 |
Report Comment
"Draft of Questions for the Supreme Court of the United States
1. Given the subsequent horrific scams, scandals, deprivations of civil rights, and miscarriages of justice detailed in such articles as the Houston Chronicle “Profitable Addictions” series (App D, 5 of more than 40), as well as Congressional hearings and reports of the Government Accounting Office, and given the propensity for even innocent people to falsely incriminate themselves under interrogation (App E), and this Court’s dependence upon a long-since discredited psychiatrist, Dr. James Grigson, aka “Dr. Death” (App F), among other situations presented here, has this Court made ill-considered decisions involving mental illness, which should be thoroughly overturned and thoughtfully reconsidered, according to some of the arguments contained herein.
2. And, given the vast array of medical and legal literature contrary to this Court’s thinking, going back to before the 1979 Addington v. Texas decision, have this Court’s decisions regarding mental illness been overly influenced by common fears and biases against people with mental illnesses, resulting in an unconstitutional legal double standard, much like that in the time of the Dred Scott decision.
3. Whether, considering the awful and widespread damage done by such things as psychiatric hospital scams and scandals, when civil commitment is done, especially when those involved in the commitment should have had the knowledge or skill to recognize the difference and/or violations of civil liberties, does this commitment consist of a criminal and/or false imprisonment and trigger the Sixth and/or Eighth Amendments when done: without adequate due process; and/or for corrupt or malicious purposes other than “treatment”; and/or without any means to treat the patient; and/or without intention to treat the patient; and/or without medically effective treatment for the patient’s real or alleged condition. In other words, if the standards for due process and commitment and review and damages set by this Court have been so wise and just, why have there been so many knowing and/or incompetent abductions and/or false commitments of innocent people without any mental illness, including children as young as one year old?
4. May this petitioner be allowed to present a petition for a writ of certiorari, delayed until after these reconsiderations are made, with sufficient and competent legal help to do the job right, so as not to be dismissed out of hand on any mere technicality or judicial dislike, disregarding all other violations of this petitioner’s civil liberties, due process and other Constitutional rights, as lower courts have done. "
|
|
