PsychRights Update: Wetherhorn I Decided and Zyprexa Documents Case Hearing to Be Held Tuesday
Hello everyone,
You are receiving this because it is believed you support the work of the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) in mounting a strategic litigation campaign around the country against forced drugging and forced electroshock. If not, however, just e-mail me back that you want to be taken off the distribution list.
This e-mail is following much closer after my last info-mail than I prefer, but there are two very important items that I think you will want to know out about right away.
Wetherhorn I Decision
On Friday, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its decision in Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Supreme Court No. S-11939, Opinion No. 6091, ___ P.3d ___, (Alaska, January 12, 2007), 2007 WL 80490 (Wetherhorn I). The decision can be found at http://psychrights.org/States/Alaska/CaseFour/WetherhornIsp-6091.pdf
I call it Wetherhorn I, because we have another appeal pending in which oral argument is set for February 15th, which I call Wetherhorn II.
Gravely Disabled Standard Struck Down. In the Decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a person could not be involuntarily committed as "gravely disabled" unless the "level of incapacity [is] so substantial that the respondent is incapable of surviving safely in freedom." (emphasis added). This is a huge win.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Not Decided. However, with respect to the most important issue, which is people's right to have lawyers who actually work for them, ie., effective assistance of counsel, the court ruled that a direct appeal was not the way to challenge it; that there needed to be a record established in a way that is comparable to post conviction relief proceedings in criminal cases. We felt the violation was so clear that it wasn't necessary, but the court ruled it had to be challenged another way. So, we will proceed to do it in a way that is consistent with the Court's ruling, which might very well be a 42 USC §1983 lawsuit in federal court for systemic violations of peoples civil rights under color of state law. See, e.g., http://psychrights.org/Research/Legal/1983/1983.htm
Other Matters. There are some rulings in the Decision that are troubling. One is by affirming the commitment, it seems implied that the "incapable of surviving safely in freedom" standard was met. It is hard to understand that because there was no testimony establishing it. We may ask the court to look at that and modify its decision in that regard. However, as discussed below, I am going to New York tonight to deal with the Zyprexa documents case and the petition for rehearing has to be filed within ten days so the deadline is a problem. I think I can probably get it done from New York, though, if I have even a bit of time and they will usually grant an extension if one is asked.
We raised a number of other defects in the proceedings, but because Roslyn's attorney didn't object to anything, the court ruled we had to show it would have changed the result under the "plain error" doctrine. This seems pretty harsh in light of the court also refusing to consider that the reason the objections weren't raised was because Roslyn's attorney didn't do anything in her behalf (ie., ineffective assistance of counsel). I think maybe the most problematic one was that the hospital's failure to list witnesses as required by the statute was not plain error on the grounds, [t]hat a psychiatrist from API would testify in support of a petition initiated by API could surprise no one. (emphasis added) However, the United States Supreme Court has unequivocably held that involuntary commitment is permissible only if "the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards," Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 409, 122 S.Ct. 867, 869 (2002). I think it is way outside the bounds of due process for the state not to be required to say who they are planning to call (and then have an opportunity to find out the grounds for commitment), and we may therefore seek United States Supreme Court review of this issue.
Zyprexa Documents Case.
My last e-mail was mainly about how PsychRights subpoena'd secret Eli Lilly Documents on Zyprexa, Eli Lilly screwed up and we got them without them having followed the procedures to try and stop us, releasing them to the New York Times and other people, and the New York Times running a whole series of stories on them, including two on the front page and an editorial calling for a Congressional Investigation. I indicated I thought Eli Lilly would try and crush me for doing this and they have indeed indicated they intend to do this by seeking contempt sanctions. In addition, Eli Lilly is trying to suppress dissemination of the documents and has obtained a series of temporary restraining orders against people to keep them from further disseminating the documents or even "facilitating" their dissemination by linking to places that might have them available for download. MindFreedom, the Alliance for Human Rights Protection (AHRP), and the Electronic Freedom Foundation have all come into the case to argue this is an impermissible prior restraint on free speech; that these documents are already in the public domain; and the injunctions should be lifted.
There have been a whole series of filings and proceedings about all of this, which can be accessed at http://psychrights.org/States/Alaska/CaseXX.htm to fill you in on the details if you want them. I haven't had a chance to put much narrative to the documents, but MindFreedom has a web page at http://mindfreedom.org/know/psych-drug-corp/eli-lilly-secrets/zyprexakills that describes the sitution.
There is a hearing set for Tuesday in the Brooklyn federal courthouse at 2:00 pm, before Judge Weinstein, who this past Monday said he wanted a full evidentiary hearing and arguments on all issues, and preferred that people be there in his courtroom for it. He anticipates this hearing will go into the evening Tuesday and then continue on Wednesday. I am therefore leaving in a few hours so that I can testify that I didn't violate the protective order. It is my hope and expectation that Judge Weinstein will agree. I believe the law is very much on my side. If Judge Weinstein does agree, it seems that all of the injunctions will be lifted.
You are receiving this because it is believed you support the work of the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) in mounting a strategic litigation campaign around the country against forced drugging and forced electroshock. If not, however, just e-mail me back that you want to be taken off the distribution list.
This e-mail is following much closer after my last info-mail than I prefer, but there are two very important items that I think you will want to know out about right away.
Wetherhorn I Decision
On Friday, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its decision in Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Supreme Court No. S-11939, Opinion No. 6091, ___ P.3d ___, (Alaska, January 12, 2007), 2007 WL 80490 (Wetherhorn I). The decision can be found at http://psychrights.org/States/Alaska/CaseFour/WetherhornIsp-6091.pdf
I call it Wetherhorn I, because we have another appeal pending in which oral argument is set for February 15th, which I call Wetherhorn II.
Gravely Disabled Standard Struck Down. In the Decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a person could not be involuntarily committed as "gravely disabled" unless the "level of incapacity [is] so substantial that the respondent is incapable of surviving safely in freedom." (emphasis added). This is a huge win.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Not Decided. However, with respect to the most important issue, which is people's right to have lawyers who actually work for them, ie., effective assistance of counsel, the court ruled that a direct appeal was not the way to challenge it; that there needed to be a record established in a way that is comparable to post conviction relief proceedings in criminal cases. We felt the violation was so clear that it wasn't necessary, but the court ruled it had to be challenged another way. So, we will proceed to do it in a way that is consistent with the Court's ruling, which might very well be a 42 USC §1983 lawsuit in federal court for systemic violations of peoples civil rights under color of state law. See, e.g., http://psychrights.org/Research/Legal/1983/1983.htm
Other Matters. There are some rulings in the Decision that are troubling. One is by affirming the commitment, it seems implied that the "incapable of surviving safely in freedom" standard was met. It is hard to understand that because there was no testimony establishing it. We may ask the court to look at that and modify its decision in that regard. However, as discussed below, I am going to New York tonight to deal with the Zyprexa documents case and the petition for rehearing has to be filed within ten days so the deadline is a problem. I think I can probably get it done from New York, though, if I have even a bit of time and they will usually grant an extension if one is asked.
We raised a number of other defects in the proceedings, but because Roslyn's attorney didn't object to anything, the court ruled we had to show it would have changed the result under the "plain error" doctrine. This seems pretty harsh in light of the court also refusing to consider that the reason the objections weren't raised was because Roslyn's attorney didn't do anything in her behalf (ie., ineffective assistance of counsel). I think maybe the most problematic one was that the hospital's failure to list witnesses as required by the statute was not plain error on the grounds, [t]hat a psychiatrist from API would testify in support of a petition initiated by API could surprise no one. (emphasis added) However, the United States Supreme Court has unequivocably held that involuntary commitment is permissible only if "the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards," Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 409, 122 S.Ct. 867, 869 (2002). I think it is way outside the bounds of due process for the state not to be required to say who they are planning to call (and then have an opportunity to find out the grounds for commitment), and we may therefore seek United States Supreme Court review of this issue.
Zyprexa Documents Case.
My last e-mail was mainly about how PsychRights subpoena'd secret Eli Lilly Documents on Zyprexa, Eli Lilly screwed up and we got them without them having followed the procedures to try and stop us, releasing them to the New York Times and other people, and the New York Times running a whole series of stories on them, including two on the front page and an editorial calling for a Congressional Investigation. I indicated I thought Eli Lilly would try and crush me for doing this and they have indeed indicated they intend to do this by seeking contempt sanctions. In addition, Eli Lilly is trying to suppress dissemination of the documents and has obtained a series of temporary restraining orders against people to keep them from further disseminating the documents or even "facilitating" their dissemination by linking to places that might have them available for download. MindFreedom, the Alliance for Human Rights Protection (AHRP), and the Electronic Freedom Foundation have all come into the case to argue this is an impermissible prior restraint on free speech; that these documents are already in the public domain; and the injunctions should be lifted.
There have been a whole series of filings and proceedings about all of this, which can be accessed at http://psychrights.org/States/Alaska/CaseXX.htm to fill you in on the details if you want them. I haven't had a chance to put much narrative to the documents, but MindFreedom has a web page at http://mindfreedom.org/know/psych-drug-corp/eli-lilly-secrets/zyprexakills that describes the sitution.
There is a hearing set for Tuesday in the Brooklyn federal courthouse at 2:00 pm, before Judge Weinstein, who this past Monday said he wanted a full evidentiary hearing and arguments on all issues, and preferred that people be there in his courtroom for it. He anticipates this hearing will go into the evening Tuesday and then continue on Wednesday. I am therefore leaving in a few hours so that I can testify that I didn't violate the protective order. It is my hope and expectation that Judge Weinstein will agree. I believe the law is very much on my side. If Judge Weinstein does agree, it seems that all of the injunctions will be lifted.
Note New E-mail Address
James B. (Jim) Gottstein, Esq.Law Project for Psychiatric Rights
406 G Street, Suite 206
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
USA
Phone: (907) 274-7686) Fax: (907) 274-9493
jim.gottstein@psychrights.org
http://psychrights.org/
Psych Rights ®
Law Project for
Psychiatric Rights
The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights is a public interest law firm devoted to the defense of people facing the horrors of unwarranted forced psychiatric drugging. We are further dedicated to exposing the truth about these drugs and the courts being misled into ordering people to be drugged and subjected to other brain and body damaging interventions against their will. Extensive information about this is available on our web site, http://psychrights.org/. Please donate generously. Our work is fueled with your IRS 501(c) tax deductible donations. Thank you for your ongoing help and support.
posted by President of ShoppingMallDC.com | 12:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home