5/22/2019

Cut from Mountain 2 of 3

There are links to many of the details I have provided. This is a large topic
to elucidate, which provides that it will be in constant amendment until
the point will provide the debater with realization of fitting into the
criteria of diagnosable should they attempt to argue it. Thank you for
your patience and attention to detail in suggestions to this matter.
sknoeric@gmail.com

To whom this concerns, in particular the investigators of CRIPA,

Until it is declared illegal to be insane and/or declared that one may be duly
judged to receive persecution¹ for acts which they were not competent enough
to be found culpable for making⁰, the concept of “Guilty Except Insanity” is in-
fact an oxymoron coupled with the blaring unconstitutionality of it². It is an
absurdity that the inconsiderate, e.g. they who are lacking of information
(knowledge), should ‘duly judge’³ insanity when they are without the capacity to
fully consider. This is an abstraction of the whole picture⁴, which limits the
scope of reality⁵, to exclude any hope for all of the unsuspecting folks who yet
know that diagnoses is on the rise, to gain adequate health care and retain their
liberty doing it; aside from also condoning, and assisting in the enforcement of
public experimentation on people who’ve been outnumbered by a publicized
stigma, aka a constellation of behavioral operants⁶ lodged to enforce results
upon a populace. Better question, why has this criminalization of mental illness
been in effect for as long as it has been, without the protection afforded by the
federal government to protect it’s supremacy (people) and their property (the
peoples’ futures among so much more). There are news articles of them
auditing the process. I’ve read they afford the states the ability to do such as
they need to apply the law, however, is unconstitutional on the table for them to
 fulfill the requirements of this endeavor? Shall we ask, is the pot calling the
kettle black? Is my label of insanity as strong as their label of inconsideracy?
How can the inconsiderate label sanity, or lack-thereof, especially where they are
without any complete set of attributes to formulate such an idea? This is an
unthinkable offense.

0. So, ex post facto laws are those that make something you did illegal, that was legal
at the time you did it. Most modern democratic societies either ban such laws, or
look very unfavorably on them because it is fundamentally unfair to punish you
for something that was legal at the time you did it. Citizens are entitled to know
what they can and cannot do, and the ability to change that after the fact denies
citizens due process, and would give the government too much power.

1. Due to the ever-changing idea of ‘what is mental health?’ and the result
of they who make their guesses at it, made possible only through
enforcement by law.
2. Both unlawful and illegal.
3. Stamp an opinion on. “"[w]hen Congress undertakes to act in areas
fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, legislative options must
be especially broad, and courts should be cautious not to rewrite
legislation. . . ."
a. Admittedly many of these people don’t fit well in society, including the
majority of the staff that facilitate the functions of what passes for
‘adequate’ care. Nevertheless, there is certainly a more complete way of
providing an environment that supplies a standard quality of living which
is appreciated and fought for, which these citizens are being deprived of;
largely in part due to their own inability to defend themselves which
hinges on people which are poorly informed of how to do so, and which
in the same boot couldn’t succeed in any more graceful a fashion then the
 ones I’m speaking of. I appreciate the saying, “One who is mad, i.e.
insane, is punished by their insanity alone.”
b. Mind you I’m not the stereo-typical Social Justice Warrior, and I would
still recommend some alternative to the primary public for them to reside,
but, in the event that someone should progress to capacity, they should
have the ability to get back into society; which is not currently being
afforded. These types now occupy beds which cost large sums of money
to maintain (the scope of things being provided to the bed not
individualized to the client), while there are people wandering about into
and out-of reality, catching glimpses of the fact that they need help. I have
read articles about this
4. Taking people in a vulnerable mental state to the side, while postponing
trial, to coach them into some extent forming the idea, perhaps even
momentarily, that they have an ultimatum to choose from, which they are
not made aware is a catch-22 because the people coaching them to plea
G.E.I. don’t know what it is they are doing other than the good ol’
fashion Nuremberg… if it ever surfaces that they should feel the need to
evoke such a defense… and recall they’re susceptible due to illness to
undue influence. This amounts to duress because the unlawful loss of
liberty is on the line, and that it happened by the exercise (practice) of
law promotes it to Unconscionability.
5. The truth, i.e. what is.
6. Developed through scientific observations including an assortment of
other methods. Stanford(Behaviorism); Wikipedia(operant
conditioning); Wikipedia(Domestication); What is Epigenetics?; Big
question, can your environment change your DNA?; Epigenetic
perspectives on the evolution and domestication of polyploid plant and
crops.
__________________________________________________________________
__________

463 U.S. at 370:

“We hold that, when a criminal defendant establishes by a preponderance of the
evidence that he is not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, the Constitution permits
the Government, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental
institution until such time as he has regained his sanity or is no longer a danger to
himself or society¹. This holding accords with the widely and reasonably held view that
insanity acquittees constitute a special class that should be treated differently from other
candidates for commitment.”

Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983). (2019). Retrieved from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/354/#361

1. The Problem of the Incompetent or Insane Defendant (in particular sentences

indicated with superscripts 1214 and 1215)

__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 131.005¹

General definitions

(5) “Correctional facility” means any place used for the confinement of persons charged
with or convicted of a crime or otherwise confined under a court order. “Correctional
facility” does not include a youth correction facility as defined in ORS 162.135
(Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205) and applies to a state hospital only as to
persons detained therein charged with or convicted of a crime, or detained therein after
being found guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.290 (Incapacity due to
immaturity) to 161.370 (Determination of fitness).
(6) “Criminal action” means an action at law by means of which a person is accused of
the commission of a violation, misdemeanor or felony.

2017 ORS 147.005¹

Definitions

(4) “Compensable crime” means abuse of corpse in any degree or an intentional,

knowing, reckless or criminally negligent act that results in injury or death of another
person and that, if committed by a person of full legal capacity, would be punishable as
a crime in this state.

2017 ORS 161.105¹

Culpability requirement inapplicable to certain violations and offenses

(1) Notwithstanding ORS 161.095 (Requirements for criminal liability), a culpable

mental state is not required if: (a) The offense constitutes a violation, unless a culpable
mental state is expressly included in the definition of the offense; ...

__________________________________________________________________

US Constitution : Article I: Section 9.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.300¹

Evidence of qualifying mental disorder admissible as to intent
Evidence that the actor suffered from a qualifying mental disorder is admissible
whenever it is relevant to the issue of whether the actor did or did not have the intent
which is an element of the crime. [1971 c.743 §37; 2017 c.634 §4]
__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.295¹

Effect of qualifying mental disorder
• guilty except for insanity

(1) A person is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of a qualifying mental disorder at
the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity either to
appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the
requirements of law.

(2) As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, the term “qualifying mental disorder”
does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise
antisocial conduct, nor does the term include any abnormality constituting solely a
personality disorder. [1971 c.743 §36; 1983 c.800 §1; 2017 c.634 §3]
__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.085¹

Definitions with respect to culpability

(6) “Culpable mental state” means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal
negligence as these terms are defined in subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10) of this section.

(7) “Intentionally” or “with intent,” when used with respect to a result or to conduct
described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with a conscious
objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described.
(8) “Knowingly” or “with knowledge,” when used with respect to conduct or to a
circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with
an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described or that a
circumstance so described exists.

(9) “Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a

statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance
exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation.

(10) “Criminal negligence” or “criminally negligent,” when used with respect to a result
or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails
to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the
circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be
aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation. [1971 c.743 §7; 1973 c.139 §2]

__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.095¹

Requirements for criminal liability

(1) The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of
conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which the
person is capable of performing.
(2) Except as provided in ORS 161.105 (Culpability requirement inapplicable to
certain violations and offenses), a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person
acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense
that necessarily requires a culpable mental state. [1971 c.743 §8]
__________________________________________________________________

More regarding culpability at OregonLaws.org

__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.295¹

Effect of qualifying mental disorder
• guilty except for insanity

(1) A person is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of a qualifying mental disorder at
the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity either to
appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the
requirements of law.

(2) As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, the term “qualifying mental disorder”
does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise
antisocial conduct, nor does the term include any abnormality constituting solely a
personality disorder. [1971 c.743 §36; 1983 c.800 §1; 2017 c.634 §3]

Note: See note under 161.015 (General definitions).

__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.200¹

Choice of evils
(1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971,
defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct
which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

(a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or

private injury; and

(b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly
outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute
defining the offense in issue.

(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall
not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the
statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular
class of cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]

__________________________________________________________________

2017 ORS 161.351¹

(1) Any person placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board
under ORS 161.315 (Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant) to
161.351 (Discharge by board) shall be discharged at such time as the board, upon a
hearing, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is no longer affected
by a qualifying mental disorder or, if so affected, no longer presents a substantial danger
to others that requires regular medical care, medication, supervision or treatment.¹
(2) For purposes of ORS 161.315 (Right of state to obtain mental examination of
defendant) to 161.351 (Discharge by board), a person affected by a qualifying mental
disorder in a state of remission is considered to have a qualifying mental disorder. A
person whose qualifying mental disorder may, with reasonable medical probability,
occasionally become active and when it becomes active will render the person a danger
to others may not be discharged. The person shall continue under supervision and
treatment necessary to protect the person and others.

(3) In determining whether a person should be committed to a state hospital or secure

intensive community inpatient facility, conditionally released or discharged, the board
shall have as its primary concern the protection of society. [1977 c.380 §17 (enacted in
lieu of 161.350); 1981 c.711 §13; 1985 c.192 §4; 1989 c.49 §1; 2011 c.708 §4; 2017
c.442 §5; 2017 c.634 §13]

1. However, a consumer of these forced services has no choice but to be scheduled

for treatment that they will intentionally, with avid clarification of the fact, not
be attending, and which the providers cannot force because this is not forced
treatment. All of these consumers have the right to treatment with the least force
necessary. Hence, if a client is sane to the extent that the hospital cannot get a
judgement to force meds, the hospital will continue scheduling treatment. This I
even clarified with them, and they agreed, is no different than cooking the books
in accounting. They merely book the clients for all the treatment they want a
paycheck for, and whether the clients go or not, it is scheduled and the funds are
routed from the budget to cover the costs of the resources of entire classrooms of
resources full of all but 2 clients or even none in some cases. Not to mention the
routine abuse of funds to ensure they get the same disbursement in the next
cycle. I’m told by them they cycle out large flat screen TVs like no other simply
for the fact that it’s a means of spending. For more certain clarity of this issue, I
pose the instance I observe in the milieu where they just installed a TV, and I’m
told we’re in that biannual change-over right now, that around 40” mounted in a
 security box on the wall, only for the purpose of telling clients what classes there
are in this day, that exists from a schedule that is several weeks long. Are they so
incapable of maintaining a functioning schedule that they can’t simply print a
page and tape it to the wall? Taxpayers beware, psychiatric care needs to be made
efficient before you agree to any further budget addendums. I have attended the
legislative meetings and in them, they suggest more staff, and more funds; yet
they can’t seem to maintain a line of communication more than 2 people long or
further than 1 minute from the location it was spoken and/or read. Would you
really supply more money to hire more of these likes?

__________________________________________________________________

859-300-0030

Definitions

(1) "Dangerous”. A person is dangerous if the person is a threat to himself or others or is

likely to inflict harm to self or others.
(2) “Gun Relief Panel” or “Panel”. A three member panel from either the Adult or
Juvenile Panel who hears and considers petitions for relief from either a federal ban on
transporting, shipping, possessing, or receiving a firearm that occurs as a result of a
mental health determination, or a state ban on possessing or purchasing a firearm under
ORS 166.250(1)(c)(D) or (E), or 166.470(1)(e) or (f).
(3) “Mental Health Determination”. Any of the following adjudicated mental health
findings by a State of Oregon Court:
(a) A finding by a court that a person lacks fitness to proceed under ORS 161.370;
(b) A finding that a person is guilty except for insanity of a crime under ORS 161.295
or responsible except for insanity of an act under ORS 419C.411 or any determination
by the Psychiatric Security Review Board thereafter; or
(c) A commitment by a court to the Oregon Health Authority or Department of
Human Services, or an adjudication by a court that a person is mentally ill or mentally
retarded, under ORS 426.130 or ORS 427.290.
(4) “NICS”. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by
the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536).
(5) "PSRB” or “Board". The Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board, including the
members of both the Adult and Juvenile Panels.
(6) “Party”. Includes the Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority,
petitioner and district attorney from the county where the mental health determination
was adjudicated.
(7) "Petitioner". Any person who petitions for relief from either a federal prohibition
from transporting, shipping, possessing, or receiving a firearm due to a mental health
determination or a state prohibition on purchasing or possessing a firearm under ORS
166.250(1)(c)(D) or (E), or 166.470(1)(e) or (f).
(8) “Public Interest”. The interest in protecting society from harm and an individual
from self-harm. “Public interest” also includes reducing the impact of crime on victims’
lives. “Public interest” does not include generalized fear of crime and fear of people with
mental illness.
(9) "Relief Hearing”. A hearing for petitioners who request relief under Oregon Laws
2009, Chapter 826 from a federal ban on transporting, shipping, possessing, or
receiving a firearm that occurs as a result of a mental health determination, or a state
ban on possessing or purchasing a firearm under ORS 166.250(1)(c)(D) or (E), or
166.470(1)(e) or (f).
(10) “Victim”. The person or persons who have suffered financial, social, psychological
or physical harm as a result of a crime and includes, in the case of a homicide or abuse of
corpse in any degree, a member of the immediate family of the decedent and, in the case
of a minor victim, the legal guardian of the minor. In no event shall the petitioner be
considered a victim.
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 161.387(1), OL 2009 & Ch. 826 (HB 2853)
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 161.387(1), OL 2009 & Ch. 826 (HB 2853))
History:
PSRB 1-2011, f. 2-2-11, cert. ef. 2-15-11
PSRB 3-2010(Temp), f. 10-5-10, cert. ef. 10-8-10 thru 4-6-11

Other citations related to this material:

1. Plato.stanford.edu. (2019). The Ethics of Clinical Research (Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clinical-research/ [Accessed 15 May 2019].
2. Vollmer, S., Spada, H., Caspar, F. and Burri, S. (2019). Expertise in Clinical
Psychology. The Effects of University Training and Practical Experience on
Expertise in Clinical Psychology. [online] Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608920/ [Accessed 15 May
2019].
3. Quoteinvestigator.com. (2019). The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery Is Not
Ignorance—It Is the Illusion of Knowledge – Quote Investigator. [online]
Available at: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/07/20/knowledge/ [Accessed
15 May 2019].
4. Plato.stanford.edu. (2019). Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy). [online] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-
biological/ [Accessed 15 May 2019].
5. Google.com. (2019). the path to hell is paved with good intentions - Google Search.
[online] Available at:
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+path+to+hell+is+paved+with+good+i
ntentions&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS827US827&oq=the+path+to+hell+is&aqs=chr
ome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2750j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 [Accessed 15 May
2019].
 6. Answers.yahoo.com. (2019). Yahoo is now part of Oath. [online] Available at:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110206154236AAZkk3c
[Accessed 15 May 2019].
7. Nlm.nih.gov. (2019). Greek Medicine - The Hippocratic Oath. [online] Available
at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html [Accessed 15 May
2019].
8. Kelishadi, R. (2019). To the Readers. [online] PubMed Central (PMC). Available
at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075481/ [Accessed 15
May 2019].
9. Thecrimson.com. (2019). The Beginning of Wisdom | Opinion | The Harvard
Crimson. [online] Available at:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/11/24/the-beginning-of-wisdom-
benjamin-franklin/ [Accessed 15 May 2019].
10. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Führerprinzip. [online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip [Accessed 15 May 2019].

Many of these points are in crude form that need to be tied together with resources of
toxic environment, dispondency, compassion fatigue, secondary stress, vicarious
trauma, ….