A. Legal Health For Mental Professional
1.
Mental
Health For Healthcare Professionals: Psych patient is granted full day in
Ontario Provincial Court to cross-examine a top doctor.
By:Rene Helmerichs
Written: 10 April 2015
Posted: www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca
Contact: Rene Helmerichs
CNCC – 2C
1501 Fuller Avenue, Penetanguishene, ON. L9M 2H4
Canada
Financial support is welcome and appreciated! Every
$2-30 can buy ten inmates each a cup of coffee!
Document Contents:
A. Legal Health For Mental Professionals by
Author, paragraphs 1 to 16
B. What This Is All About by Author,
paragraph 1
C. Notes About The 5 Feb. 2015 Psychosocial
Assessment (forensic), by Author, paragraph 1 to 6
D. The Affidavit Of James Leslie Karagianis,
sworn 30 March 2015, paragraph 1 to 9
E. Affidavit Number 6 of Rene Helmerichs,
effectively affirmed 1 April 2015 submitted to C-14-6966 at Barrie
F. The 5 Feb. 2015 Psychosocial Assessment,
by Allison Jones, paragraphs to follow [once Rene gets a second copy of it].
2.
Hello.
I am, WE ARE, going, already doing so, winning
(although we aren’t really fighting so no real winning ever occurs). The court
at Barrie, Ontario, Canada for file C-14-6966 (9969-hI noted) has scheduled 3
July 2015 for me to cross-examine the affidavit of James Leslie Karagianis, the
top psychiatrist at Waypoint. Mr. Karagianis claims that psychiatrists are in
the right, the legal right, to not verbatim-record assessments if their client
refuses to speak to them unless it is so recorded. Oddly, the psychiatrists are
thereby directly saying that it doesn’t matter if the court orders them to do
an assessment on a person who desires only to ensure that psychiatrists don’t
take statements out of context. The psychiatrists, specifically Mr. William
Komer whom Mr. Karagianis is defending, have given written 3 Feb. 2015
statement to the court to say two court order could not be adhered because Mr.
Helmerichs refuses to speak off the record to them.
3.
Fortunately
for us, we have this thing our favourite book, A Court In Miracles, www.acim.org, calls Common Sense.
4.
Psychiatrists
seem to be unable, as demonstrated by them, to grasp that common sense is
evidenced all throughout Canada’s laws. For example, Criminal Code section
672.11(b) specifically states that the ordered assessment is for the criminal
offence, that is, the psychiatrist is NOT required to have an active real-time
dialogue with the client to fulfill the required court order.
From section 672.11(b):
“A court having jurisdiction over an accused
in respect of an offence may order an assessment of the mental condition of the
accused, if it has reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence is
necessary to determine (b) whether the accused was, at the time of the
commission of the alleged offence, suffering from a mental disorder so as to be
exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection 16(1);”
5.
Of course (in miracles), argument can be made
that the ordered “assessment of the mental condition” requires, at least in
part, a real-time exchange to establish a currently functional mind, according
to the judicial Operating Mind Test (see annotations to Charter s.7 in Martin’s
Criminal Code 2014 somewhere in pages 1825-1827), however, for the case of
sudden amnesia with one who is of Operating Mind, there is legislative phrase “may”
included also in Criminal Code section 672.2(1).
6.
Criminal
Code section 672.2(1) offers the person who makes the assessment the choice NOT
to submit a report on “the mental condition of the accused” in writing.
Unfortunately for the assessor, section 672.2(2) – correction: for us non-legal
professionals who tend to group similar same-looking things into the same
terms, we can call 672.2(2) a section but its actually a subsection of section
672, and even that isn’t quite accurate as the (2) denotes a paragraph so,
technically, the correct correct phrase to use instead of “section 672.2(2)” is
“subsection 672.2 paragraph (2)” but EVERYONE probably now knows exactly the
part of our Canadian legislature that I’m specifically repeating contains The
Interpretation Act of Canada keyword SHALL as IMPERATIVE – contains the keyword
SHALL which The Interpretation Act of Canada reminds us equates to “no ifs,
ands, or butts about it.”
7.
Again,
section 672.2(1) says an assessment report ordered by the court may be
submitted in writing, and does therein directly state a real-time assessment of
“the mental condition of the accused” need NOT be included in the ordered
assessment report to which section 672.2(2) refers since a report given orally
in court does become a report in writing upon transcription of the oral
testimony.
8.
Section
672.2(1) states: “An assessment order may require the person who makes the
assessment to submit in writing an assessment report on the mental condition of
the accused.”
9.
Section
672.2(2) states: “An assessment report shall be filed with the court or Review
Board that ordered it within the period fixed by the court or Review Board as
the case may be.”
10. Should argument arise that Section 672.2
does NOT permit an accused, the client of the assessment, to retain a right to
silence off the record, then the liberty of the client under section
672.21(3)(f) must be considered in conjunction with the purpose of the section,
namely, to determine whether statements of the client are even reliable.
Section 672.21(3) provides that client statements given for the purpose of a
mental assessment are “protected statements” and NOT admissible in court for
use against the client (e.i. the admission of guilt) EXCEPT: “for the purpose
of (f) challenging the credibility of an accused in any proceeding where the
testimony of the accused is inconsistent in a material particular with a
protected statement that the accused made previously;”
11. There is absolutely no way to legitimately
challenge unrecorded testimony except under presumption that the assessor has
recorded, accurately, the testimony of the client itself under scrutiny for
inconsistency. As in this case the right of personal language (as an expression
of personal religious or personal cultural belief) must be respected, a
requirement repeatedly emphasized throughout the law AND The Diagnostic And
Statistics Manual, DSM-V (2013), the circularity may be apparent for all but
the most obstinate.
12. To not lose sight of our singular goal,
which is to demonstrate the assumption of psychiatrists as incorrect, the
client may make concessions with the ordered assessors.
13. In the case of Her Majesty The Queen In
Right Of Ontario (aka Regina, or “R.”) versus Rene Helmerichs (aka [Sun]
Lucifer Christ), The Psychosocial Assessment (forensic) dated 5 Feb. 2015
states, specifically on the first of eleven pages: “Mr. Helmerichs did however
agree to participate in this interview through written responses to this writer’s
questions on a Word Document.”
14. As The Psychosocial Assessment (forensic)
dated 5 Feb. 2015 is in response to two court orders, the first dated “December
29, 2014 and signed by Justice W. G. Beatty” and the second “made on January
19, 2015 signed by Justice C. Mathias-McDonald for a period of 30 days to
determine if he [Mr. Helmerichs] suffered from a mental disorder so as to
exempt him from criminal responsibility by virtue of section 16(1) of the
Criminal Code”, one should wonder why the court, pursuant to section 672.2(2),
received only this 3 Feb. 2015 statement as filing for BOTH orders: “Further to
your Assessment Order dated [one filing states “December 29, 2014” the other
states “January 19, 2015”], Mr. Helmerichs was admitted to the Waypoint Centre
for Mental Health Care in Penetanguishene on January 5, 2015. He has refused to
speak with me unless the meetings are audio [“auto”?] recorded and stated that
he would be posting anything documented on the Internet. Mr. Helmerichs has
been derogatory [see paragraph Sch.A.7 of blog post Schedule A To Applications –
Gathering Steam To Impeach Ontario http://www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca/2015/03/gathering-steam-to-impeach-ontario.html]
to me. Under the circumstances, I am unable at this time or in the future to do
an assessment of him.
15. That Waypoint discharged me on 4 Feb. 2015
back into jail-jail, Waypoint being a hospital-jail, evidences that no other
psychiatrist was willing to assess me either, for which the chief psychiatrist
at Waypoint provided the 30 March 2015 sworn affidavit attempting to
rationalize the otherwise illegal position of Waypoint following 5 Feb. 2015 Waypoint
admission on page 1 of the not voluntarily submitted 5 Feb. 2015 Psychosocial
Assessment (forensic): “This writer met with Mr. Helmerichs for the purpose of
completing this Psychosocial Assessment. He was informed that participation in
the interview was voluntary. He was further informed of the limits to
confidentiality, including that information gathered would be shared with the
multidisciplinary team and could be used in the court report. Mr. Helmerichs
expressed a desire to have his interview captured in an audio recording however
due to the lack of policy around storage and transcription of interviews at
this facility Mr. Helmerichs’ request could not be accommodated. Mr. Helmerichs
did however agree to participate in this interview through written responses to
this writer’s questions on a Word Document. Mr. Helmerichs was [not] provided a
[printed] copy of his responses to this writer [nor after TWO written requests
sent via regular mail on 10 March 2015 and fax on 31 March 2015, and submitted
thereafter on 1 April 2015 to court file C-14-6966 at Barrie for Mr. Karagianis
to retrieve himself upon 1 April 2015 additional letter mailed to the chief
psychiatrist of Waypoint] and another copy was placed on his clinical file. Mr.
Helmerichs noted on his document that he has posted his responses at www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca
[typo corrected].”
16. The reader may begin to realize the larger
picture of that currently keeping Mr. Helmerichs detained in jail, at monetary
costs to only the taxed labourers of Canada. At no fault of Mr. Helmerichs were
the assessments ordered 29 Dec. 2014 and 19 Jan. 2015 not submitted to the
court pursuant to Criminal Code section 672.2(2). Thus is the issue not one of whether
the court can, in the exact words of Ms. Dawson, judge of the April 1st New
Goal Day proceeding at Barrie for this matter, “tell them how to do their job”,
but that they, the psychiatrists, sincerely do believe themselves to be
superior to judges of our courts for law AND OUR JUDGES AGREE! WHICH OUGHT TO
SCARE EVERYONE DESIRING TO RETAIN THEIR OWN SENSE OF PERSONAL CULTURAL IDENTITY
IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER FOR TRANSPARENCY, HONESTY, OR MUTUALLY DISCUSSIVE SOCIAL
BETTERMENT WHATSOEVER, WHATSOEVER, WHATSOEVER!!!
B. What This Is All About
1. Mr. Helmerichs is
distinctly challenging the prevailing opinions permitting potions and pills to
act as therapist where once true listening was required. Mr. Helmerichs has,
for the benefit of every taxed labourer in Canada, not without a lot of luck
and patience, momentarily managed to secure an entire day, 3 July 2015, for the
cross-examination of Mr. James Leslie Karagianis, currently the chief
psychiatrist at Waypoint, specifically to utterly discredit (as is the purpose
OF a cross-examination) that chief psychiatrist following the 30 March 2015
sworn affidavit. The text of the 30 March 2015 Affidavit of James Leslie
Karagianis is included and directly countered legally with arguments herein
provided, collectively with Affidavit Number 6 Of Rene Helmerichs (serving as “the
common response of every taxed labourer in Canada”), and logically with simple
questioning:
i) What is the goal of
understanding? [Increase to awareness]
ii) Does linear time exist or
not? [Apparently it does.]
iii) If time = linear exists,
so to does cause and effect.
iv) To what end is the argued
point a cause? Wherefrom did the first idea to that end stem? Must the goal and
origin be same for an ever-present awareness to progress apparently within a
past-future called linear time or is there no such thing as a COMMON law?
[Common law exists AS our shared environment.]
v) What purpose does it serve
to categorize disorders without exclusive focus on the repairing of
inconsistent beliefs, ever with harm to none and only none, for healing of mind
but medication for the brain in supposition of the temporary brain as
non-linear thinking device? [Answer: Increase stress, cost, and taxation.]
C. Notes About The 5 Feb. Psychosocial Assessment (forensic)
1. From page 5 of The
Psychosocial Assessment (forensic) dated 5 Feb. 2015 signed by Allison Jones,
MSW, RSW: “The right of personal religion ensures each can live in false
pretense of whatever special local workplace policy any may momentarily desire
without also personally respecting The Golden Rule until Transparency (“the
wholey ghost”) requires accountability for inaction of the intrinsic
personal-social responsibility, that is Self-awakening always without real
harm.”
2. ASIDE with respect to the 5
Feb. 2015 Waypoint report: Mr. Helmerichs has noted 29 inconsistencies in a
cursory read of the 11 page Psychosocial Assessment (forensic) report. Of the
errors, Mr. Helmerichs (Me, The Author of THIS document) would like to correct
three fallacious points under subheading Education on page 6 and 5:
(1) Yes, Mr. Helmerichs DID achieve his
commercial fixed-wing pilot license, instrument flight rules and multi-engine
endorsed, AND went on to receive ALSO his flight instructor rating CONTRARY TO
the Waypoint statement “Mr. Helmerichs had planned to work toward his
commercial license but abandoned his plan after some time. Mr. Helmerichs then
worked toward getting his truck driving license.”;
(2) YES, Mr. Helmerichs WAS accepted into a
PhD program (in the field of Experimental Psychology to work initially under
Dr. Boyles studying community structures in 2003; albiet conditionally accepted
since I do not actually have a Bachelor’s degree and the university wanted to
see if my 4.0 Master’s GPA would hold up through bridge year at Calgary, since
I don’t actually have a formal psychology background either) CONTRARY TO the
Waypoint statement “he reportedly applied for a PhD program in Calgary but was
not successful in being accepted.” (I never began because an even better
opportunity presented itself wherefrom I did then net also immediate financial
gain, versus increase to student loan debt.); and,
(3) NOT I “would often bring [my] son to
school late for kindergarten as [I] had overslept” BUT there exist priorities in
life such that when I NOW see exactly THAT misperception I smile at the
memories of awaking each morning with my son beside me at OUR LEISURE because
neither of us was in a particular hurry to be separated from the other. And
then I recall the days I’d meet him at school to pull him out of school just to
share Nutella sandwiches together in my car in the school’s parking lot,
because a kid in his class had a nut allergy and my kid and I enjoyed the time
together; AND I recall routinely causing him to miss an entire day, usually
Fridays, just for us two to head first to “The EYC” (a favourite FREE public
play place for kids aged 0-6) before then enjoying swimming together at a
community pool with a water-slide, before then lunch buffet at Manderin ($18,
tax-included, for us two to eat) before then hitting either an outdoor park or
first a nap. That my kid took it upon himself to learn half of his
multiplication tables (in addition to Chinese, French and English) before my
Mum stole custody of him seems completely overlooked in the Waypoint allusion.
3. My favourite Psychosocial
Assessment (forensic) outtake: “During his admission at this facility Mr.
Helmerichs spent much of his time on the unit computer working on his legal
matters and writing various letters to his attending psychiatrist and various
other hospital staff i.e. dietary, to address his needs [i.e. NOT being
fattened liken sheeple in line for psychiatric slaughter]. He attended
recreation programs [thanks tax-payers!] when he could. Mr. Helmerichs managed
to access restricted sites (email) online using the unit computer despite the
safeguards that were in place. After the Information Technology department
increased the security this writer believes he did so again on February 1st or
2nd as his document that included his responses to the psychosocial assessment
were posted on line and the time stamp on the website was marked before this
writer got to work Monday February 2, 2015 [Ground Hog Day – good movie – Now
You See Me?].”
4. “Dr. Chawla was unsure if
Mr. Helmerichs was experiencing thought insertion, withdrawal or broadcast.”
Um, BROADCAST www.talk2dream.Me
5. Does the patient, author of
his statements, lose right to keep discussing after the assessment? Any confidential
information revealed can still come to light after the assessment in further
testimony.
6. If the court is to extend
the right for decision, whether or not an accused is to be permitted a trial
for potentially a lifelong mental ward commitment intermittently as out and in
patient, to a psychiatrist, then that psychiatrist must also take into account
the individual as a personal culture with unique mannerisms, language, and mode
of expression. Specifically, the psychiatrist must advocate for the fundamental
freedoms of The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. To advocate for fundamental
freedom obligates the healthcare practitioner to place the health, the
identified need for active listening called true listening, before his or her
own fears of speaking or saying something the psychiatrist clearly fears can be
taken out of context from a recorded record. The question is one for trust: “Why
should I trust you if you don’t trust you?”
D. The Affidavit Of James Leslie Karagianis, sworn 30 March 2015.
I, James
Leslie Karagianis, of the Town of Port Severn, in the province of Ontario MAKE
OATH AND STATE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
I am
a psychiatrist licensed either by general or specialist license in the
provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland. I have also previously been granted
specialist licenses in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I
concluded my psychiatric residence at Memorial University in Newfoundland in
1990. I am an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto
and a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University.
2.
I am
currently the Psychiatrist in Chief at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
in Penetanguishene (“Waypoint”) and have held that position since July 1, 2012.
Among my responsibilities are medical affairs; physician leadership; and
medical quality assurance. I also maintain a private practice in psychiatry.
3.
Waypoint
is a public hospital under the Public Hospitals Act, a Schedule 1
psychiatric facility under the Mental Health Act and a designated hospital
under Part XX.I of the Criminal Code, that part of the Code dealing with
mentally disordered offenders.
4.
I
have conducted over 100 court-ordered assessments during my professional
practice and I have been previously recognized as an expert witness for the
purpose of testifying at all three levels of court in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
5.
The
Applicant, Rene Helmerichs, has been ordered to have an assessment with respect
to his criminal responsibility in connection with outstanding charges of breach
of probation, criminal harassment and fail to appear in court.
6.
Mr.
Helmerichs is applying for a court order “... requiring spoken statements of
Rene Helmerichs given for the purposes of mental assessment to be audio
recorded and a digital copy provided Mr. Helmerichs if the assessment, or
reporting thereof, can reasonably affect a detention or further detention of
Rene Helmerichs...” The stated grounds for the application include the
allegation that “... the current charge for which I am being mentally assessed
stems directly from false statements psychiatrists [names omitted] made...” He
further asserts that “... testimony cannot be honestly challenged without a
first-hand recording...”
7.
It is
not usual medical practice for a court-ordered assessment to be audiotaped. As
noted in Bloom and Schneider’s 2013 text “Mental Disorder – A Comprehensive and
Practical Approach”, in the chapter entitled “The Psycholegal Assessment”,
under the heading “Audio and Videotaping the interview”: “Videotaping
interviews is not at this point part of the recommended practice of forensic
psychiatry in Canada or the United States. There are no policies or practical
guidelines from any regulatory body or professional association that direct, or
even invite, psychiatric experts to record their interviews in that manner”. To
my knowledge, this remains an accurate statement.
8.
In my
opinion, there are serious privacy concerns raised in the Application, despite
it being the patient who wishes the audiotaping to occur because such recording
necessarily captures the words of the psychiatrist as well as the person being
assessed. I am very concerned that the fact of being recorded can and will
cause a restricting effect on the psychiatrist conducting the interview. In my
opinion such a process is not conducive to a psychiatrist being able to conduct
the best, most thorough and most comprehensive interview necessary to underpin
the most accurate assessment required by the Court. It would be extremely
difficult for a psychiatrist to remain objective and not be compromised where
there is a risk of the recording being released, as I understand to be a real
concern in the within case.
9.
A
good court ordered assessment is a broad range inquiry. In the criminal
context the assessment almost inevitably involves the patient discussing third
parties – be they witnesses, victims or co-accused in the outstanding criminal
charges. The privacy interests of these persons are also at risk if the
assessment is recorded and particularly if the recording is released to the
patient, as is being sought herein.
E. Affidavit Number 6 Of Rene Helmerichs, effectively
affirmed 1 April 2015 submitted to C-14-6966 at Barrie
I, Rene
Helmerichs, born in Bremen, Germany, AFFIRM AS TRUE:
1.
I am
a projection of our unconscious and therewith commonly endowed to speak with
our common spirit on my own behalf. Our common spirit is directly The Holy
Spirit, also called the spirit of the law (singular) and the spirit of our God
and loving Creator. As a culture, we agree the spirit of Matthew 5:33-7 in
every common Bible to be of our real-time spirit such that we recognize the act
of making oaths to be directly the spirit NOT of our common God.
2.
This
affidavit is particularly important to clarify the daunting DSM page 87
statement “Delusions are deemed bizarre same-culture peers and do not derive
from ordinary life experiences.” As none working under oath share my exclusive
culture, specifically that FOR A Course In Miracles (www.acim.org), summarized also in Matthew 6:33,
no mental assessment under Diagnostic And Statistics Manual, DSM, 2013, page
87-110, is lawfully valid when provided of an authority licensed specifically
for that capacity, such as Mr. James Leslie Karagianis for Waypoint.
3.
A
concise legal argument follows in compendium to statement from psychiatrist Mr.
M. Scott Peck taken from The Road Less Traveled; the statement speaks to trust
and private audio recording baises The legal argument is concluded with a fax
to Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care evidencing abuse for authority.
4.
On 29
Dec 2014, I stood trial for a breach of probation dating to 8 July 2014 when I’d
posted a cited section of a police report (dated 4 Sept 2012) to the internet.
I was not permitted to submit that report as evidence for my defence at the
original June 2014 trial for C-13-205 that yielded the probation term
thereafter breached. One could say that I am being actively denied the right of
a fair defence.
5.
On 29
Dec 2014 the crown witness, the assigned probation officer, raised concern for
mental health prompting the trial judge to pause trial for a criminal
responsibility assessment. While court is normally recorded, its assessment was
not to be? The same judge, to the record at Barrie on 14 Jan 2015, stated unwillingness
to hear applications of the defence until the responsibility assessment is
completed.
6.
On 4
Feb 2015, I was discharged from Waypoint, the place of assessment, on grounds
that no assessment could be conducted because I am unwilling to speak off the
record for purpose able to affect detention for me.
7.
On 24
Feb 2015, I agreed to a plea bargain so as not to lose my apartment: I would
plead guilty and receive “time served” over the course of two days, one for
each jurisdiction for the total six charges (begotten in my ongoing sincere
attempt to still redress the original errors in law having prevented my June
2014 defence submissions)
8.
On 25
Feb 2015, the crown surprised me with an additional agreement requirement
preventing my ability to redress their errors in law. The plea bargain agreement
was cancelled. Unfortunately, a plea for C-14-3928 at Orillia had been made
already on 24 Feb 2015 and now also needs to be redressed.
9.
On 4
March 2015, hearing for the application to have mental assessments audio
recorded was set for 1 April 2015.
10. The crown has proposed that audio
recording psychiatric statements is not to be permitted. The application for
the requested order is specifically exclusive of the desire to record
psychiatric statements as the purpose of the application is to ensure that my
statements are not misconstrued, such as they have been, as indicated in the
material posted on the internet 8 July 2014 to www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca
for which I was arrested on 11 July 2014.
11. Page 88 of The American Psychology
Association, APA, Diagnostic And Statistics Manual, DSM, 2013, describes 3 of 5
of the Diagnostic Criteria A for Schizophrenia (295.90; F20-9; page 99), of
which any two of the five must be present “for a significant period of time
during a 1-month period” (the 30-day assessment)
12. The DSM states, of the fourth of the five
criteria: “Catatonic behavior is a marked decrease in reactivity to the
environment. This ranges from resistance to instructions (negativism); to
maintaining a rigid, inappropriate or bizarre posture; to a complete lack of
verbal and motor responses (mutism and stupor).”
13. The fifth of five criteria is simply
titled Negative Symptoms and includes such behaviour as is normally associated
with resignation.
14. The first three criteria, of the five
which only two must be present for justification of the diagnosis
(Schizophrenia) are: (1) Delusions, including referential delusions the likes
of which everyone suffers; (2) Hallucinations, including the “normal part of
religious experience” in a culture whose Constitution is “founded upon
principles that recognize the supremacy of God” but utterly fail to clarify the
statement such as ours, CANADA, does; and, (3) “disorganized speech (e.g.
frequent derailment or incoherence)” such as every article ever written of my
hand that is otherwise, under s.2(b) of The Constitution, OURS CANADA,
classified as a language unto itself via caselaw of Ford versus Quebec
(Attorney General) in the annotations thereto.
15. To wrap this up neatly, if I insist upon
my culture for absolute transparency to mean that I retain my Constitution s.7
right to silence in the face of a court order otherwise requiring psychiatrists
to assess me, it does not matter that I fulfill the criteria of Catatonic
behaviour (I could even play it up with rocking back-and-forth, or just
stock-still blinking) and Negative Symptoms (“diminished emotional expression”;
“avolation”; “anhedonia” OR, “asociality”) quite without further movement or
action on my part BECAUSE the DSM also states there are “Culture-Related
Diagnostic Issues” then not permitting the very ordered assessment.
16. Ergo, there is really not an argument left
with respect to my polite request that our judges retain their granted judicial
authority and order “spoken statements of Rene Helmerichs [an impolite break of
a name in the affidavit of James Leslie Karagianis] given for the purpose of
mental assessment to be audio recorded and a digital copy provided Mr. Helmerichs
if the assessment, or reporting thereof, can reasonably affect a detention or
further detention of Rene Helmerichs”, to quote Mr. Karagianis quoting Me. An
author does not lose ownership over statements without explicit consent, and I
do not consent to speaking without receiving my speech.
17. Re: Trust (Why should I trust you if you
don’t trust you?)
Psychiatrist M. Scott Peak, in The Road
Less Traveled, states:
An essential part of true listening is the
discipline of bracketing, the temporary giving up or setting aside of one’s own
prejudices, frames of reference and desires so as to experience as far as
possible the speaker’s would from the inside, stepping inside his or her shoes.
[There is listening or there is speaking; all does listen to HERE the same
time.] This unification of speaker and listener is actually an extension and
enlargement of ourself, and new knowledge is always gained from this. Moreover,
since true listening involves bracketing, a setting aside of the self, it also
temporarily involves a total acceptance of the other. Sensing the acceptance,
the speaker will feel less and less vulnerable and more and more inclined to
open up the inner recesses of his or her mind to the listener. As this happens,
speaker and listener begin to appreciate each other more and more, and the duet
dance of love is again begun. The energy required for the discipline of
bracketing and the focusing of total attention is so great that it can be
accomplished only by love, by the will to extend oneself for mutual growth.
Most of the time we lack this energy. Even though we may feel in our business
dealings or social relationships that we are listening selectively, with a
preset agenda in mind [a mind-set], wondering as we listen how we can achieve
certain desired results and get the conversation over with as quickly as
possible or redirected in ways more satisfactory to us.
18. Pages 127-8 of The Road Less Traveled,
1979 ISBN ?-25067-1, speak directly to the fundamental importance of trust as
healing mechinism in any and every human relationship, and specifically to the
need of the mental health client to be reassured with, and within, transparency
of the intent of any mental assessment able to affect detention irrespective of
that assessment as specifically court-ordered. If a psychiatrist is unwilling
to trust his or her own statements, why should the client trust the therapist?
The dilemma is only in the belief that pills can act as a therapist.
19. Fax to Waypoint sent 31 March 2015 at
14h38:
(1) TO: Clinical Information Services
RE: 18 March 2015 Waypoint Centre Logged Invoice ROI
0002199
FAX: 705-549-3778; DATED: 25 March 2015 (2 pages
total)
Return to: Rene Helmerichs, CNCC, 1501 Fuller Ave,
Penetanguishene, Ontario, L9M 2H4
(2) Please be advised, with regard to invoice
ROI 0002199:
Rene Helmerichs specifically stated the requested
information to be copyright protected. The copyright protection is not merely
the intrinsic right of an author to retain ownership of written statements, but
formally registered in The United States Copyright Office by The Foundation For
Inner Peace.
(3) The invoice, ROI 0002199, is not only
vexatious against Mr. Helmerichs, who also stated in the original request that
he has not yet received a first printed copy of the requested written responses
to the Waypoint Centre For Mental Health Care administered Psychosocial
Assessment – vexatious because Mr. Helmerichs is incarcerated at Central North
Correctional Centre without ability to pay following Waypoint inaction to
assist Mr. Helmerichs with means to pay while at Waypoint, and was removed from
Waypoint on 4 Feb. 2015 for Waypoint staff to avoid speaking onto the record –
but illegal for its contravention of international copyright law.
(4) As Mr. Helmerichs requires advertisement
to better the administration of justice in Ontario, and advertisement for
recognition as being equally a copyright holder of the copyrighted
Psychotherapy: Purpose, Process, and Practice text (available from Penquine
Books as well as www.acim.org), Mr.
Helmerichs politely advises The Waypoint Centre that Waypoint Centre For Mental
Health Care explicitly does NOT have permission to copy the copyrighted
portions included within the file 20150202-Psycho.pdf submitted to the Forensic
Assessment Program A on Ground Hog Day 2015.
(5) Further to the evidence supplied in ROI
0002199 that Waypoint is charging $3.08 per page (tax included) for
commercially copyrighted material, following notification that the contents of
The Psychosocial Assessment of Rene Helmerichs were requested at the beheist of
Waypoint because Waypoint elected to protect illegal psychiatric practice (of
denying individuals their culturally sanctioned freedom of expression to
declare those same individuals to be with delusions, of no insight into their
delusions, to justify forcibly injecting those individuals for the exclusive
financial growth of the psychiatric corporate enterprise – direct reference to
pages 87-90, 93, 95, 98, 103, and 108 of the APA DSM 2013) for its
psychiatrists (reference to the 3 Feb 2015 letters to The Ontario Provincial
Court of psychiatrist Mr. William Komer), Mr. Helmerichs extends a generous
willingness to partner.
(6) A meeting with Waypoint negotiators is
requested to arrange a peaceful settlement and spare The Waypoint Centre
unnecessary negative social media internet publicity.
(7) In Kindness,
R. Helmerichs, professor of A Course In Miracles,
acim.org
Signed 25 March 2015 at Penetanguishene, Ontario, Canada
E. Affidavit Number 6 Of Rene Helmerichs, effectively
affirmed 1 April 2015 submitted to C-14-6966 at Barrie
20. [The final page of the 1 April 2015,
submission titled Affidavit Number 6 of Rene Helmerichs is the Waypoint
invoice.]
F. The 5 Feb 2015 Psychosocial Assessment, by Allison
Jones, paragraphs to follow [once Rene gets a second copy of it].
No comments:
Post a Comment