My Psychological Treatment Over the Years and Court--Who All Doesn't Want Me To Be "Calm and In Control?"

 

When I was in high school, I was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder--among other things.  My psychologist at the time tried, I think, to model some behaviors to influence me to get better.  One thing I remember her saying one time was, "I am calm, and in control."


I have noticed over the years that when people assault my mental health or other things about me, they very often *do not want me to be calm and in control*.  I'm not talking about mild disputes at the office based on work-related issues, I'm talking about seriously predatory people who want to hunt me down and make me feel bad, perhaps for their own perverse delight.


I had thought I was mostly done with people like that after high school--I didn't face too many nasty adversaries in college--but I found out, when I was psychotic and my parents took over control of my life again, that it was actually my parents who were coming back to prey on me emotionally and psychologically.  They made up lies about me, and passed them to some very strange and inappropriate lawyers.


Now, I cannot even be *in control of my own court case*.  The judge is trying to silence me, by pairing me with multiple "guardians ad litem" for my case.  I was briefly declared incapacitated.  A forensic psychologist who seemed mildly hostile interviewed me for the case.


The comment is, at this point, not only do the evil lawyers on this case seem to delight in *forcing me to not feel calm*, they also *will not let me be IN CONTROL OF MY OWN RIGHTS AND COURT CASE*.  Until I get my own lawyer, my case will not be heard in the courts.  The intransigent and evil Fred Kaufman will continue presenting my case his way, in accordance with what the prosecutor says and wants (he even showed me an email he sent to the female prosecutor where he addressed her as "my dear"), and my voice will not be allowed to speak out in court.


I'm worried that even if I make enough money to get a lawyer of my own, that the court might still refuse to allow me to have a lawyer of my own choosing.  The courts are crooked and highly immoral, and they know one thing that they are right about:  Almost no one who can do anything about it cares.  I am alone with jackals in a cage, and I'm the one who can't get out of the cage.  I did nothing to deserve this.  Photoshop and AI were probably used to string up the noose.  There is no one I can talk to or reach out to for support, until I get enough money to hire a lawyer.  That's unconstitutional, and I think people should care about this a lot more than they do.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more