Post by TomLine on Jul 3, 2018 20:06:40 GMT -5
LIBERTY LOST
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
Folks, I have seen videos, pictures and read articles of police brutality. Now I've been through.
First, a little background. The manager of this apartment complex posted a "Notice to Vacate." I was to be out by June 30th. I sought help from Midpenn Legal Services.
The first attorney I spoke to was Rebecca Ardoline. She seemed to have the attitude they could help me. The next attorney I talked to was Mike Chabitnoy. He seemed to be of the attitude from the very beginning that he couldn't help me. On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, he called and said he can't help me, that they have good cause for wanting me out. Joseph Turner gave "evidence," to MY attorney. One of which was a recorded voice mail what I called Joseph Turner names, and threatened to make his life a living hell. And yes I did do that. And it was out of frustration. I've been sick a lot since moving in here. In February of this year, I discovered this apartment had mold that before I moved in here someone painted over it. So the mold was here the whole time. I went to the internet to study mold and became convinced me being sick was because of the mold. Not just my apartment there is a lot of mold outside. And everyone I talked to here said they had mold. So, yes, I would like to move out of here, but because of being sick, and in a lot of pain, I can't do it. I would need a lot of help. I asked for help and didn't get any. I told Mike Cabitnoy, the only way I can move out is if I died. He took that to mean I was suicidal, and he called Crisis Intervention, who then called me. The persons name was Savana. I explained to her my situation, and said, yes the only way I can move out is if I died. Never once did I say I was going to end my life.
Savana did a 302. You can learn about that here... careplanpro.com/pennsylvania-law/
Two officers of the Pennsylvania State Police came and pounded on my door. I went to my window, and they said they were called to see if I was okay. I told them I was fine. I came into my bedroom and called Savana and told her to get her dogs away from my place. Meanwhile those officers broke into my apartment, and when I went out into the living room, there they were pointing four tazers at me. I feared for me life. I thought sure they were going to kill me. They screamed at me to put down my phone.
These videos came to mind...
Can anyone wonder why I would fear for my life?
I believe this 302, which is an involuntary commitment, is unconstitutional. While the following article does not address Pennsylvania's Law that allows for the 302, it is on point.
Why Mental Patients Should Have the
Same Constitutional Rights as Criminals -
and Why Involuntary Commitment for
"Dangerousness" is Wrong
Excerpts from Petitioner's Brief in Donaldson v. O'Connor
(a U.S. Supreme Court case)
Same Constitutional Rights as Criminals -
and Why Involuntary Commitment for
"Dangerousness" is Wrong
Excerpts from Petitioner's Brief in Donaldson v. O'Connor
(a U.S. Supreme Court case)
In the United States over ten percent of the population will at some time be hospitalized because of "mental illness." ... In Denton v. Commonwealth, 383 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Ky. 1964), for example, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky ruled that prospective mental patients are constitutionally entitled to all of the traditional criminal safeguards:
Although lunacy inquests are not concerned with criminal intent or criminal acts they may result in depriving the defendant of his liberty and his property. This deprival should be obtained only by the due process of law under constitutional guarantees.
We have therefore concluded that when a proceeding may lead to the loss of personal liberty, the defendant in that proceeding should be afforded the same constitutional protections as is given to the accused in a criminal prosecution.
Similarly, in People ex re. St. Saviour Sanitarium, 34 App.Div. 363, 372, 56 N.Y.S. 431, 437 (1st Dept. 1898), the court remarked:
An alleged criminal is hedged about with safeguards and protections. Why should not an alleged incompetent or dangerous person receive the same protection? Shall ex parte proof that would only avail to hold an alleged criminal for trial be regarded as conclusive proof against a supposed unfortunate? Constitutional immunities are precisely the same as to each.
... The prospective mental patient, unlike the prospective [juvenile] delinquent, is not charged with commission of any specific act or acts. He is charged either with being "mentally ill" or with being dangerous to himself or others, or both. We should be especially solicitous of liberty when it rests upon concepts so imprecise as "mental illness" or "dangerousness." Unlike tuberculosis or cancer, "mental illness" is not a "cause" of disorder; it is, at most a "theory" to explain unconventional conduct or belief. As such, its boundaries expand or contract according to the life styles and value judgments of the theorist. Some psychiatrists, for example, believe that all "hippies" are mentally ill; others disagree.
Similarly, we should be slow to condition human liberty upon a concept as vague as "dangerousness." Except as applied to mental patients, preventive detention is still an ugly phrase. Our society is remarkably, though properly, reluctant to confine persons solely because of what they might do in the future. Probably fifty to eighty percent of all ex-felons will commit future crimes, but we do not confine them. Ghetto residents and teenage males are much more likely to commit dangerous acts that the "average" member of the population, but we do not confine them. Of all the identifiably dangerous groups in society, only the "mentally ill" are singled out for preventive detention, and they are probably the least dangerous, as a group, of the groups here mentioned. Why should society confine a person if he is dangerous and mentally ill but not if he is dangerous and sane? ... Preventive detention of persons who are thought to be both dangerous and mentally ill may appear to be more reasonable than preventive detention of the "sane," but is not.
What little evidence there is suggests that the mentally ill are probably less dangerous than the mentally healthy. ... Predictions of dangerous behavior, no matter who makes them are incredibly inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that psychiatrists are not uniquely qualified to predict dangerous behavior and are, in fact, less accurate in their predictions than other professionals.
Because predictions of dangerous behavior are so grossly unreliable, and because "mental illness" is, at best, an illusive concept, we should authorize involuntary confinement only if the necessity for confinement is proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." ...
[as reprinted in Criminal Law and Urban Problems Course Handbook Series Number 57, LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED Volume One, edited by Bruce J. Ennis and Paul R. Friedman, Practising Law Institute, The Mental Health Law Project, copyright 1973, pp. 257-267]
www.antipsychiatry.org/donaldsonbriefexcerpt.htm
The police took me out to an ambulance which took me to the Wellspan Good Samaritan Hospital Emergency Room.
Eventually, I was given a paper that listed my rights which Wellspan Good Sam violated throughout my stay there. Here is what it says...
EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS UNDER INVOLUNTARY EMEGENCY TREATMEANT (302)
You have been brought to ___________________________________ because a responsible person has observed your conduct and feels that you present a clear danger to yourself or to other people. Within two hours from now you will be examined by a physician. If the doctor finds that you do not need treatment, you will be returned to whatever place you desire within reason. If the doctor agrees that you are mentally ill and clearly in danger of harming yourself or someone else, you will be admitted to a facility designated by the Country Administrator for a period of treatment of up to 120 hours. While you are under examination or in treatment, you have the following rights:
I want to to stop here to respond to it. I want to respond to the phrase, "observed your conduct " No one observed any conduct of mine. They used something I said against me, which they also took out of context. Either way, the Pennsylvania Constitution protects speech even greater than the U.S. Constitution does.
PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 7
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=1
What Savana at Crisis Intervention did was a violation of my right to freely speak, she even lied about what I said.
PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 8
The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.
www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=1
The Emergency Room at the Good Sam violated this right. They have seized my belongings, including my clothing, put them in a bag and locked them up. And they said that was for my protection.
Now back to their explanation of rights.
"1. You must be told specifically why you were brought here for emergency examination."
That didn't happen. I still don't know the specifics. You would think that would include what conduct the so called "responsible person" observed.
"2. You may make up to 3 complete phone calls immediately."
They allowed 1 call.
"3. You have the right to communicate with others."
They violated this right totally.
So the Good Samaritan ER did not even follow their own rules. How can you trust people that don't even follow their own rules.
This brings us to Wednesday Night, June 27, 2018. I was transferred to Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute (PPI) of the Polyclinic Hospital in Harrisburg, PA. Most of the people were nice, although there was one that fit the character of Nurse Rached. The biggest problem I had there is, at least the floor I was on which was called, "5 Memorial," is filthy. There was black mold in my bathroom, and in the showers. The air conditioning units in one of the Activity Rooms is rusty, corroded, and maybe moldy. The curtain in my room looks like someone vomited on it and it was never cleaned. I have never seen housekeeping that bad in any other hospital I've seen. Makes me wonder how they pass inspection.
I have checked out PA Code CHAPTER 5100. MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES. This is a body of laws the includes INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT, which includes the 302. But there is no authority from the Pennsylvania Constitution that authorizes this body of laws. The General Assembly simply has no authority to pass laws regulating mental health. Therefore, Pennsylvania Mental Health Laws are unconstitutional, and they also violate the U.S. Constitution. See the 4th and 5th Amendments.
If laws like this, that take away our liberty, are allowed to exist, our liberty is lost.
