and addresses from the Form 1 and post a copy at a later time. It is this issue that I have not focused on in my analysis. I have made mention of it, but upon review what becomes apparent is that the AMHP has made his referral based solely on communicated matters alone. This is a breach of S. 33 (f).
A couple of examples until I go through the Form 1 and separate these issues, at which time I will post what I have done for critique.
From the Form 1
How did the AMHP “observe” this? He was not at my home for the past couple of days.
My wife communicated to the Triage nurse that I had not been sleeping or eating. She said this in a figurative sense. She also informed them that I was currently asleep (noted), and in the clinical notes the AMHP writes that I was woken by them. He asked me about my eating and sleeping and I told him that I had not been sleeping or eating well for the past couple of days.
This is what was communicated to the AMHP, not an observation. What he observed was me sleeping.
“Thoughts of harming others”
How does one observe a thought? Particularly one that had occurred three weeks before the AMHP even attended my home? My wife communicated to the Trage nurse that I had made threats to harm a nephew who had attempted to blackmail her. The AMHP asked me about this and I explained to him that he was three weeks too late. That I had no intention of harming this person.
What did the AMHP observe? Once again he has taken a communicated matter and presented it as if he has observed something.
“Agitated and pacing”
The AMHP did actually observe this, AFTER he had said to me I was to be detained under the MHA. I approached him about this and he admitted that it occurred after he had me detained by police. How can an observation made after detention possibly be used as grounds for detention? The cart before the horse. This was the only “observation” made by the AMHP under the heading “observed matters”.
Valid observations would consist of “facts” such as ‘pressurised speech’, ‘jangling’ or even ‘ threats to harm others’ if they were made directly to the AMHP. He could not have observed something that I had said three weeks before, but if I had said to him on the day that I was going to harm this person then that would also be valid. So he has taken communicated matters and presented them as if he actually observed them.
Interesting that he does the opposite as well. Under the heading “Communicated matters” he has listed
“Damage to photograph”
My wife communicated to the Triage nurse that I had done damage to “all her expensive photography equipment”. The AMHP asked me about this. Knowing what he was referring to I took him, and the police and two other mental health workers back in to my home and showed him the damage. It was a small hole the size of a cigarette burn in a photograph. It cost me 20 cents to repair. Sure I should not have done it, but forgive me, and I fixed it as soon as possible. However, this was an observed matter, why did the AMHP not put it down on the Form as such? The MHA states that a person should be made an involuntary patient is they are at risk of doing “serious damage to property” or “serious financial harm”. These are the standards to be met. As a communicated matter, this fits the definitions set out in the Act. As an observation it simply doesn’t, unless of course the AMHP believes that 20 cents is “serious financial harm” or “serious damage to property”.
Once the issues of S. 33 (e) and (f) are separated and analysed individually, what becomes apparent it a sophisticated level of skill in the art of committing fraud. The “reasonable grounds” standard has been manufactured out of little more than a family conflict, that the AMHP was fully aware of.
He knew that there was no mental illness, and that he did not have reasonable grounds to detain. If he did he would have simply filled out the Form with what he had observed. This puts him in direct breach of S. 336 of the Criminal Code, and liable to a prison term of up to three years.
I will be making a complaint to the appropriate authorities who, unlike the Chief Psychiatrist will not be turning a blind eye to this corrupt and criminal behaviour.
To be continued…August 29, 2014 at 1:32 pm #46694
Betrayed by my wife and psychologist, and then deprived of my liberty with an act of fraud by a corrupt public officer, and then further betrayal by my wife and another corrupt public officer. My belief system in tatters, and my core values of liberty and the pursuit of happiness destroyed. My mind was in a mess. The anger that was expressed through my attitudes towards others leads to further isolation.
Adapt or die.
Whilst the society I live in espouses the rights to liberty etc the truth is that this is not the case. The Mental Health Act is proof that Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of some are valued very little. My example demonstrates that these core values can be violated legally with merely the point of a finger from another. And the society that claims it values citizens rights does not respond to these violations.
Looking through the ways that my community values are reflected I find that the public sector is full of protections for the public. A public sector code of conduct, code of ethics, a public sector management Act, procedural fairness and on and on. Look around the walls of any hospital and one finds mission statements and Our Values posters. But this is all rubbish. These rules and regulations are basically meaningless. Try having any of them enforced and one soon realises these ideals and the reality are two separate entities.
So for example in the Public Sector Management Act (1994) we find the following statement about administration and management principles.
7. (c) public sector bodies are to be so structured and administered as to enable decisions to be made, and action taken, without excessive formality and with a minimum of delay
The law centre makes a complaint to the Chief Psychiatrist and he responds more than 6 months later. The letter contains an apology for the delay as the manager of the hospital was away over Christmas. Is this with the minimum of delay? Especially given that the complaint was partially about the delay and non provision of documents?
This tactic of delaying matters is standard with any complaint. What is the point of having these statements and laws if they are simply ignored and distorted to manipulate outcomes.
I have been back through matters as it relates to my complaint and can identify more than 20 breaches of these codes of conduct/ethics and legislation that govern public officers. It would take me twenty years if I were to make complaints about these. But this is exactly the point, one complaint is turned into ten, and ten into fifty very quickly. And those breaching the rules to do this know that it simply buries the person in work. So I have tried to avoid this trap that is laid, and tried to remain focused on what I know were criminal offenses that can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
What I found fascinating about identifying these ‘mistakes’ and ‘oversights’ that occurred and that were breaches of the public sector rules is that there was a distinct pattern to them. Each and every one of them resulted in an outcome that was favorable to the hospital, and unfavorable to me. Not one ‘mistake’ advantaged me. That’s worthy of consideration because the chances of that occurring are 20 X 19 X 18 X ……1. I’m not going to put the number here but if you wish try it on your calculator. here are a lot of zeros at the end let me tell you.
Now I understand that I might be a statistical anomaly and that I am the only person that this has happened to. But I have spoken to others who have had the same thing happen. This is said tongue in cheek, and what it demonstrates is merely how weaponised the complaints process is.
Earlier today I quickly re read an article by Erving Goffman. I mentioned his book Stigma; notes on the management of spoiled identity in another thread. He wrote an article entitled “On Cooling the Mark Out; Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure”. Its a great article and I would recommend reading it if you have time. He covers the way that individuals adapt to loss (precisely what I have been trying to deal with).
He concludes the article by saying that he has examined the ways society ‘sugar coats’ the loss, and not the actual bitter pill of loss. The “defenses, strategies, consolations, mitigations, compensations, and the like”. Three years and I am just not “cooling out”.
Adapt or die.
You know what they say, where there’s a Will,……………There’s relatives.
Good health people.August 31, 2014 at 12:14 am #46783
What I do with your posts is copy them to my notepad on my phone.
I listen to them a few dozen times.
Then read them a dozen more.
It takes me that long to absorb the clarity and specificity of your story.
I can only hope that someone who, in a position of authority in Australia, can take the time to read them even once.
What you say is a brilliant and minute, detailed accounting of what you have been through.
Always be closing.
Always be recording.
Bravo Sir!!!!!!August 31, 2014 at 12:18 am #46784
Thank you. Telling stories is hard. For many of us, we don’t tell our stories, because people
I guess I ran from what I imagined would be the same rejection.
I should have known that you folks know, very well,
how to navigate the corridors of your pain.
If you didn’t you wouldn’t still be here.
Or to have found a sacred space like this to share it.
It is a kind of hubris to think your own pain will stupify others who know, and have grown very capable, of carrying their own.
I am guilty of that hubris. I’m also totally ok with that.
Humility is the antidote to hubris every time.
Thank you again uprising, for your quiet kindness and incredible strength, and fierce heart.
I’m tough as nails.
I think we all are.
Thank you again!
I will continue to thank you, past the point of what many would consider tiresome.
I don’t care about their fatigue.
This is our space to speak.August 31, 2014 at 1:04 am #46785
Just listened to that Nick Cave song,
I confused him with Nick Cave at first…
I’ve heard plenty about Nick Cage in Teisho.
Read that mess if you want.
A Teisho is usually translated as
“Presentation of the shout”
Nick cave shouts louder than even silence can.
Thank you again,
Mr Last Mariner
I will be savoring this over the next few days.August 31, 2014 at 1:18 am #46789August 31, 2014 at 12:43 pm #46820
Thanks Schizoeffective, I appreciate you taking the time to read what I’ve written. I read a quote from M Scott Peck who gave a definition of evil in People of the Lie.
“Evil leaves huge waves of chaos in it’s wake. Trying to explain that chaos is much tougher work than making the chaos.”
It’s tough trying to explain this. Though in my mind, I have separated out the bad from the evil. My response to this evil needs to be understood.
This is a track that speaks to me
I guess that as I watch the world descend into war my cause becomes insignificant. But they should not expect me to fight for their liberties when they do not respect mine.
That whole Nick Cave album, the Boatman’s Call is great. Very dark time of his life, and some angry songs but …..I regret not seeing him and the Bad Seeds in Washington when I had the chance.
Some acute observations from the comedian. Laughter is absent from my life now. It was something I used to have a great ability to do, make others laugh. No more.
Hope things are going well for all. This little corner has been valuable to me.
- The forum ‘Community’ is closed to new topics and replies.