The privatization & corruption in our nation, government and medical profession itself makes it extremely difficult to accept these laws. America has been existing almost 250 years now with our being at war over 90% of this time along with trillions missinc & unaccounted for. Who, who, who, would not be depressed with our going to war for profit!
With everything happening around us, people, please spare some time and pray for your respective country, states, cities, towns. Jesus Christ Bless All.
This judge is a ghoul who thinks it's cool to imprison and torture people with no trial, people who have committed no crime, based on personal opinions of others who directly profit from this unconstitutional imprisonment.
34:12 Rescue didn't exist when this video was made 1:16:20 The staff in this case should have respected his right to refuse the blood draw pending a court order, he was well within his rights to say he was going to sue them But I completely understand a situation like this, some providers don't like being told no by another deemed having lesser rights through arbitrary judicial discretion I've been illegally restrained for refusing blood draws before, unfortunately without any witnesses it's hard to prove as the doctors can falsify reports of what happened and you may be deprived of legal counsel or phone calls indefinitely as it's happening They wrote in my records that I was trying to leave the hospital, even though video evidence would have contradicted this completely. State and federal investigators closed the complaint, refusing to investigate as according to them, it was not at a level that warranted an investigation, which means per their standards, illegal restraints are acceptable I recommend recording everything, as police officers and mental health professionals will routinely lie and fabricate events. Of course, this is not always possible, as it is much harder to record mental health professionals in the involuntary commitment process than it is to record officers
Per case law of the Supreme Court of the US , Addington v Texas (1979), psychiatric diagnoses are "uncertain". Their verifiability is contingent on judicial discretion, as an independent mental evaluation is only a "right" if the court approves it. Per Section 5122.11, it is also an "opinion". So, psychiatric diagnoses really are uncertain, probably unverifiable, and self proclaimed opinions. Further, a certificate of involuntary commitment does not hold equal weight to patient testimony or rebuttal of the facts of the case in court, which means that commitment proceedings are prejudicial, as providers can arbitrarily define risk of harm as they wish. Lastly, the probate judge in the video is not entirely accurate when she says due process is respected, in reality, patients are forcibly strip searched and have blood drawn regardless of the doctor's evaluation, as that is a requirement for insurance companies to cover the stay. ER doctors will commit a patient nearly 100% of the time if a certificate of involuntary commitment has been signed regardless of the content of the certificate or the nature of the patient's mental state in the ER, so due process is not respected. Unless of course, there was an implication that due process rights begin not when the patient is detained, but rather, at an arbitrary point in time not specified in the law. This is talked about in 46:34 of the video, when the speaker claims that rights are suspended due to the opinion stated on the certificate of involuntary commitment (which is actually a contradiction of many provisions of federal and international law). Rights don't "kick in" at some arbitrary time, if they do they're not rights, they're privileges. And that's all you have when you're labeled mentally ill in the US, privileges, not rights. It is not clear how or where the law imposes a delay or time period before these rights become effective. Unless of course you can provide evidence that this is the case using the law, it is unreasonable and constitutionally offensive to say this.
