Showing posts with label Americans with Disabilities Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Americans with Disabilities Act. Show all posts

April 26, 2016

Did Faulty Sidewalks Cause Death of Woman Who Used A Wheelchair?




Question keeps appearing, "Why was Dorothy Steele traveling in the street not on the sidewalk?" Does it have anything to do with impassable sidewalks for persons who use wheelchairs? Any investigations by the city or the state commissions on disabilities, or any of the taxpayer funded human services corporations? Any attempt to prevent similar needless deaths?



http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20160426/NEWS/160426867

Somerville man pleads not guilty in fatal hit-and-run in Cambridge
By Natalie Handy
nhandy (at) wickedlocal.com
Posted Apr. 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

March 17, 2016

Woman In Wheelchair Using Streets Due to Impassable Sidewalks Killed By Hit and Run Driver




[This comment was deleted by Cambridge Chronicle editors. It was posted a second time.]
Usual reason people who use wheelchairs ride in the street is because sidewalks are not passable. Imagine if black people or homosexuals were unable to use sidewalks. How long would that last? Parents with strollers carrying babies and toddlers also avoid the broken sidewalks by walking in the street. Much of this can be resolved by replacing brick sidewalks with concrete. But limousine liberals whose values rule Cambridge, dictate bricks because they are pretty. Dorothy might still be alive if the sidewalks were ADA compliant.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20160315/somerville-man-charged-in-death-of-cambridge-woman-in-hit-and-run-of-wheelchair

Somerville man charged in death of Cambridge woman in hit-and-run of wheelchair
An elderly Cambridge woman in a wheelchair who was struck by a car last month has died of her injuries, and a Somerville man has been charged in the death.
Posted Mar. 15, 2016 at 6:25 PM
Updated at 6:30 PM

February 25, 2016

US District Court Judge Approves Complaint Citing Harvard University's Violations of Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act




[From article]
In the original complaint, the plaintiffs cited Youtube videos, podcasts, and edX courses—part of a joint venture between Harvard and MIT—as examples of Harvard’s online content that purportedly deny access to deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
The complaint alleges that Harvard has violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the American Disabilities Act of 1990 by not inserting digital captions into online educational content. The former mandates that federally-funded educational institutions provide equal access to all individuals, regardless of disabilities. The latter law mandates that public places of accommodation “not deny persons with disabilities” their services.
Harvard sought to delay or dismiss the case until the U.S. Department of Justice issued specific digital provisions of the ADA given the lack of current legal precedence for online public spaces.
Interpretations of the ADA have varied since the original law went into effect in 1990, according to Caroline Jackson, an attorney for the National Association of the Deaf.
“Back then, public life was tangible. It was the stores you could walk into, it was the sidewalks you could get on, it was the doctors that you could go see in person,” Jackson said. “Since then, public sphere has become intangible; it’s become the cybersphere.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-deaf-proceed/

Judge Recommends that Disability Lawsuit Proceed
By MARELLA A. GAYLA,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
February 25, 2016

February 1, 2016

Technology Makes It Possible To Ban Imperfect Babies From Birth, Children From School




[From article]
British scientists have been granted permission to genetically modifyhuman embryos by the fertility regulator.
The Francis Crick Institute could begin the controversial experiments as early as March after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) gave the green light this morning.
The scientists want to deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development.
It will only be the second time in the world that such a procedure has been undertaken and the first time it has been directly approved by a regulator. A Chinese team carried out similar experiments last year to widespread outcry.
[. . .]
Critics warn that allowing embryos to be edited opens the door to designer babies and genetically modified humans.
Anne Scanlan of the charity LIFE said: “The HFEA now has the reputation of being the first regulator in the world to approve this uncertain and dangerous technology. It has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings."
But lead scientist Dr Kathy Niakan said that the research could fundamentally change our understanding of human biology and give hope to prospective parents.
[. . .]
Currently it is not illegal to edit human embryos for research purposes although it has never been done before because they technology has not been available.
When China announced it had carried out similar experiments last year there was a widespread outcry.
A spokesman for the HFEA said: “Our Licence Committee has approved an application from Dr Kathy Niakan of the Francis Crick Institute to renew her laboratory’s research licence to include gene editing of embryos.
“The committee has added a condition to the licence that no research using gene editing may take place until the research has received research ethics approval.
“As with all embryos used in research, it is illegal to transfer them to a woman for treatment.”
[. . .]
Currently it is not illegal to edit human embryos for research purposes although it has never been done before because they technology has not been available.
When China announced it had carried out similar experiments last year there was a widespread outcry.
A spokesman for the HFEA said: “Our Licence Committee has approved an application from Dr Kathy Niakan of the Francis Crick Institute to renew her laboratory’s research licence to include gene editing of embryos.
“The committee has added a condition to the licence that no research using gene editing may take place until the research has received research ethics approval.
“As with all embryos used in research, it is illegal to transfer them to a woman for treatment.”
[. . .]
“It is the very future of the way in which societies accept persons with disabilities that is at play since such gene editing procedures infer that they should not have been brought into existence.”
Gene therapy has been available since the 1970s but it is only recently that scientists have developed technology which can snip out parts of genetic code
The technique could permanently remove harmful mutations which lead to inherited diseases like Huntingdon’s, cystic fibrosis and haemophilia, critics say it could have unexpected side effects any may damage healthy strands of DNA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12133410/British-scientists-granted-permission-to-genetically-modify-human-embryos.html

British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos
The Francis Crick institute will genetically edit the leftover embryos from from IVF clinics
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
10:00AM GMT 01 Feb 2016


* * *


[From article]
A FEW WEEKS into sixth grade, Colman Chadam had to leave school because of his DNA.
The situation, odd as it may sound, played out like this. Colman has genetic markers for cystic fibrosis, and kids with the inherited lung disease can’t be near each other because they’re vulnerable to contagious infections. Two siblings with cystic fibrosis also attended Colman’s middle school in Palo Alto, California in 2012. So Colman was out, even though he didn’t actually have the disease, according to a lawsuit that his parents filed against the school district. The allegation? Genetic discrimination.
Yes, genetic discrimination. Get used to those two words together, because they’re likely to become a lot more common. With DNA tests now cheap and readily available, the number of people getting tests has gone way up—along with the potential for discrimination based on the results. When Colman’s school tried to transfer him based on his genetic status, the lawsuit alleges, the district violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and Colman’s First Amendment right to privacy. “This is the test case,” says the Chadam’s lawyer, Stephen Jaffe.
[. . .]
When the family first sued the school district in 2013, a district court dismissed the case. The Chadams appeal the dismissal to the federal Ninth Circuit court in January. The Departments of Justice and Education have also written a brief in support of the Chadam’s case, which suggests the federal government has taken an interest in the case and its outcome.
[. . .]
To experts in genetics law, four letters are conspicuously missing from the legal wrangling: GINA, or the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. GINA bars genetic discrimination in just two cases: employment or health insurance. That obviously doesn’t include getting education and housing and plenty of other situation where discrimination might happen. “This case is an useful reminder about the limitations of the federal statute,” says Jennifer Wagner, a lawyer and contributing editor toGenomics Law Report. That’s why the Chadam’s case does not rest on GINA but the ADA, where its application to genetic discrimination is untested.
[. . .]



Back in 2001—before GINA passed—the railroad company Burlington Northern Santa Fe was looking for genetic markers for carpal tunnel syndrome in its workers who filed for worker’s comp. (The workers claimed their carpal tunnel syndrome came from operating BNSF machinery; the company was clearly looking for another excuse.)
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on behalf of the workers, and they eventually reached a settlement in 2002. The workers got $2.2 million—but because the suit ended in a settlement rather than a court decision, it did not establish a legal precedent for the ADA covering discrimination based on genes. The outcome in Chadam’s case could, if a trial goes forward, spell out exactly who gets to access genetic information and what decisions can be made based on it.
In the fifteen years since Colman got a DNA test as a baby, tests have only gotten cheaper and more popular. You have 23andMe’s $199 spit test, of course, but also the National Institutes of Health pumping $25 million into baby sequencing studies. “As we do more screening earlier and earlier in life, there’s potential for misuse of information in ways that are harmful, that could potentially discourage parents from seeking genetic testing even if it’s medically indicated,” says Michelle Lewis, a pediatrician, attorney, and research scholar at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. The genetic discrimination future is here.
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/schools-kicked-boy-based-dna/

DNA GOT A KID KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL—AND IT’LL HAPPEN AGAIN
Sarah Zhang
02.01.16 7:00 AM

September 30, 2015

Disabled Virginia Man, 24, Died In Jail, Arrested For $5 Theft



Members of Jamycheal Mitchell’s family, wearing shirts with his photograph, pose for a portrait at the home of his aunt in Chesapeake, Va. 
(Timothy C. Wright/For the Washington Post)

This appears to be propaganda for the psychiatric and hospital industries, perhaps a talking points memo written by a PR flack for corporate interests. The report notes the gentleman stopped taking psychiatric medications, suggesting that may have caused his erratic behavior. If stopping taking drugs caused bad, or unwanted behavior, why start taking the drugs? His mother explained he was a happy prankster. Any history of violence, or crime, until after he began taking chemicals? The human services industrial complex (MA State Rep. Marie Parente's term), promotes conflating psychiatric diagnoses with crime and violence. They do not provide evidence of any causal connection. 



The prison guard explained he was treated the same as other inmates. But he was held because of a psychiatric diagnosis, which placed him in a different category. He had a disability. Why wasn't he provided with reasonable accommodations? The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 were in effect long before his arrest. Why are prisons not held accountable to these settled laws as the homosexual lobby demands for same sex marriage, a case decision, not a statute passed by the U.S. Congress. Instead the focus is on spending more taxpayer funds to incarcerate disabled persons based upon arbitrary standards of psychiatry. This is one more example of misguided corporate interests overriding good sense and human rights. Nowhere in this article, was the concept of the patient having a disability or having any rights, mentioned. Only taxpayer funded treatment is promoted, which benefits the industry. Rights for disabled persons are inconvenient. Seldom are rights recognized for persons with disabilities.



[From article]
Jamycheal Mitchell had stopped taking his schizophrenia medication before he walked into a 7-Eleven near his family’s Portsmouth, Va., home in April and allegedly stole a Mountain Dew, a Snickers bar and a Zebra Cake totaling $5.05.
After the 24-year-old’s arrest, a judge ordered him to a state psychiatric hospital to get help. But like an increasing number of the mentally ill, he sat in jail for months as he waited for a bed to open.
Other inmates said Mitchell paced naked in a cell often covered in his own filth. Family members said they were told he sometimes refused to eat or take medication, and jail records show he manically yelled. He grew gaunt, and by Aug. 19 he was dead, having shed at least 36 pounds.
[. . .]



“Food was delivered to his cell,” said Lt. Col. Eugene Taylor, assistant superintendent at the HRRJ. “He could have flushed meals.” Taylor said the jail could not say for sure that Mitchell was eating, but he also said Mitchell did not complain that he was losing weight.
[. . .]



But Mitchell also struggled with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder for a decade. Adams said her son had to be hospitalized on a handful of occasions and was unable to hold a job.
Mitchell’s family said he was acting increasingly erratic the week before he showed up at the 7-Eleven and had been off his medication for months. He stole the snacks just after midnight on April 22, according to court records, and was arrested and taken to the Portsmouth jail. His weight was listed as 180 pounds on his arrest warrant. He was around 6 feet tall.
In the days after his arrest, Mitchell waived his right to an attorney and appeared “confused” during an interview, according to court records.



Mitchell’s bond was initially set at $3,000 but was later revoked. The court file doesn’t explain why, but Mitchell’s family members said they were told by court officials it was so he could get help.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/man-accused-of-stealing-5-in-snacks-died-in-jail-as-he-waited-for-space-at-mental-hospital/2015/09/29/7ceac8a2-5aff-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

By Justin Jouvenal
September 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM

April 4, 2015

Harvard University Settles With Justice Department In Disability Access Case




Article mentions a "private lawsuit." Is that being brought in the "private" Harvard University administrator courts, like rape accusations? Is there a separate filing procedure for private and public lawsuits?

[From article]
EdX, an online learning platform that Harvard co-founded with MIT in 2012, entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice on Thursday and will address alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That settlement could come to bear on a separate but similar lawsuit against Harvard that revolves around issues of accessibility online.
Namely, the edX settlement will require the platform to become accessible for people with disabilities—including those who are deaf or visually impaired.
In particular, edX is required to “provide accurate captioning for the deaf, oral navigation signals for the blind, and programming changes so those with dexterity disabilities can navigate content without struggling with a hand-operated mouse,” among other stipulations, according to a Department of Justice press release. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that public accommodations not deny disabled people its services.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/3/edX-settles-department-justice/

EdX Settles With Department of Justice
By ANDREW M. DUEHREN
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
April 3, 2015

February 14, 2015

Disability Group Sues Harvard University and MIT to Provide Captions To Online Courses




When humans complain about violations at Harvard University of disability laws, he or she is referred to the university office on disability. As if that office ensures that the university complies with the laws. In Cambridge there is a long existing Handicap Commission (the official name) with jurisdiction over Harvard and MIT. When a violation is brought to their attention the city commission seeks training sessions for the person or group. It seldom forces the issue which is why so many organizations and businesses fail to fulfill their obligations. Disability advocates do not employ PR flacks as other alleged vulnerable groups do. Add the fact that many organizations (Harvard and MIT included?) do not fear non compliance with laws unless there is a likelihood of a lawsuit. That is how today's lawyers advise their clients. There are numerous taxpayer funded disability rights organizations at state and federal levels. Why have they failed to make this happen as the courses were developed? Not too effective. No disability Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

[From article]
The suits came after repeated requests made by the NAD to the University to provide accurate captioning, according to the complaint. Harvard is “fully aware that captioning is necessary” for its online content to be equally accessible, the complaint says.
The complaints against both MIT and Harvard claim that the universities have violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The first act requires that places of public accommodation “not deny persons with disabilities” its services, and the second stipulates that education institutions receiving federal financial assistance must provide equal access to all individuals regardless of disabilities.
“Harvard and MIT are covered institutions [under these acts] because they both receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal support,” Lee said. “The online content and services that the universities provide is for the public as well as the students...I really don’t think there’s really any doubt that these laws apply to Harvard and MIT.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/13/lawsuit-online-edX-discrimination/

Lawsuit Alleges that Harvard's Online Content Discriminates
By HANNAH SMATI,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
February 12, 2015

October 15, 2011

Access to Health Care Denied to Persons With Disabilities

Other people with disabilities are required to remove their clothes when they go to the emergency room. Some are denied fresh air when they are in hospital. Still others have their doors broken down by police and are forced to ingest chemicals. Many persons with disabilities are denied police protection from crimes, especially crimes committed by police and their employees. In order to get help from taxpayer funded human services corporations some persons with disabilities are required to prove they are NOT mentally ill. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applies to many of these violations. But in MA enforcement is not so much. The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 is 20 years old, and is still unknown to many public officials or private citizens. Could you say the silence is deafening among compassionate journalists and protesters? Cambridge City Government has two $80,000 per year Affirmative Action officers duplicating the work of the MCAD, but with no enforcement powers. Yet they do not help persons with disabilities. Cambridge Public Schools and the City Council are diligent doing outreach to hire women and Black citizens. But they do no work to hire persons with disabilities. Hello? Is anybody home? How many faculty members at Harvard have disabilities? Is disability not a diverse category?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/10/14/Disability-Heath-Care-Disparities/

Disabled Face Health Care Disparities
By David Song, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Harvard Crimson
Published: Friday, October 14, 2011

January 22, 2010

From Privileges to Rights:

From Privileges to Rights: People Labeled with
Psychiatric Disabilities Speak for Themselves


[The complete text of "From Privileges to Rights: People Labeled with
Psychiatric Disabilities Speak for Themselves" is available at:]

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/privileges.htm

HERE are ten core recommendations from the report's Executive Summary:

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/privileges.htm#exe

Core Recommendations

...NCD has developed 10 core recommendations in this report. These
policy recommendations should be viewed from the context of the larger
report, which follows. These deeply held core beliefs form, however, a
dynamic backdrop to highlight the human and civil rights of people who
have experienced the mental health system, people who should be viewed
as the true experts on their experiences, beliefs, and values, which
should be used as a guiding force for changing public policy related
to these issues in America.

1. Laws that allow the use of involuntary treatments such as forced
drugging and inpatient and outpatient commitment should be viewed as
inherently suspect, because they are incompatible with the principle
of self-determination. Public policy needs to move in the direction of
a totally voluntary community-based mental health system that
safeguards human dignity and respects individual autonomy.

2. People labeled with psychiatric disabilities should have a major
role in the direction and control of programs and services designed
for their benefit. This central role must be played by people labeled
with psychiatric disabilities themselves, and should not be confused
with the roles that family members, professional advocates, and others
often play when "consumer" input is sought.

3. Mental health treatment should be about healing, not punishment.
Accordingly, the use of aversive treatments, including physical and
chemical restraints, seclusion, and similar techniques that restrict
freedom of movement, should be banned. Also, public policy should move
toward the elimination of electro-convulsive therapy and psycho
surgery as unproven and inherently inhumane procedures. Effective
humane alternatives to these techniques exist now and should be
promoted.

4. Federal research and demonstration resources should place a higher
priority on the development of culturally appropriate alternatives to
the medical and biochemical approaches to treatment of people labeled
with psychiatric disabilities, including self-help, peer support, and
other consumer/survivor-driven alternatives to the traditional mental
health system.

5. Eligibility for services in the community should never be
contingent on participation in treatment programs. People labeled with
psychiatric disabilities should be able to select from a menu of
independently available services and programs, including mental health
services, housing, vocational training, and job placement, and should
be free to reject any service or program. Moreover, in part in
response to the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L C., State and
federal governments should work with people labeled with psychiatric
disabilities and others receiving publicly-funded care in institutions
to expand culturally appropriate home- and community-based supports so
that people are able to leave institutional care and, if they choose,
access an effective, flexible, consumer/survivor-driven system of
supports and services in the community.

6. Employment and training and vocational rehabilitation programs must
account for the wide range of abilities, skills, knowledge, and
experience of people labeled with psychiatric disabilities by
administering programs that are highly individualized and responsive
to the abilities, preferences, and personal goals of program
participants.

7. Federal income support programs like Supplemental Security Income
and Social Security Disability Insurance should provide flexible and
work-friendly support options so that people with episodic or
unpredictable disabilities are not required to participate in the
current "all or nothing" federal disability benefit system, often at
the expense of pursuing their employment goals.

8. To assure that parity laws do not make it easier to force people
into accepting "treatments" they do not want, it is critical that
these laws define parity only in terms of voluntary treatments and
services.

9. Government civil rights enforcement agencies and publicly-funded
advocacy organizations should work more closely together and with
adequate funding to implement effectively critical existing laws like
the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, Civil Rights of
Institutionalized Persons Act, Protection and Advocacy for Individuals
with Mental Illness Act, and Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, giving people labeled with psychiatric disabilities a central
role in setting the priorities for enforcement and implementation of
these laws.

10. Federal, state, and local governments, including education, health
care, social services, juvenile justice, and civil rights enforcement
agencies, must work together to reduce the placement of children and
young adults with disabilities, particularly those labeled seriously
emotionally disturbed, in correctional facilities and other segregated
settings. These placements are often harmful, inconsistent with the
federally-protected right to a free and appropriate public education,
and unnecessary if timely, coordinated, family-centered supports and
services are made available in mainstream settings.

November 9, 2009

Psychiatry and Due Process Rights









Psychiatry and Due Process Rights

Taking a person's freedom requires Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Psychiatry bypasses those rights under laws passed by legislators who are paid by the psychiatric industry, the drug corporations and other interests of controlling and reducing freedom. The laws which deny Due Process rights violate those rights. Allowing the laws to remain makes acceptable a double legal standard for taking freedom. One for persons with disabilities and one for persons without disabilities. It is no different from the double standard based on race, religion, poverty. Here is one example of abuses of the Constitution and denial of Rights guaranteed by it to one man in the name of psychiatry.

* * *

Sun, 11/8/09, Support ratification/adopting of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Bulletin Posted by Jeff Makana

Does the Secret Service jail dissenters in mental hospitals?

"International peace movement have said, “if you see injustice and say nothing, you have taken the side of the oppressor.”

"May we learn the lessons of history before it's too late. If we wait, we may at some time in the future have to admit that we were wrong when we thought we had been free." ~Dr. Kohls, is a retired physician from the Duluth, MN area who writes about peace, justice, mental health and religion.



Back on June 21 of 2004 Secret Service agent Ray LeBeau asked the Phoenix police to arrest Kevin Walsh and take him to a mental institution. Secret Service agent Ray LeBeau said more or less that Kevin was crazy and needed mental help. This can be confirmed by reading the police reports on pages 5 thru 7. The Phoenix police arrested Kevin at an apartment complex in Tempe, then describe how they attacked kevin and took his gun away from him, and later took Kevin to the Maricopa County psych ward as requested by Secrect Service agent Ray LeBeau.

Bryon Wells in a Mesa or East Valley Tribune article on Tueday June 29 also wrote that the Secret Service had arrested Kevin Walsh and jailed him in a Mesa mental institution.

Also in both the phoenix police reports, and Bryon Wells' article in the Tribune it the Secret Service (Ray LeBeau) also said that Kevin Walsh made a threat on the life of the president of the United States. Kevin denied making any threats about the president in the Tribune article. It has been 9 months since Kevin was locked up by the Secret Service but they have not charged him with any federal crimes. My question is that if the secret service had the "probable cause" to arrest Kevin for threatening the president how come they did not arrest him and charge him for that crime? Myself, I don't think they ever had the probable cause needed to arrest Kevin.

About monday June 7 secret service agent Ray LeBeau called Kevin Walsh's home and asked him to contact him at (60.... According to a message Kevin posted on the ASH sig Kevin called the number and left a message to Agent Ray Lebeau telling him that he didn't want to speak to him and asking Ray LeBeau not to bother Kevin's family any more. The Phoenix police report also says that Agent Ray LeBeau wanted to talk to Kevin but that Kevin refused to contact him. My big question on this is how did the Secret Service have any evidence that Kevin was crazy if the Secret Service never spoke to Kevin Walsh?

According to Kevin Walsh after he was in the mental hospital for about 3 to 4 months the Secret Service did subpoena his mental health records. I suspect that was a fishing trip to see if Kevin's doctors got Kevin to admit threatining the president. I don't think they got any evidence because it has been 9 months since Kevin's initial arrest and Kevin has not been charged with any federal crimes.

Why would the Secret Service jail political disenters in mental instutitions? Probably because it is a damn easy way to lock someone up forever without convicting him of a crime.

Under ARS 36-520 anyone can request that a person be declared insane and locked up.



36-520. Application for evaluation; definition A. Any responsible individual may apply for a court-ordered evaluation of a person who is alleged to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others, persistently or acutely disabled, or gravely disabled and who is unwilling or unable to undergo a voluntary evaluation

Once you have asked the person to be locked up, ARS 36-525 allows the police to jail him without any evidence execpt for the fact that someone said he was insane.

And at the person's court hearing if you can get one judge (that's one judge, not a jury of 12 people) to agree that the person is insane the judge can jail the person for three months to a year without all the hassles of having a jury trial or convincing anyone other than the judge that the person is insane. the judge can jail the person for 90 days if he thinks the person is a danger to himself, 180 days if a danger to others, 365 days if gravely disabled. That sure sounds a lot easier than digging up some non-existent evidence that Kevin threatened the president.

The Secret Service never said in the police reports exactly what they claimed Kevin threatened to do to the president of the United States, nor did the say who told them that Kevin threatened to kill the president of the United States.

According to Kevin, he never threatened the president. Kevin said a Republican phone solicitor called his family and asked them to support and vote for to keep President Bush in office for four more years. Kevin did say that he told the phone solicitor that he "wished the president were dead", something that is probably stupid to say but perfectly legal. The phone solicitor was also at the hearing where Kevin was declared insane, but Kevin's lawyer prevented the phone solicitor from testifying because he said it would be heresay evidence.

[My lawyer at the time was Vince Triano. Ms. Martin had not yet taken over my case. --Kevin Walsh]

How did the Secret Service come to the conclusion that Kevin Walsh is crazy and needs mental health care? I dont know. That wasn't stated in any of the articles? The Secret Service never gave any info on why they made the claim. Kevin has not given me any reasons on why the Secret Service would say he is crazy.

What type of crazy has the court classified Kevin as?

Probably schizophrenia, because the drugs they are forcing Kevin to take are commonly used to treat schizophrenia.

[The two psychiatrists who testified at my hearing both claimed I had the "psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified," which is to say they thought I was mentally ill but could not figure out what illness I supposedly had. When risperidone was ordered for me, I asked if I was considered schizophrenic, but I was told I was not. Eventually I was told I had been diagnosed as having the delusional disorder. --Kevin Walsh]

What is schizophrenia? It is a broad cover-all illness. It can be any thing from being "paranoid" to the extreme of being a "manaic depressive" or "bi-polar disorder" which is the new politically correct term for it.

[I was always given to understand that schizophrenia and the bipolar disorder were two different illnesses. --Kevin Walsh]

Schizophrenia is also a "cover-all term" if they don't know what's wrong with you, they call you schizo. The doctors themselves will tell you they don't have a good understanding of schizophrenia but see this web page for more details.

http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/schizophrenia.html

References

1) this is a summary of the Arizona laws that can be used to lock up people considered crazy.

http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/lock_up_nuts_laws.html

all the stuff in the summary is taken from Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statues

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=36

2) It seems like Secret Service Special Agent Ray LeBeau is the person who claims that Kevin Walsh threatened the life of the president, and also had Kevin jailed for being crazy. His direct number is:

(602)722-8026

Secret Service
3200 N Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602)640-5580

3) Kevin has had two public defenders. One defended him in the case where the Secret Service declared that he was insane. the other is defending Kevin in the case where he is accused of assulting the Phoenix cops who arrested him for the Secret Service. They both work for the Maricopa County Attorney's Public Defender's Office.

Jennifer Stewart - (602)???-????
Tenny Martin - (602)560-0920

Kevin told me that his mom and lawyers have copies of all his mental health records of while he was jailed at Desert Vista hospital in Mesa.

4) The police reports are at this URL. There are 14 pages of them, and they have all been scanned as gif images

http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/phoenix_pig_report/phoenix_pig_report.html

pages 5 thru 7 report on what the Phoenix cops did from the time Secret Service Agent Ray LeBeau asked them to arrest Kevin, to their arresting Kevin, and their taking Kevin to the Maricopa County psych hospital as requested by the Secret Service

5) This is a copy of the (Mesa) East Valley Tribune article written about Kevin's arrest

http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/tribarticle.html

East Valley Tribune
120 W. First Avenue
Mesa, AZ 85210
(480) 898-6500

6) Kevin Walsh is currently in the Maricopa County jail and can be contacted at

Kevin Walsh
PO16319 6-1-B11
Madison Jail
225 West Madison Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

[I was transfered from jail to prison on 15 August 2005 and released 20 January 2006. --Kevin Walsh]

Kevin told me that his mom and lawyers have copies of all his mental health records of while he was jailed at Desert Vista hospital in Mesa.

7) When Kevin Walsh was orginally arrested, and after he was commited he was jailed at this mental hospital run by Maricopa County. Kevin's hearing or trial where he was declared insane was also held at this mental hospital.

Desert Vista Campus
Maricopa Medical Center
570 Brown Road
Mesa, Arizona
85201
(480)344-2000

8) Some refernces on schizophrenia

http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/schizophrenia.html

9) The phone solicitor who reported Kevin Walsh to the Secret Service is probably one of these people

WEISS HOWARD Inactive

WEISS DAVID RUSS LYON REALTY COMPANY
CO000193001
(602) 957-9830
(602) 553-9696
3165 E LINCOLN DR
PHOENIX AZ 85016


WEISS GARY F "TOMPKINS REALTY INC.
CO000377000
(520) 327-3401
711 N SWAN
TUCSON AZ 85711

WEISS RICHARD 'RICK' THOMAS "FIRST U.S. SECURITIES

INC.
VIP REALTY
CO001111000
(480) 839-1122
(877) 576-6793
P O BOX 27448
TEMPE AZ 85285-7448<

WEISS RICHARD B WEISS PROPERTIES

SE012029000
(602)493-5344
2352 EAST CHERYL DRIVE
PHOENIX AZ 85028

WEISS RONALD E CWB-PINNACLE PEAK REALTY
LC524964002
(480) 595-8181

34462 NORTH SCOTTSDALE RD STE B-4
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262

WEISS LEE J Inactive

WEISS ADRIANNE W Inactive

WEISS STEPHEN J Self Employed Broker
STEPHEN J WEISS

SE513136000
11146 E BECK LANE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

WEISS JEMM B COLDWELL BANKER-SUCCESS REALTY
CO002643033
(480) 451-1000
(480) 391-4080

9035 EAST MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85258

FREE KEVIN WALSH home Page

Kevin Walsh was a political prisoner who was jailed in a mental hospital by the Secret Service for his anti-Bush statements. Kevin Walsh had committed no crimes and the Secret Service had no evidence to charge Kevin Walsh with any crimes.
__________________________________
Abdul Maalik (Jeff)

Executive Director,
MindFreedom Kenya(MF-K)
Skype:japmak
Tel:+011 254 0710 284880
E-mail:kenya@mindfreedom.org
website: http://www.mindfreedomkenya.interconnection.org

Quote:
"I never lie cause I don't fear anybody, you only lie when your afraid." -John Gotti

October 21, 2009

City of Manheim in Lancaster County installed 11 sidewalk ramps which did not comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city must redo all of the ramps. This is a pattern nationally. One wonders if this is an intentional pattern to make work for construction companies and police details?

October 19, 2009

Unintended Consequences of the ADA


In this review of Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's "Superfreakonomics," Kyle Smith says the unintended consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act was that the law "scared employers away from hiring the disabled."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/superfreakonomics_MPfMLOTdyRDHe2qb72LEmO

Superfreakonomics
Global solutions so crazy, they just might work
By KYLE SMITH
New York Post
Last Updated: 11:41 AM, October 18, 2009
Posted: 12:29 AM, October 18, 2009

September 10, 2009

Disabilities Discrimination Punished (Finally)


http://www.startribune.com/local/south/57918152.html

Girl: I was treated like a 'misfit' at Abercrombie & Fitch
Abercrombie & Fitch was fined $115,264 for refusing to let an Apple Valley teen help her autistic sister try on clothes.
By JAMES ELI SHIFFER and JANE FRIEDMANN, Star Tribune staff writers
(Minneapolis) Star Tribune
Last update: September 9, 2009 - 4:45 PM