Item Num 17:
(17) Item Num 17: Outline Of Cross-examining For Mr.
Karagianis; dated 20 April 2015; 19 questions.
B.1. Paragraph 3 of your
affidavit makes reference to “mentally disordered offenders”. Can we agree that
an offender is an individual having committed an offence designated to be illegal
in The Criminal Code Of Canada?
B.2. Are we
presumed to be innocent of such offences until given a fair hearing in Canada?
B.3. Prior to June 2014, I had
not been found guilty and sentenced for a criminal offence; if I was not
formally an offender, why was I considered a mentally disordered offender, or,
presumed to be with mental illness so as to have Part XX.I of The Criminal Code
apply to me, if I am to be presumed innocent?
B.4. The distinction is one
purely for culture, which is the underlying subject matter of our dispute
today. I believe that I have a legal right to have my oral statements given for
the purposes of a mental assessment audio-recorded, and a recording thereof
freely given me, and you believe this to somehow interfere with the ability of
a psychiatrist to honestly assess me. Do we share this understanding as a
common perspective, each with our own desired outcome?
B.5. I shall let you define
your culture for the court in the answer provided. In paragraph 1 of your
affidavit, your refer to possessing several psychiatric licenses. In paragraph
4 you refer to yourself as previously recognized as “an expert witness for the
purpose of testifying”. Do you consider yourself a representative sample of
your culture population? i.e. [can the court today consider your answers to be
normal for whatever is the culture of a psychiatrist?]
B.6. How does one wind up in
court after committing a criminal offence? [charged & arrested]
B.7. Do you believe it
necessary for maintenance of proper social functioning that serious, if not
every, criminal offence is reported to authorities for an arrest?
B.8. Are you licensed by The
College Of Physicians And Surgeons Of Ontario?
B.9. In paragraph 8 of your
affidavit, you note concern for the assessing psychiatrist that, despite having
only requested my statements to be audio recorded, “such recording necessarily
captures the words of the psychiatrist as well.” Are you aware, to quote Lorian
Hardcastle, relayed in the 15 April 2015 Toronto Star page GT3, that “(The
colleges) haven’t opted to go the route of mandatory disclosure” in cases where
psychiatrists commit even multiple repeated criminal offences?
B.10. (1) Ms. Hardcastle was
responding via email to The Toronto Star for the case of a physician with
suspended medical license in 2013, a Mr. Sami Karkanis, who has his license
re-instated on grounds, according to Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer in a
December 2014 ruling, “that the case against Karkanis from 2013 was a typical ‘he
said, she said’ case.
B.10. (2) Mr. Karagianis,
allow me to qualify this next statement by telling you “God is nothing.” I am
now going to fully admit to you that I believe I am God.
B.10. (3) In paragraph 2 of
your affidavit you state yourself to be Psychiatrist in Chief at Waypoint
Centre for Mental Health and that among your responsibilities are medical
quality assurance. Pages 7 to 10 of The Psychosocial Assessment, forensic,
dated 5 Feb 2015, and printed on Waypoint letterhead refer to a number of
mental disorders that psychiatrists have ‘he said, she said’ to me, however all
the disorders are based on The Diagnostic And Statistics Manual, of which the
2013 version, DSM-V, clearly states on page 87: “Delusions are deemed bizarre
if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers
and do not derive from ordinary life experiences.”
B.10. (4) Since I did not say
that I do not also think that you are equally God, and God is a legal term,
being found in the legislature in the Preamble to our Constitution, please
define mind for the court as every disorder is, in my culture, a disease of the
mind of God.
B.10. (5) [Relevance, if
requested: The DSM-V (2013) on page 87 states
“Delusions that express a loss of control
over mind or body are generally considered to be bizarre... The distinction
between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and
depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held
despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity”. To
satisfy to the court that there exists a standard for the classification of
mental disorders, there must exist a common aspect to act as foundation for the
standard. Since I have steadily maintained my belief that it is not the brain of
a body that thinks, but that thinking originates in our common mind and that
even that mind is split in a way neither confined to our physical bodies nor to
linear time, to be able to establish my thinking as delusional does obligate an
expert assessor of diseases of mind, or mental disorder, to maintain a concept
of that being assessed, mind, that is not contradictory to the standard of a
common foundation. If the expert cannot testify that my mind is not of God, my
statement that I am God does retain legal veracity to endow my person with the
status of God in Canada until such time that it is. As a consequence, I
respectfully support statement of Chief Supreme Court Of Canada Justice Beverly
McLachlin, reprinted on page A14 of the 15 April 2015 Toronto Star that “sentencing
is inherently a judicial function” such that I may request of authorities to
arrest psychiatrists Ms. Anjana Chawla and Mr. Liaqat Ali for crimes sworn 8
July 2014 and included in the crown disclosure of Orillia matter C-14-3928. All
other of my reasonable requests shall of course (in Miracles) also be met,
beginning with leave of this court to order an application expeditiously
presented on my behalf before whatever necessary court to order The College Of
Physicians And Surgeons to report ALL criminal allegations to authorities and
to have their exclusively licensed physicians stop deceiving themselves to be
expert in a singular non-linear Mind Of God that they clearly do not understand
for having not established that I am not with The Mind Of God, also known as
Christ.]
B.11. Quoting Anne Sorenson,
president of Marriott, from page B4 of the 15 April 2015 Toronto Star
newspaper, “The notion that you can tell businesses somehow that they are free
to discriminate against people based on who they are is madness.” Paragraph 3
of the affidavit states Waypoint to be incorporated under The Public Hospitals
Act. Although the term “incorporated” is specifically missing, a hospital is
necessarily a business. According to your interpretation of the thinking of Ms.
Sorenson and acknowledging The American Psychological Association to actually
be instructing readers of its DSM “to discriminate against people based on who
they are” for NOT having acknowledged mind to be eternally shared in a real and
living not-endorsement that all psychotherapists (inclusive of all
psychiatrists) should study this text, and its precursor A Course In Miracles,
to assist the worldwide psychiatric standard to better itself?
B.12. If you imply the
statements of psychiatrists should not be recorded “to conduct the best, most
thorough and most comprehensive interview necessary to underpin the most
accurate assessment required by the Court,” AND “the Court” advocates exemption
to the normal protection of statements in Criminal Code section 672.21(3) for
assurances to the public that the consistency of honesty is maintained, AND I
hear in all of this that, simply put, psychiatrists lack trust in what they say
during the assessments for the court, HOW is it that any psychiatrist can
retain status as expert witness if the foundation of a medical license depends
upon personal relationship involving Trust that I am telling you I do not have
unless the assessor is able to trust his or her own statements as consistently
honestly verifiable with an original record?
B.13. How many kinds of
honesty do you believe there are?
B.14. Page 1 of the 11-page
Psychosocial Assessment dated 5 Feb 2015 written by Allison Jones on behalf of
psychiatrist William Komer evidences agreement that I had with Waypoint that I
answer questions asked of me in writing to satisfy my need for Transparency.
Unlike your stated grounds in paragraph 8 of your affidavit, the assessment
report states that “due to the lack of policy around storage and transcription
of interviews at [Waypoint] Mr. Helmerichs request [to have his oral statements
audio recorded] could not be accommodated. Mr. Helmerichs did however agree to
participate in this interview [and every interview] through written responses.”
Did you know that a lack of policy does not constitute grounds to deny me the
Criminal Code section 215(1)(c)(ii) necessaries of life of an audio recording
to establish for this court the extent of misinformation contained in the 5 Feb
2015 report about me before your alternate grounds sworn 30 March 2015? [I
expect OBJECTION to this question and shall simply restate it.]
B.15. If one has not trust in
speaking with the other except onto recording for assurance that past
intentionally misconstrued statements are not longer vexatiously furthered in
present reports, because authors of those reports for submission in court are
directly liable for the verifiable Criminal Code section 132 perjury offence,
is the 2013 text of Bloom and Schneider referenced in your affidavit paragraph
7 justified in its denial, or recommended denial, of the harmless trust in
common honesty that I require to me?
B.16. Do we agree the
foundation of every therapeutic, and therein also medical, relationship to be
Trust?
B.17. Do Bloom and Schneider
in the text called “Mental Disorder – A Comprehensive and Practical Approach”
speak of Gestalt Therapy and, if so, what do they have to say (that I do not
disrepute them on the single excerpt you have provided)? [Please provide a copy
of the Bloom and Schneider text to me that I may review it.]
B.18. In your charge over
medical quality assurance, is it normal procedure to ask the accused in a
mental assessment “Please give your account of the index offence”, stated on
page 4 of the 11-page 5 Feb 2015 Psychosocial Assessment (forensic) report,
WITHOUT explaining to the accused which index offence is to be described?
B.19. At what point in “a good
court related assessment”, affidavit paragraph 9, reporting process are
erroneous statements best corrected? [lead into 22 July 2013 transcript.]
B.20 In your capacity to
provide or ensure quality assurance, please define MIND for the court that we
can be sure, in the balance of probabilities, that the physicians under your
charge diagnosing diseases of mind, also understand that, for the ability
called memory to remain with mind, the mind is necessarily timelessly eternal
nor ultimately divisible into definitions. Please define what you mean when you
refer to OUR ONE eternal mind of which I know Me to be a projection. Alternatively,
what do you know about AND FOR God?
B.21 If God ensures heaven
remains without war such that war is the hallmark of hell, and governments on
Earth are able to war with each other, does God embue Satan with authority to
keep hell with war or teach amidst hell those that would expand the territory
for the only one eternal state possible, Heaven?
B.22 “Who are you if your body
is changing all the time and my eternal mind is always with?” [Applies to Self.]
B.23 “A universal theology is
impossible but a universal experience is not only possible, it is absolutely
necessary.” Can we agree to this A Course In Miracles statement?
B.24 What do you get when I
SAY “REAL EYES realize real lies knot real lies realize real-eyes” [Noughts.]
B.25 Refer to Respecting
Criminal Code Section 315, Sch.B.25 as a separate post:
No comments:
Post a Comment