Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Malis & Corcoran, sexual abuse, psychiatric slavery

I had the thrill today of being in the same room with Richard Malis and James Patrick Corcoran, simultaneously, for about twenty minutes! These are the two guys who (perhaps somewhat secretly) run the whole machinery of “treatment” at Elgin Mental Health Center, aka “DSH”.

Malis is a pasty-faced, plump M.D. psychiatrist who pretends to have no interest in anything beyond the clinical cases he is directly and officially responsible for on Hartman Unit. Corcoran is a pasty-faced, slightly less-plump M.D. psychiatrist whose actual job title (it may be “Statewide Forensic Medical Director”-?) almost no one knows. Corcoran once testified under oath that Malis had been unwilling to take the Medical Director position at DSH, just because of about a dozen “difficult” patients all legally represented by me.

During today’s monthly staffing, Malis and Corcoran made kind of a show, to establish a false pretense that Corcoran had no previous knowledge of my client Jack’s glaucoma and lack of proper medical attention caused by Malis’ mean-spirited revocation of his passes, which would require him to go to a public clinic in chains. (See my previous article on this situation. Today there was no Tom Zubik present, perhaps because Zubik can’t be trusted to whole-heartedly support institutional retribution against Jack or the totalistic “drug-them-all-whether-they-like-it-or-not” psychiatric cult.)

So far, Corcoran has been named as the lead defendant in two federal lawsuits for sexual abuse of “patients” (slaves) by staff (overseers) on this plantation. Malis has not yet been named in such a suit, although there will be various opportunities. One new case will be filed in the next month or so, and it will be no surprize if there are a dozen of them a year from now.

The sexual abuse is endemic on the plantation because Malis and Corcoran, and maybe others above them, find it useful. They cannot imagine that psychiatric slaves should have any rights to their own bodies or  their own dignity anyway. As with the old slavemasters in the antebellum Southern states, the presumption is that these are subhuman beings; but it’s practical to keep them happy and quiet, so if sex with staff works for that purpose it can be ignored.

The idea fails mostly because the presumption is false. Ben Hurt, Mark Owens, Jack and the others are not subhuman. They know all too well that what Malis and Corcoran pretend is “help” is really monumental exploitation and existential spiritual harm. They will seek and demand justice.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Monday, June 18, 2018

Malis with malice, and Juneteenth

A long-time client whom I’ll call Jack has been locked up at DSH, née Elgin Mental Health Center, for about 30 years. He did commit a murder, but he was found “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” by the court and sold into the forensic psychiatric slave system rather than sentenced to prison.

Fairly early on, Jack stopped taking psychiatric “medication”, and it has been many years now since he behaved badly, in any scary way or any way that’s more than a slight nuisance, at DSH. He’s a very bright man, actually. He could almost certainly work, contribute and be happy if he were manumitted. Unfortunately, at the moment Richard Malis is his psychiatrist.

Malis has seen a court order which ordered DSH to create a treatment plan for Jack that does not require psychiatric drugs. He violates that court order every month, by absolutely refusing to consider that Jack might not need drugs. He maliciously invents “delusions” which Jack supposedly has, to argue that this patient is psychotic and “needs” the drugs that he hates and Malis loves, and that everyone knows Jack doesn’t need and will never take.

Jack never voices those “delusions” that Malis accuses him of having. He just refuses to discuss his beliefs with Malis. Jack could easily disavow or clarify the beliefs which Malis says (but of course, can never prove) are “delusional”. However, Malis would almost certainly only try to incriminate Jack by any discussion, so I have advised him as his legal counsel that it’s probably wise to refuse all conversation with the plantation overseer. I think he mostly follows my advice.

The trouble is, Malis is malicious. Jack has glaucoma, and should see an opthamalogist regularly to test the pressure in his eyes and make sure the glaucoma medicine is working. He hates having to go to a medical facility in handcuffs, which are only required for a trip to the doctor because Malis has pulled his passes out of pure retribution for Jack’s getting better without psychiatric “medicine”. The life-long brain disease, “schizophrenia”, is a central and vital article of faith in psychiatry. Anyone who gets better, especially without drugs, insults Malis’ religion.

Thus Jack does not get the proper standard of care for glaucoma. He refuses to be transported in handcuffs and leg irons to the opthamalogy clinic, because it’s demeaning and counter-productive for his medical care. Doctors and nurses are not pleased to have a patient arrive in restraints with guards; it makes all their other patients nervous for one thing, and it prejudices clinicians against the apparent “dangerous criminal”.

I recently attended a monthly staffing for Jack. I commented in the presence of Tom Zubik, the current forensic director of DSH, that there just has to be some way to get Jack his opthamalogical care. Tom was concerned. He thinks it would be very inconvenient and embarrassing if Jack’s eyeball explodes, or if he ends up with a detached retina, because DSH is unable to get him to the clinic regularly. People might notice... that DSH sucks as a supposed “hospital”, and that in fact this is a slave plantation.

There’s nothing more powerful as a symbol or demonstration of slavery than a black man in chains. Malis is an idiot in his malice. And guess what, tomorrow is Juneteenth!

Psychiatria delenda est!

Sunday, April 22, 2018

To all DSH staff

Most of you just do your jobs, collect your pay and try to stay out of trouble. There’s something noble about that, especially in the context of working for the state. It harkens back a bit, to the Greatest Generation of Americans who boarded ships at age nineteen or twenty in 1942, went overseas and fought the war just because they were told it was their job.

Then in 1946, they were suddenly told their new job was to come home, make money and have babies. So they followed those orders and did that, too.

My father-in-law spoke of how everyone who was over there knew MacArthur was full of shit with his “I have returned!” moment, in front of all the cameras in the Philippines. Bob also remembered landing in a Japanese village a few days after the Nagasaki bomb, and while out in his Jeep scouting for fuel, arriving at the perimeter of what had recently been a city but was all dust in a flash. His cousins saw things just as bad in Europe. They all had good reason for utter, life-long cynicism and chronic depression.

I knew these men when they were fighting over the check for dinner in suburban restaurants, with their families there laughing at them. They’re all gone now, but I remember them as wonderful, noble people. They never wanted a better compliment than simply that they did their jobs.

Maybe some of you guys can imagine that as you respond to another code white, or check your computer for correct authorization or change the wording of your clinical note at the request of a superior, you are doing a job as right and as important as driving a Higgins boat full of terrified men toward a beach, or straining to see the approaching Panzers through a dark, frozen forest.

But I rather doubt that. Maybe it would be a symptom of major mental illness anyway, don’t tell Malis, he’ll drug you for sure.

When you see something that you know is wrong, somebody lying, somebody covering up, abusing patients, failing and refusing to help, you have to report it. That’s your job. It might seem hard and dangerous once in awhile, but it’s not as bad as being in a cold foxhole or almost to a beach.

It’s a funny thing, too, how putting all your attention and all your effort into staying out of trouble can make you a real magnet for bullets.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Thursday, April 12, 2018

An Offer for James Patrick Corcoran

My client John had a meeting today, with his treatment team and “administration” (the quotation marks are sarcastic, indicating that this is a dubiously defined entity used to deflect and disguise responsibility of specific individuals). Attendees from the clinical team included Psychiatrist Vikranjit Gill, Social Worker Virginia Mejia, and Psychologist Elias Pelacio; attending from “administration” were James Patrick Corcoran, Tom Zubik, and one or two others.

This was a meeting originally scheduled for a week earlier, to clarify “administration concerns” about a positive referral packet completed by the treatment team, for John to live at a particular community treatment facility which is already willing to accept him. Very few such facilities are willing to accept people who don’t take psychiatric medications, by the way; but this particular guy has been psychiatrically stable for a period of some years without any drugs. His criminal court judge ordered expanded privileges for him over the top of disagreement from the court’s own “independent evaluators” on the infamous tenth floor at 26th & California.

It seems that the only thing stopping a John’s conditional release is “administration concerns”. The clinical guys and the court have come to believe he’s no longer mentally ill and dangerous. But the meeting explicitly scheduled to clarify “administration concerns” didn’t. Instead, John was presented with what was actually called an offer, as if in negotiation. The facility (DSH) would support John’s release only if he: 1. attends three or four demeaning and childish “treatment groups” every day; 2. spends six months in a useless substance abuse program; 3. spends another six to twelve months on a different unit or in a facility nominally classified as low security; 4. spends a further six months in a coed treatment unit.

In other words, this “offer” from “administration” was an arbitrary sentence of an additional year and a half or two years of stricter confinement, for an individual who is not mentally ill and dangerous, and who is manifestly ready to be released. Why? It’s insane.

James Patrick Corcoran has it in for John because John doesn’t take psychiatric drugs, and yet he’s no longer “mentally ill” and he’s getting better.

I suggest the following offer in response, in the style of legendary Scottish warrior William Wallace.

If James Patrick Corcoran resigns immediately, repays every dollar he ever got at taxpayer expense, and personally apologizes to John and to each and every other so-called “patient” at DSH, in writing, for the fraud, constitutional rights violations, dehumanization, medical battery, and crimes against humanity, that he has spent his disgusting career committing under sickly ironic guises of “help” and “community protection”, and if he publishes every once of those apology letters on line; then and only then John and I, and various other DSH slaves who will soon be free, may not bother to spend the rest of our lives suing him and prosecuting him, and exposing his cruelty and lies.

Otherwise, Corcoran has no future. He’ll be like a Third Reich fugitive, with Mossad and Simon Wiesenthal always hot on his heels.

And of course, there’s one other point in this offer.... Corcoran must call the entire DSH staff together in the parking lot outside the Forensic Program Building, and in front of them he must put his head between his legs and kiss his own ass.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Friday, March 30, 2018

Oh goody, a new slave!

“Marilyn Hartman, 66, will be transferred from Cook County Jail to a state mental health facility (DSH) in hopes that with treatment she will be able to stand trial within a year.”

That is today’s euphemistic rendition by the Chicago Tribune, of a finding by Cook County judge Maura Slattery Boyle that a habitual criminal defendant should not be tried and punished for what she did, but rather, enslaved. Thus, Marilyn Hartman will either be “reformed” with psychiatric drugging, or just as likely, she will die at DSH.

I have no idea whether Hartman has a long “mental health” history or none at all. If she has already been drugged by psychiatrists for some large portion of her life, she will probably knuckle under again, learn to lie just a little bit better to herself and her masters, and get “treated” (drugged and dehumanized into submission) until she dies.

But it strikes me that she might want to continue to commit the same crimes she’s currently charged with, and she may refuse to believe she’s only doing it because of some “illness” which people have invented so they can pretend they’re not punishing her. In that case, I may even help her refuse psychiatry.

But it’s interesting to me that, at least in the Trib article, Hartman’s “illness” is never named. She is variously described as manifesting a psychotic thought process (is that actually an identified, specifically describable process of thinking?), as showing signs of a major psychotic illness (which one? ...there are after all many listed and meticulously described in the APA’s DSM), as exhibiting pervasive and maladaptive behaviors and misinterpretations of the world, and as lacking ability to recognize her disposition (whatever the hell that means) and how she can interact with people.

Two “experts” have “examined” and “tested” Hartman to conclude that she does not understand her legal situation and/or is unable to assist legal counsel in her own defense. I know these two guys, I’ve cross examined both of them on several occasions. Christopher Cooper and Mathew Marcos work for pretty good salaries on the taxpayer’s dime, at Forensic Clinical Services, the Circuit Court’s stable of “doctors” up on the tenth floor at 26th and California. They have no other job than to assist the court in disposing of people whom it doesn’t feel like either prosecuting or releasing.

The 10th floor guys regularly perjure themselves by reciting orthodox psychiatric propaganda under oath. Markos in particular, as the Director of Forensic Clinical Services, has stated categorically that schizophrenia is proven brain pathology that can only be treated with lifelong antipsychotic drugs. Anyone with an M.D. degree and a license to practice medicine knows better, or should. Markos lies under oath, period. Cooper testifies with total, charismatic certainty about things he can’t possibly see or objectively test. But judges believe these guys, and we pay for them.

What we buy for our tax money in this case, is a new slave, Marilyn Hartman. She will shortly arrive on F or H Unit, at DSH. She’ll be told by such valuable public employees/plantation overseers as Social Worker Lavadna Wheeler, Security Therapy Aide Tiffany Bates, nurse Patti Passilla, and psychiatrist Dr. Shanghee Kim-Ansbro, that she must understand she only gets on planes illegally because of her “illness”. The guys on the 10th floor and the Trib writer were unwilling to name that mental disease, but F or H Unit staff soon will, safely out of the public eye. I’ll take a guess: “delusional disorder, persecutory type” or “schizophrenia”. It doesn’t matter, it’s not a medical diagnosis in any scientific sense, it’s the excuse for coercive drugging.

Our new slave will cost us about $800/day as long as she’s at DSH. It seems to me it would be a better idea to convince her that unless she stops getting on planes to London without a ticket, she’ll spend the rest of her life in prison, at about $150/day.

There are people whom society must control. We just pay $650/day too much to pretend we’re “helping”.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Monday, March 26, 2018


March 25, 2018

Following are my own 20 questions/comments about the web page of the National Institute of Mental Health discussing “Schizophrenia”.

What I have done is simply download the text of NIMH’s page, and then insert my own comments or questions (in the red typeface) at those points when they occur.  My words turned out to be more voluminous than the original article, so the NIMH page is pretty broken up.  But anyone who cares to check against the current website will see that I didn’t alter or omit anything the government wrote.

This little project was inspired by a report that clinical staff on H Unit at DSH (Elgin Mental Health Center) recently printed out this NIMH Schizophrenia page and distributed it to all patients.  I suspect that they will not allow the kinds of questions and comments that I have written here, because their purpose, like that of the plantation overseer, is to coerce compliance.  However, I believe that open discussion or debate is necessary to the concept of informed consent.  Informed consent is vital under the law.  Psychiatric “patients” are human beings with rights.

I have not documented scientific facts to justify, or provided citations for, my comments.  I can probably do that quite thoroughly, if anyone wants me to.  I am simply trying to counter the propaganda of the “forensic mental health” plantation in a timely enough manner to get people thinking.  Please give me any feedback you can.

Yours truly,
S. Randolph Kretchmar
Law Offices of Kretchmar & Cecala, P.C.
847-370-5410 (mobile)




Schizophrenia is a chronic and severe mental disorder
1. This term, mental disorder, has almost entirely replaced the earlier characterizations, mental illness and mental disease.  The point remains that all human problems in thinking, feeling and behaving should be labeled as discrete entities which doctors either can cure or should attempt to cure.  It’s the medical model.  Western civilization has obtained immense benefit from medical science over the past 150 years.  However, human history over several thousand years contains a much larger perspective.  Just because physical manipulation of bodily structures and processes has been “hot” for a century and a half, that doesn’t imply any necessary conclusion that it’s a sure route to ultimate happiness and salvation.  In fact, the change of terms from mental illness/disease to mental disorder is a bit of a tip-off that the medical model is in difficulty.  These problems may not be “curable” by doctors after all.  Psychiatrists now actually admit that they do not cure anything.  They imply that perhaps soon they will, but that’s gotten very old.

… that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia
2. The phrase, people with schizophrenia, once again, implies that this is some discrete entity which can be identified or isolated for a person to have (i.e., you don’t have something that you are).  But there is no such thing, or at least it has not been discovered despite more than a century of scientific search for it.  Schizophrenia is an extremely variable pattern of behaviors.  I have repeatedly gotten psychiatrists to admit under oath that any two individuals who both supposedly have schizophrenia may have no “symptoms” in common, whatsoever.  What is schizophrenia, as a disease then?  No one knows. 

… may seem like they have lost touch with reality. Although schizophrenia is not as common as other mental disorders, the symptoms
3. Technically, the word symptoms just means subjective reports or complaints.  In medicine, signs is the term to describe objectively observed phenomena that can be tested for like physical lesions, sugar levels in the blood or urine, EKG results, x-rays, etc.  Psychiatrists are trained medical doctors and should distinguish between symptoms and signs in their “diagnosis”.  They know the difference, and they know it is important, but they obscure it purposefully.  

… can be very disabling.

Signs and Symptoms
(Please see #3 above.)

… of schizophrenia usually start between ages 16 and 30. In rare cases, children have
(Please see #2 above.)

… schizophrenia too.

The symptoms
(See #3 above.)

… of schizophrenia fall into three categories: positive, negative, and cognitive.
Positive symptoms:

… “Positive” symptoms

… are psychotic behaviors
4. Behaviors are in fact the entire issue.  If a person behaves badly enough, or violently or strangely enough to frighten others around him, then sooner or later people will do something to him to make him stop.  And the only way anyone knows if a person is hallucinating or delusional is by consulting their behavior (including speech, writing or other communication, which is behavior).  We do not know what anyone is thinking or feeling unless they tell us, or show us by their behavior.  And that will always be, substantially, an interpretation by someone.

… not generally seen in healthy
5. Don’t forget we’re talking about behaviors.  If we say they are “healthy” or “unhealthy” either way, it’s only in a metaphorical sense.  There’s no known disease!

… people. People with positive symptoms

… may “lose touch” with some aspects of reality. Symptoms

… include:
Thought disorders (unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking)
6. Hallucinations, delusions and unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking can not be seen directly.  Hence, they are often completely a matter of opinion, and always a subjective evaluation to some degree.  We don’t actually know what a person believes, but only what he says.  Maybe a delusion or hallucination is simply a lie.  Can a psychiatrist really tell the difference?

Movement disorders (agitated body movements)
7. To some extent this, unlike hallucinations, delusions and thought disorders, can be objectively observed and reported.  However, it’s worth considering that movement disorders are well known side effects of psychiatric “treatments”, in which case they can hardly be confidently blamed on an underlying “illness”.

Negative symptoms: “Negative” symptoms

… are associated with disruptions to normal emotions and behaviors.
8. Normal emotions and behaviors would certainly include sadness and grieving after the death of a loved one.  However, a psychiatrist is free to “diagnose” a grieving person as “having (the disorder/illness) depression” whether their emotions and behaviors are generally considered part of normal grieving or not.  The elimination of the bereavement exclusion became a very contentious public and professional issue, when DSM-5 was published in 2013.

… Symptoms

… include:
“Flat affect” (reduced expression of emotions via facial expression or voice tone)
Reduced feelings of pleasure in everyday life
Difficulty beginning and sustaining activities
Reduced speaking
(Please see #7 above.)

…Cognitive symptoms

…: For some patients, the cognitive symptoms

… of schizophrenia are subtle, but for others, they are more severe and patients may notice changes in their memory or other aspects of thinking. Symptoms

… include:
Poor “executive functioning” (the ability to understand information and use it to make decisions)
Trouble focusing or paying attention
Problems with “working memory” (the ability to use information immediately after learning it)
(See #7 above.)

Risk Factors
There are several factors that contribute to the risk of developing schizophrenia.
Genes and environment: Scientists have long known that schizophrenia sometimes runs in families.
9. This runs in families colloquialism would be laughable for a scientific government research institute, which NIMH pretends to be, but for the unfortunate history it connects to: eugenics, social Darwinism and racism.  Psychiatrists have postulated genetic causes of mental illness for at least 100 years.  All of their speculative “research” efforts have yielded precisely nothing in the way of clinical benefit.  It may be noted that two areas of human thinking, emotion and behavior “run in families” more reliably than any others: political affiliation and religious faith.  But no one searches for the genetic “causes” of being a Republican or an Episcopalian.  In fact, no one searches for genetic causes of any personality type or behavior considered acceptable.  It’s only the negative things about some people which are ruefully blamed on genetics, perhaps as an excuse to change those people by force, for their fellows who need “reasons” to do what they instinctively know is wrong.

… However, there are many people who have schizophrenia
(See #2 above.)

… who don’t have a family member with the disorder

… and conversely, many people with one or more family members with the disorder

… who do not develop it themselves.

Scientists believe that many different genes may increase the risk of schizophrenia, but that no single gene causes the disorder by itself. It is not yet possible to use genetic information to predict who will develop schizophrenia.

Scientists also think that interactions between genes and aspects of the individual’s environment are necessary for schizophrenia to develop. Environmental factors may involve:
Exposure to viruses
Malnutrition before birth
Problems during birth
Psychosocial factors

Different brain chemistry and structure: Scientists think that an imbalance in the complex, interrelated chemical reactions of the brain
10. Wonderful!  The infamous chemical imbalance in the brain…! The leading biological psychiatrist, Dr. Ronald Pies, M.D., who authored various definitive textbooks and popular volumes on psychiatry and mental health, and who is one of the strongest and most constant voices in defense of a pure medical model of mental/emotional/behavioral problems, actually wrote in Psychiatric Times (of which he was Editor at the time) that the whole notion of a chemical imbalance in the brain had been nothing more than an urban legend, which no reputable psychiatrist ever really believed.

Some experts also think problems during brain development before birth may lead to faulty connections.
11. This faulty connections concept is no more scientific or useful than the earlier chemical imbalance pseudoscience.  Nobody knows what it means, nobody can test for it, nobody can see, let alone fix, “faulty connections”.

… The brain also undergoes major changes during puberty, and these changes could trigger psychotic symptoms

… in people who are vulnerable due to genetics or brain differences.

Treatments and Therapies
Because the causes of schizophrenia are still unknown, treatments focus on eliminating the symptoms

… of the disease. Treatments include:
12. So-called “antipsychotics” are also called by the older, more accurate terms, neuroleptics or major tranquilizers.  They tend to knock down manifestations of psychosis in the short term, but they knock down the patients, too, and cause long-term disability and stunted recovery with long-term use.  Although the term antipsychotic was coined to highlight the drugs’ desired effects, the first such drug (chlorpromazine) was actually promoted as a chemical lobotomy.  Clearly the effects that are desired vary, depending on the point of view.

Antipsychotic medications
13. Just consider the difference between the sound of the term, antipsychotic medications on one hand, and neuroleptic drugs on the other.  The two terms have equal lexical relevance and accuracy, but which one gets used tells you a lot about who is communicating and whether they want to convince you the drugs are beneficial cures, or warn you that they’ll likely be experienced as force, not reason.

… are usually taken daily in pill or liquid form. Some antipsychotics are injections that are given once or twice a month.
14. The reason they are sometimes injected once or twice a month is because the psychiatrist knows that way you can’t refuse or avoid taking them, which almost anyone would do, if they had any choice about what to put in their own body.  Monthly injectable antipsychotics are cruel, covert oppression of patients, merely to conserve psychiatric staff effort and attention.  It’s brutal control, not help.

… Some people have side effects when they start taking medications, but most side effects go away after a few days.
15. A few days?!  This statement is deceptive and borderline malpractice.  There are hundreds of stories on the internet from people who have spent years trying to find meds that are even slightly tolerable, and more years trying to withdraw from them when they are not tolerable.  Check out Laura Delano’s site: 

… Doctors and patients can work together
16. Doctors and “patients” do not work together in mental health, psychiatrists order and coerce patients to comply.  When NIMH says they can work together, what is meant is that if “patients” comply strictly with everything the psychiatrist suggests or thinks, then the psychiatrist will be happier. Just that. 

… to find the best medication or medication combination, and the right dose. Check the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website: (, for the latest information on warnings, patient medication guides, or newly approved medications.

Psychosocial Treatments
These treatments are helpful after patients and their doctor find a medication that works.
17. So there it is:  Drugs first, talking comes only after you comply with drugging!

… Learning and using coping skills to address the everyday challenges of schizophrenia helps people to pursue their life goals, such as attending school or work. Individuals who participate in regular psychosocial treatment are less likely to have relapses or be hospitalized. For more information on psychosocial treatments, see the Psychotherapies webpage on the NIMH website.

Coordinated specialty care (CSC)
This treatment model integrates medication, psychosocial therapies, case management, family involvement, and supported education and employment services, all aimed at reducing symptoms and improving quality of life. The NIMH Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE) research project seeks to fundamentally change the trajectory and prognosis of schizophrenia through coordinated specialty care treatment in the earliest stages of the disorder. RAISE is designed to reduce the likelihood of long-term disability
18. Long-term disability is caused by the psychiatric drugs, not (for any practical purpose) by a theoretical “disease” process for which nobody has yet discovered any real mechanism.

… that people with schizophrenia often experience and help them lead productive, independent lives.

How can I help someone I know with schizophrenia?
Caring for and supporting a loved one with schizophrenia can be hard. It can be difficult to know how to respond to someone who makes strange or clearly false statements. It is important to understand that schizophrenia is a biological illness.
19. It cannot be important to understand any such thing, because it’s not reality, it’s an article of faith.  What NIMH means here is, if you believe in schizophrenia as a brain disease which will eventually be discovered by real doctors and scientists (although it hasn’t been discovered, after a hundred years of research supported by virtually unlimited government funds), then and only then will you be a better and kinder person to someone you know who “has” it, because you won’t blame them for their behavior.  But maybe this peculiar faith isn’t so necessary for tolerance and charity, and it certainly should not be a state religion, that’s unconstitutional.  The other thing that’s so very important about people being faithful to the psychiatric religion is that the high priests (psychiatrists) cannot make a living or increase their power unless more and more people become faithful.  The evangelism has gotten much more difficult of late, with so much information out of control via the internet.

…Here are some things you can do to help your loved one:
Get them treatment and encourage them to stay in treatment
Remember that their beliefs or hallucinations seem very real to them
Tell them that you acknowledge that everyone has the right to see things their own way
Be respectful, supportive, and kind without tolerating dangerous or inappropriate behavior
Check to see if there are any support groups in your area

Join a Study
Clinical trials are research studies that look at new ways to prevent, detect, or treat diseases and conditions
20. Diseases and conditions… are these the same, or different?  If they’re different, then which is schizophrenia, a disease or a condition?  Why does NIMH need to confuse the public like this?

…, including schizophrenia. During clinical trials, treatments might be new drugs or new combinations of drugs, new surgical procedures or devices, or new ways to use existing treatments.

The goal of clinical trials is to determine if a new test or treatment works and is safe. Although individual participants may benefit from being part of a clinical trial, participants should be aware that the primary purpose of a clinical trial is to gain new scientific knowledge so that others may be better helped in the future.

Please note: Decisions about whether to participate in a clinical trial, and which ones are best suited for a given individual, are best made in collaboration with your licensed health professional.

How do I find Clinical Trials at NIMH/NIH?
Scientists at the NIH campus conduct research on numerous areas of study, including cognition, genetics, epidemiology, and psychiatry. The studies take place at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland and require regular visits. After the initial phone interview, you will come to an appointment at the clinic and meet with one of our clinicians.

Find NIH-funded studies currently recruiting participants with schizophrenia by using (search schizophrenia) or visit Join a Study: Adults - Schizophrenia.

How Do I Find a Clinical Trial Near Me?
To search for a clinical trial near you, you can visit This is a searchable registry and results database of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States and around the world. gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers to call for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health professionals.

Learn more

Free Booklets and Brochures
Schizophrenia: A detailed booklet that provides an overview on schizophrenia. It describes symptoms, risk factors, and treatments. It also contains information on getting help and coping. Also available en Español.
What is Schizophrenia? A brief brochure on schizophrenia that offers basic information on signs and symptoms, treatment, and finding help.

Research and Statistics
Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE): The NIMH-launched RAISE is a large-scale research initiative that began with two studies examining different aspects of coordinated specialty care (CSC) treatments for people who were experiencing first episode psychosis.
NIMH Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Research Program: This program administers funding to scientists doing research into the origins, onset, course, and outcome of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and such related conditions as schizotypal and schizoid personality disorders.
Schizophrenia Statistics: This webpage provides information on the best statistics currently available on the prevalence and treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S.
Schizophrenia Clinical Trials at NIMH: Adults: This webpage lists NIMH clinical trials that are currently recruiting adults with schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia Clinical Trials at NIMH: Children: This webpage lists NIMH clinical trials that are currently recruiting children with schizophrenia.

Last Revised: February 2016
Unless otherwise specified, NIMH information and publications are in the public domain and available for use free of charge. Citation of the NIMH is appreciated. Please see our Citing NIMH Information and Publications page for more information.

Psychiatria delenda est! 

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Silliness on the plantation

A client called me yesterday morning and said his treatment team at Chicago Read Mental Health Center had informed him that if I attend his upcoming monthly staffing, they will need to hold it somewhere off the unit. The reason given was that I have published confidential information in this blog.

So after I am done rolling on the floor laughing... I have to conclude that keeping me off the clinical unit, away from “patients”, is intended to prevent... what, exactly?

The “disclosure of confidential information” problem is a classic red herring. I looked back over my blog posts, and I have carefully, meticulously, avoided doing that. Any names of clients appear only because they are already public, and by the client’s own choice. For example, I represent two plaintiffs against a former social worker on L Unit at Elgin Mental Health Center named Christy Lenhardt. Ms. Lenhardt, a married white woman in her fifties with two sons in their twenties, seduced these two young black men and coerced them into sexual relationships.

This was a class 3 felony under Illinois law. It’s been all over the media in the USA and internationally. If the cases were not loudly public, there is a good chance the whole thing would be swept under the proverbial rug. Various other clinicians and administrators at Elgin (aka, DSH) are being sued for collaborating and enabling the felony, in violation of strict reporting requirements, etc. A third case will be filed soon, as well.

Illinois Department of Human Services facilities (“mental health centers”) are plantations. They hold slaves whom they euphemistically call “patients” or “recipients of services”. Maybe the reason the treatment team at Chicago Read wants to hold my client’s staffing off the unit is... they’re afraid that I could be effective as an abolitionist? Maybe they think my very presence will infect slaves beyond my current list of clients with dangerous abolitionist thoughts? But... I never even talk to anyone but my client when I’m there.

Oh! That’s not 100% true... In fact, I talk to staff as much as I can. Maybe somebody higher up the food chain is afraid I’ll infect staff with my abolitionist ideas. Maybe some of those well-intended helping professionals are getting tired of covering up for the real criminals, the overseers on the plantation, the abusers.

If so, call me! Ask a patient for my cell number.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Complexity, health care, and psychiatry

The Wall Street Journal on March 16, 2018, contains two articles, one an oped by former Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm about how to “escape” from Obamacare, and the other (to which I can’t find a link, “Health-Law Suit May Boost Insurers” by Stephanie Armour) a report on lawsuits in connection with the Affordable Care Act. Cases currently before a panel at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may amount to the largest civil lawsuits ever.

More thinking and prognosticating and thrashing around occurs, and more is written about how to organize and pay for medical services, than almost any other human problem. Nothing gets so complicated and “important” unless it contains a lie, it’s a sure tip-off. And the more complication, the more fundamental the lie must be.

Much discussion has concerned mandated coverages. Under the ACA, it seems every policy must be standardized. E.g., “treatment” for “mental health disorders” must be included for everyone, even people who (like me) would sooner go to jail or be exiled than pay a psychiatrist or receive psychiatric “medicine”. Until a recent change, everyone also had to buy their policy, or pay a fine. I think it’s now legal again, at least in theory, to have a health care policy that doesn’t cover psychiatric services. (But I’m not sure, even though I’m a lawyer and very interested. It’s too complicated.)

The idea that not covering mental health disorders on the same basis as physical diseases is discrimination from stigma is patent nonsense. That is a rational economic risk/benefit assessment, by the people who are far and away the best economic risk/benefit assessors (insurance companies). The crusaders for “mental health parity” merely want to ignore or compensate for marketplace reality: almost nobody buys psychiatry for themselves, and they are only very occasionally willing to push or force it on others. Elite policy makers want to enforce their own value judgments on everyone else, who they presume are insufficiently enlightened to realize that we should all get “treated”.

But it seems to me that the fundamental lie underlying all off this is that human beings are all the same, and they all need and want the same things. That’s quite true for air, food and water, but it doesn’t go any further. Despite what we’re incessantly told, not everybody needs and wants sex (or at least, not the same kind). Not everybody needs and wants shelter (at least, not constantly).

An even more basic lie, however, is that human beings are their bodies, first, last and forever. Individual psychiatrists may or may not think about the implications, but the claim that depression (for example) should be considered primarily as a brain disease to be treated medically, is necessarily in conflict with any religious faith. You can’t honestly be a good Christian, Muslim or Jew, and simultaneously postulate the salvation of individuals through drugs.

The idea that all human problems of cognition, emotion and behavior can be solved by manipulating brain chemistry or neurological structure, rather than by communication alone to change a mind, is a kind of ultimate heresy against all religion.

It’s also untrue, which is the most fundamental reason why medical service delivery has become so complicated. Doctors allowed psychiatrists to follow on their coat tails.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Two Cases: The difference is race

A 28-year-old female soccer coach seduces nice, white suburban high school boys, and she is quickly fired, arrested, charged with twelve felony counts, and held on a million dollars bail. The state’s attorney promises to continue the investigation.

A forty-something female social worker seduces black mental patients the age of her own sons, and state police investigate for six months. They finally send a report and recommendation to the state’s attorney, but nothing happens for a long time.

So what’s the difference between what Cori Beard did in Vernon Hills, and what Christy Lenhardt did in Elgin? There seem to be two aspects of difference, which are really only one difference: race.

It is equally criminal under Illinois law, to sexually abuse children or to sexually abuse involuntary mental “patients”. There is a big practical difference, in that most people like children of whatever race and want to protect them, but most people dislike the insane and want to get rid of them.

In the not-too-distant past, well-intended, educated Americans believed that white people were constitutionally and genetically different from other races, and superior. Today, well-intended, educated Americans believe non-psychotic people are constitutionally and genetically different from the insane, and superior. That “constitutionally and genetically different” aspect defines racism as much as the “superior” aspect.

Of course, there is a plethora of specific history to incriminate psychiatry far more than just a general analogy. (Drapetomania and the Final Solution among other examples. Or how about the racism of the APA’s proud icon, Dr. Benjamin Rush?)

The bottom line is when Dr. Malice and Dr. Corcoran and Dr. Lieberman insist that all human difficulties in thinking, feeling and behavior are “illnesses”, ultimately to be understood and controlled exclusively by psychiatric authorities with no reference to any concept of soul, they are following in the footsteps of the most infamous racists. They are walking down that 20th century road, as I said in my first article of this blog, that led to a very black gate and hot mushroom cloud.

They are also (just incidentally) walking down the road that leads from Elgin Mental Health Center — “A hospital dedicated by the State of Illinois to the welfare of its people, for their relief and restoration, a place of hope for the healing of mind, body and spirit, where many find health and happiness again” — to the slave plantation, Dick Suck Hospital, where forced “patients” are used and abused at the whim of perverted, lying overseers who sponge off the taxpayers for their paychecks and benefits.

The difference is race. White suburban high school boys, and black involuntary mental “patients”; the Lake County State’s Attorney’s office, and the Kane County State’s Attorney’s office. Two cases.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Monday, February 26, 2018


DSH Medical Director James Corcoran recently had the audacity to tell several people during a staffing, “We don’t get retribution against patients.” Well, it wouldn’t be for lack of trying. There is certainly an effective policy or practice of punishing anyone who  challenges or fails to profess adequate faith in the “mental illness”/“brain disorder”/“legitimate medical condition” orthodoxy. No matter how good your behavior and emotional state may be, and no matter how sharp your thinking, you’d better take psychotropic “medication” if your “doctor” tells you to, or at least tell everyone else it’s generally helpful and you’re willing to take it under some circumstances. Otherwise you will not get privileges and you will not get out before your Thiem date.

The whole “forensic mental health” enterprise is steeped in an agenda of retribution. “Patients” in psychiatric “hospitals” are taught, and often told in so many words, that they owe it to the community to take neuroleptic drugs for the rest of their lives despite debilitating side effects, because of their past violent acts. In other words, they should be willing to be chemically disabled and psychiatrically dehumanized, they should accept the retribution of their fellows.

One of the more interesting aspects of this is that it absolutely contradicts another point that is impressed upon everyone ever found not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”): you didn’t really commit that crime... it was your mental illness that caused it, and if not for your mental illness you’d have been a normal, social person.

A couple years ago I wrote about how this contradiction is especially dramatic when NGRI “patients” at DSH are urged to engage in MRT (“Moral Reconation Therapy”), which was actually developed for criminals in prison. One of my clients is still discredited to his criminal court judge by his treatment team with every semi-monthly court report, because he can’t get over the glaring intellectual dishonesty when the MRT therapist at DSH tells him it’s all his own fault that he’s locked up, at the same time the MD psychiatrist tells him it’s not his fault at all, he just needs to have his brain chemistry adjusted by experts. He refused to pretend that it made sense, and quit MRT. For that, he’s said to be non-compliant; for being non-compliant, he remains locked up.

Individuals are targeted for retribution at DSH. Corcoran (and Malis via Corcoran) complained under oath that a client of mine was one of the most difficult patients in the institution. His intention was to undermine a motion for privileges that a treatment team had recommended to the court. In other words, Corcoran was testifying that his own people had mis-evaluated their patient and didn’t know what they were doing. Fortunately, the court took this for what it was worth: nothing. My client was given his privileges despite Corcoran’s attempt.

As I recently indicated in a letter to the General Counsel of the Illinois Department of Human Services, I believe Corcoran is trying to provoke or harass a patient on N Unit via another patient. This would be retribution for lawsuits. The patient who is my client is probably the smartest and least “mentally ill” person still remaining at DSH, but his criminal court motions for privileges and release have been repeatedly stymied because he calls lies, incompetence and corruption when he sees them.

Retribution goes two ways, what goes around comes around....

If people were “treated” medically at DSH to their benefit, Corcoran and his fellow plantation overseers would have nothing to worry about.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Thursday, February 22, 2018

(Letter mailed today)

February 22, 2018

General Counsel CoreyAnne Gulkewiz
Illinois Department of Human Services
100 West Randolph, Suite 6-400
Chicago, IL 60601 

Re: Retribution against patients at Elgin Mental Health Center

Dear Counsel:

As attorney for several patients at Elgin Mental Health Center, I stay busy enough.  With this letter, I only intend to make a record and alert you to a situation that I hope might resolve without litigation; i.e., I am not making any specific demand at this time.

Two forensic patients on N Unit at Elgin have complained to me about each other for several months.  (Patient name redacted) and (patient name redacted) each allege that the other is adept at covertly manipulating staff and other patients on the unit to his own unfair advantage.  Mental health professionals, of course, should be good at deciphering and discouraging such “splitting” maneuvers by patients.

Indeed, the N Unit clinical staff concluded (at least preliminarily) that one of these two patients is the “bad guy” and the other is well enough to be ready for release.  They apparently requested that the “bad guy” be moved to a different unit to avoid trouble.  However, the administration at EMHC overruled them, insisting that the “bad guy” remain on N Unit.  I cannot think of any rational reason for this, but I do suspect a motive.   James Patrick Corcoran, from my own experience with him, is irrationally offended by patients’ occasional choices to avoid psychotropic medications.  He is even more offended when those patients get well without meds.

In this case, the N Unit patient believed by the treating psychiatrist and other unit staff to be well has not taken meds for many years.  The other patient, believed to be the “bad guy” by those who see him on a daily basis, is taking meds.  Corcoran is purposefully trying to punish or provoke one patient by keeping the other one on the same unit in close proximity to antagonize him.  Needless to say, the tactic is discreditable, contrary to any concept of therapeutic milieu, and probably quite destructive of clinical staff morale.

Yours very truly,

S. Randolph Kretchmar

Psychiatria delenda est!

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Corcoran undermines treatment & staff morale

At DSH, “the administration” often makes treatment decisions that should seemingly be made by unit treatment staff. “The administration” means James Patrick Corcoran, no doubt supported by Richard Malis and maybe one or two others. Corcoran and Malis are MD psychiatrists, so they’re getting away with this for the time being. But each patient’s own clinical unit treatment team includes an MD psychiatrist, and it’s obvious that the clinicians who actually see somebody every day know much more about him/her than other staff or administrators who don’t.

Corcoran and Malis have an agenda that goes beyond helping a patient, and that often conflicts. They need to enforce and protect an orthodoxy which includes the dictum that every patient at DSH must comply with recommended psychiatric drugs. Anyone who’s not drugged just can’t leave.

There is a wealth of research showing that this orthodox medical-psychiatric view is not generally conducive to long-term recovery from severe mental illness. It doesn’t matter to Corcoran and Malis, they don’t read and will not believe the science. They don’t have any illusions about helping patients, but consider first of all that it’s their job to control patients. The drugs disable people who once did bad things, and this is considered good control, because sufficiently disabled people might be unable to do bad things.

So what happens is, “the administration” has a list of patients who threaten their (obviously very unstable) control, by not taking meds or not effectively professing full faith in the psychiatric interpretation of “mental illness”. Corcoran and Malis look for any way to intimidate and invalidate those particular patients, and they try to hold them back, punish them, and stop the courts from allowing them to have expanded privileges or release, etc.

Of course, this makes no sense under the law, and in all likelyhood Corcoran and Malis can’t even recognize that they’re doing it. They probably think I’m paranoid/delusional, and my clients are paranoid/delusional, and “the administration” is just expressing expert clinical opinion about patients’ “mental illness” (meaning brain diseases that only psychiatrists can identify, which haven’t been discovered yet despite over 100 years of attempts and virtually unlimited research funds) and appropriate “treatment” (meaning neuroleptic drugs, drugs, drugs, and occasional electric shocks).

I have one client who is apparently being held because his psychiatrist (none other than Dr. Malis) thinks he has a “delusion” that he’s the king of Egypt. But this patient never asserts any such delusion, and he actually does his best not to mention the subject at all, although Malis relentlessly tries to taunt him about it. My client has had some minor rule violations over the last few years, but he’s been almost a model patient for a very long time. No fights, no threats, no arguments really. He gets along well with everyone at DSH, causes no trouble.

Several years ago, this patient’s judge signed an order requiring the facility to formulate a plan enabling the patient himself to participate in his own treatment, a plan that does not necessarily require psychotropic medication. Before the court specifically ordered this, DSH had never been willing or able to do what the law clearly intends. I mentioned this order today during a staffing, and showed it to Dr. Malis (who was not the treating psychiatrist until much more recently).

Malis’ immediate, knee-jerk reaction was to pretend the order doesn’t really say what it actually does say. To Malis, it was simply inconceivable that the law could interfere with his holy psychiatric judgment. He also suggested that there may be a drug that can cure the specific delusion of believing one is king of Egypt. So who is really delusional? It sure seems like Malis to me!

On another clinical unit at DSH, a couple high-functioning patients, one of whom is my client, are in some kind of weird competition or opposition to each other, vying for approval from staff and loyalty of other patients. The treatment team seems to believe my client is the one ready for release, and the other guy is the trouble-maker. They want to move the other guy to a different unit.

Well, guess what? The other guy dutifully takes his psychiatric drugs, and my client doesn’t. So “the administration” (again, Malis and Corcoran) are refusing the treatment team’s request, overriding the judgment of the psychiatrist who is there every day, who knows both patients best, by far... “the administration” actually hopes  to punish my client for not taking drugs that his doctor isn’t prescribing anyway and has repeatedly stated are not needed. They hope maybe the trouble maker on the unit will provoke some reaction from my client that they can then label “symptomatic”.

Malis and Corcoran disrupt treatment plans about which they have no insight, and they insult other DSH doctors by second guessing and overriding their competent judgment. These two guys make an already terrible institution, a veritable slave plantation, even worse.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Easily-Insulted Tom Zubik

I hesitate to write much bad about this guy, who apparently has Jeff Pharis’ old job of Forensic Program Director at DSH. One client tells me he was a good social worker. He also has a good military record, which echos positively in the way he presents himself.

But Tom Zubik did a strange thing yesterday.

Zubik was attending a staffing and saying very little, allowing the infamously malicious Dr. Malice (Malis) to assure my client that he wanted to use the staffing time to cover what he thought were the most important subjects (and of course, his evaluation of importance cannot be questioned because he’s the psychiatrist!), only piping up once or twice to say all policies at DSH are secret, so “patients” are not allowed to actually see them or know what they really are.... One such policy was supposedly an excuse for my client being prevented from communicating with her dying father; another was an excuse for her being prohibited from reviewing her own medical records.

(Who knows? Maybe there are such policies. Maybe the particular cruel and ridiculous applications are completely necessary and logical. But Zubik flatly asserted that nobody is allowed to see the policies, thus, it’s fair to wonder. Maybe Zubik thinks he’s a colonel running an Army National Guard unit, and everybody has to obey his orders without question or hesitation. Such discipline might better be directed toward staff who’d like to sexually abuse patients.)

At some point the staffing devolved a bit into complex or obscure complaints and arguments. I thought we should move along, so I told my client, almost in a scolding tone, “Come on! You know perfectly well why procedures are so complicated here: These people have to pretend to do things that they have no idea how to actually do!”

I think that was a fair statement, or at least a reasonable interpretation, of reality. Perhaps cynical, but predictable coming from me, for anyone who knows me. DSH is a pretended “hospital” — Dr. Malice is a pretended “brain doctor” — my client is diagnosed with a pretended “disease”. And it’s not as though DSH staff are the only ones pretending. They probably believe in this stuff when they start out, thinking they can help people. The public pretends that forensic psychiatry helps people when it’s nothing more than a plantation system. I was letting the particular guys in the room off the hook in some sense. It’s legal slavery, after all.

Well, excuse me for being an abolitionist.... Zubik immediately ended the staffing (which was a statutorily mandated monthly proceeding that had not yet served its purpose pursuant to the law), because my comment about all the pretending was so insulting.

I actually don’t believe he was anywhere near as insulted as he claimed. I can’t imagine that such a strong, military and professional personality would be quite so emotionally or psychologically delicate.

Maybe Zubik had some other meeting he had to get to. He should have just said so.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Close the Rape Loophole

Today’s New York Times rightly bemoans the fact that police are not unequivocally prohibited from all sexual contact with people they control (i.e., arrestees). Too often they escape rape convictions and justice by claiming “consent” of those over whom they obviously wield enormous power.

Meanwhile, despite Illinois’ law establishing effective strict liability for the crime of sexual abuse of a disabled person, Christy Lenhardt has not even been arrested and probably retains her Illinois social worker’s license. The so-called “doctors” (Kareemi, Javed, Corcoran) and other “professionals” who helped her rape several patients, and/or turned a blind eye to it, and/or covered it up, are not evidently in any trouble either despite strict rules and policy, which they violated, for reporting any slightest suspicion, which they clearly had or should have had.

These people are all paid by the State of Illinois, i.e., the taxpayers, e.g., me. They are all supposed to be particularly well trained in detecting behavioral pathology and violent tendencies in others.

Put yourself in Christy’s position... How do you defend against the criminal charges that are sure to eventually come? Do you say your patients at EMHC (DSH) consented? But that is specifically prohibited by the clear language of the statute.

Do you claim that your “ADHD” or some other psych “diagnosis” made you do it? But why were you allowed to be in the position you were in for many years, enabling easy access to “patients” for daily sexual abuse? How did Kareemi and Javed manage to just not notice anything? How can Corcoran pretend with a straight face that it’s his job to protect the safety of all patients?

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Perhaps the myth is just too powerful, that mental “patients” are mysteriously brain diseased and only mental health professionals understand, and we all need these “doctors” to save our communities from lurking insanity.

Perhaps that myth causes us to pay for the plantations where sexual slaves are owned and used. Perhaps it is the ultimate rape loophole.


Psychiatria delenda est!

Helpful Medicine v. Harmful Psychiatry

Yesterday I had a long conversation with a woman who wants to sue her psychiatrist of 25 years ago for disabilities she continues to suffer, caused by shock treatment, multiple psychiatric drugs, and a psychiatric label of “bipolar”. She once had an excellent sense of direction, but can no longer find her way to places where she has driven many times. She can’t practice her previous work as a surgical assistant. She can’t maintain stable relationships.

There were other complaints that I may be forgetting at the moment... but this person clearly believes psychiatry ruined her life. I also believe her. She was rational and open, not obsessive, and in good two-way communication.

One very interesting point occurred to me during this conversation. So many of this woman’s descriptions of side effects from shock treatment and drugs sounded startlingly similar to symptoms I experienced myself, in the weeks before I was diagnosed with a meningioma on my right frontal lobe, and before the surgery to remove that tumor. Clearly, physical assaults on the brain create predictable problems, whether they are organic (as in my own case) or iatrogenic (as with so many victims of psychiatric “medicine”).

The biggest difference between my case and that of the woman I spoke with yesterday is that my diagnosis (right frontal lobe meningioma) was useful and scientific, whereas her “diagnosis” (“bipolar disorder”) was bullshit: my medical/surgical treatment (craniotomy and tumor excision) was successful, whereas hers (electric shocks to the brain and terrible psychiatric drugs as pretended “medicine”) had no benefit, but only hurt.

The other significant difference was that I consented to surgery after being fully informed of risks and benefits, whereas the woman was coerced, lied to and defrauded.

As Thomas Szasz said long ago (by the way, Dan Hardy once told me that Szasz spent a couple years as an intern or resident of some sort at EMHC, back before before it became DSH)... psychiatry, especially state psychiatry, is the single most destructive social/cultural influence in the modern world.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Larry Nassar should just work at DSH!

The outrage over the sexual abuse of young American gymnasts by their “doctor” is totally justified. The only trouble is that people might think abuse like that is unusual, and that maybe it’s some kind of mental disorder. When somebody is convicted of criminal sexual abuse, he or she very often gets sent to DSH with an NGRI verdict. Maybe they are put on K or L Unit....

DSH and the rest of the so-called “forensic psychiatry” establishment create a whole culture where sexual abuse is bound to be rampant. If you believe that people whom you’re totally in charge of are irredeemably screwed up, perhaps a bit sub-human, and if you are the expert in what’s wrong with them while they can be said to “lack insight”, you might conclude that you can use them any way you like. What else is forced “treatment”? It certainly doesn’t cure mental illness, no psychiatrist anywhere would try to claim it does. If you can justify forcing drugs into a resisting human being’s body, you’re hardly more than a step away from sexual abuse anyway.

Christy Lenhardt did nothing less horrendous to the two current federal plaintiffs than what Larry Nassar did to the young women he was supposedly “treating”. Both Lenhardt and Nassar were in positions of sufficient power to overwhelm their victims. Arguably, Lenhardt wielded an even larger power imbalance than Nassar did. In fact, that may be precisely why Nassar has been prosecuted and Lenhardt has not, at least not yet. Lenhardt has an entire government agency and an entire profession (over which no one wants to exercise oversight) backing her up. Nassar controlled young gymnasts’ futures in gymnastics, but Lenhardt controlled her patients’ freedom and their entire life futures. Without her support they had no freedom, even to choose what went into their own bodies. As long as Lenhardt had free reign, her patients knew they had to have sex with her when and if she wanted it.

A great deal of damage is done by sexual abuse. The victim impact statements at Larry Nassar’s sentencing could just as well be given by the two young men who are plaintiffs against Christy Lenhardt.

“This is what it looks like when the adults in authority do not respond properly to disclosures of sexual assault. This is what it looks like when institutions create a culture where a predator can flourish unafraid and unabated.” These were the words of Rachel Denhollander in Judge Aquilina’s courtroom.

Christy Lenhardt flourished unafraid and unabated for years at DSH. Long before Ben Hurt or Mark Owens were asssaulted, she was turning other patients into her sex slaves. Angelo Rotuno was an admitted child molester, and Christy helped him escape from DSH, actually drove him to O’Hare airport and put him on a plane out of the country, so he could roam the streets of Europe and find more victims for eleven years.

In fact, the plaintiffs against Christy are far less likely to be believed or acknowledged as victims, because they are young men, not women, and because they have criminal records. But guess what: they are every bit as human, and they hurt just as much, as the young female gymnasts who were assaulted by Larry Nassar. There is no justification under the law for any kind of punishment of these young men. They were supposed to be at DSH to be helped.

Now they have an awfully long way back that they will have to walk, to ever again believe that any offer of help is anything but an intention to betray. Christy Lenhardt offered help, and she was a licensed clinical social worker, part of a treatment team in a hospital, and the state of Illinois and its people were all promising help and claiming they knew how to help. It was just like the “examinations” that Larry Nassar gave young girls, sometimes with their parents right there in the room.... How could it be so wrong? How can anyone ever know what is wrong?

But people do know what’s wrong, in their hearts.

Psychiatria delenda est!

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

OWENS V. CORCORAN (Amended Complaint with 3rd Claim)


MARK OWENS                                                  )
                        Plaintiff,                                       )
            v.                                                              )  Case No.
                                                                             ) 1:18-cv-00334
JAMES PATRICK CORCORAN, in his             )       
Official capacity as Medical Director of             )  Hon. Andrea
Elgin Mental Health Center; and                        )  R. Wood, 
Individually, ELGIN MENTAL HEALTH         )  presiding
CENTER, a body public; the ILLINOIS            )
a Department of the State of Illinois;                 )
CHRISTY LENHARDT, individually;              )  JURY
HASINA JAVED, individually; FAISA             DEMAND
KAREEMI, individually; BRIAN DAWSON,   )
in his official capacity as Hospital                      )
Administrator of Elgin Mental Health                )
Center and individually; WILLIAM                   )
EPPERSON, individually; and WAYNE            )
BEYER, individually,                                         )
                        Defendants.                                 )


            NOW COMES Plaintiff, Mark Owens, by and through his attorneys, the Law Offices of Kretchmar and Cecala, P.C., with his complaint against the above named Defendants, and requests trial by jury.  In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff states as follows.


1.  This action is brought by Mark Owens (“Plaintiff”), a person confined to one or another state-operated mental health center (“Facility” or “state facility”) at all times relevant to the claims in this Complaint, to vindicate profound deprivations of his constitutional rights caused by institutionally based brutality, and institutionally organized sexual abuse amounting to sexual slavery.
2.  Plaintiff was adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”) in the Circuit Court of Will County, for a criminal charge of disarming a police officer.  In August, 2011, he was committed to the custody of Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for inpatient mental health treatment, initially at Chester Mental Health Center and subsequently at Elgin Mental Health Center.
3.  Upon his transfer to Elgin, Plaintiff was assigned to receive clinical treatment on L Unit.  The social worker in charge of maintaining and administering his mental health records and coordinating the several specialists on the treatment team was Defendant Christy Lenhardt (“Lenhardt”).  Over several years, Plaintiff was housed on L Unit and the close-by K Unit.  The clinical staff on K and L Units worked together and were familiar with each other’s patients.  Plaintiff also spent a brief period on N Unit.
4.  Within a few months of Plaintiff’s arrival in this clinical setting, Defendant Lenhardt took the opportunity of a private counseling session with the Plaintiff to attempt to seduce him.  She complained to him that her own relationship with her husband was “not fun” and began to cry.  She then pulled her chair uncomfortably close to where the Plaintiff was sitting, in a position that allowed her hands to be between his legs, very close to his crotch area.
5.  Plaintiff immediately became nervous, pointedly excused himself and moved back, and then left Defendant Lenhardt’s office to end the inappropriate situation and avoid the seduction attempt of his social worker, whom he had believed was supposed to be delivering mental health counseling. 
6.  Subsequently, Plaintiff asked Defendant Lenhardt if his counseling sessions could be done somewhere other than in her private office, for example in the N Unit day room, which was more public and would not so easily enable or permit any inappropriate behavior.
7.  Lenhardt was quite irritated by Plaintiff’s request, reacting to his earlier rejection of her sexual advance by implying that Plaintiff was “paranoid”.  She shortly suggested to the team psychiatrist, Defendant Hasina Javed (“Javed”) that Plaintiff’s diagnosis should be changed to bipolar disorder, a major mental illness that could require stronger medication (specifically, the antipsychotic drug Abilify), which would have caused the Plaintiff severe and painful side effects, agitation and memory loss.
8.  Fortunately, Plaintiff was able to prevail upon Dr. Javed not to follow Lenhardt’s suggestion.  He described the general details and clear impropriety of Lenhardt’s earlier sexual advance during a therapy session, and appealed to Javed’s conscience as a practicing Muslim.
9.  Although she apparently found Plaintiff’s report credible to some degree (because she declined to follow Lenhardt’s recommendations regarding Plaintiff’s diagnosis and prescription), Javed never reported the alleged incident to the Office of the Inspector General.  An immediate report to OIG was in fact mandated by statute and by written DHS policy.  Such a report would have been the only effective solution to the situation, and such a report alone would have protected the Plaintiff and other patients at Defendant Facility from future sexual abuse by Defendant Lenhardt. 
10.  Patients’ insight into their own mental health condition and patients’ own treatment preferences are vital considerations.   Without common goals and collaboration between a patient and a treatment team, the chance of mental health treatment success is substantially reduced.  On L Unit, Defendant Lenhardt had her own consistent, covert agenda for sexual relations with the Plaintiff. Meanwhile when the Plaintiff was on K Unit, Defendant Kareemi proved to be inexplicably prejudiced toward a different diagnosis of lifelong major mental illness for him: schizoaffective disorder, which the Plaintiff did not understand and with which he could not agree, and which implied the prescription of stronger, debilitating anti-psychotic drugs that the Plaintiff was loath to take.
10.  By information and belief, all of the named individual defendants colluded actively or passively to hold the Plaintiff against his will in the Facility, and to thereby make him available at Defendant Lenhardt’s disposal for her own personal, perverted purpose of sexual abuse.
11.  During the ensuing months and years, Plaintiff was repeatedly sexually abused by Defendant Lenhardt, on at least three more occasions.  Without any action in response to Plaintiff’s initial report to Defendant Javed in 2012, and with Defendant Lenhardt’s continuing official authority and position of power on Plaintiff’s treatment team, Plaintiff concluded that he had no choice but to comply with Lenhardt’s sexual advances or be diagnosed and drugged into a zombie state.  The clear message of the whole clinical regime in the Defendant Facility was that full compliance with staff judgments or recommendations for whatever might be called “treatment” was mandatory, if a patient wanted to make any progress toward release.  Thus, if his social worker wanted to have sex with him, Plaintiff was convinced he had best go along with it. Defendant Lenhardt strongly “came on” to the Plaintiff so as to make her willful and wanton sexual assault into sexual battery, unlawfully touching and engaging in sex acts with the Plaintiff who was confined, imprisoned, under her complete control, and under the control of her fellow staff on K and L Units who could change his diagnosis and drug him at their whim..


            12.  This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and it is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.  The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 2201.
            13.  This case is instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, as the judicial district in which all relevant events and omissions occurred and in which Defendants maintain offices and/or reside.


            14.  At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Mark Owens was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States of America.
            15.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant James Patrick Corcoran was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility.  Corcoran is sued in his official capacity as Medical Director of Defendant Facility, in which capacity he was at all times relevant a direct senior of Defendants Javed and Kareemi.  Corcoran is also sued individually.
            16.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Christy Lenhardt was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in her capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility.  Lenhardt is sued individually.
            17.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Faisa Kareemi was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in her capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility, and as a psychiatrist on K Unit.  Kareemi is sued individually.
            18.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Hasina Javed was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in her capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility, and as a psychiatrist on L Unit.  Javed is sued individually.
            19.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant William Epperson was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility.  Epperson is sued individually.
            20.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wayne Beyer was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility.  Beyer is sued individually.
            21.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Brian Dawson was a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States, and was acting under color of state law in her capacity as an officer employed by Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services and/or of the Defendant Facility.  Dawson is sued in his official capacity as Hospital Administrator of Defendant Facility, and is also sued individually.
            22.  Defendants Illinois Department of Human Services (“State”) and Elgin Mental Health Center (“Facility”) are Illinois body publics and legal entities responsible for themselves and for the Elgin Mental Health Center.  These Defendants employ the individual Defendants and are proper entities to be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
            23.  Defendant State, Defendant Facility and Defendants Dawson and Corcoran are properly sued directly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their own and their delegated deliberately indifferent, unconstitutional decisions, policies, practices, habits, customs, derelict training and supervision, ratification, acquiescence and intentional failures which were moving forces in the complained of constitutional and statutory violations and resulting injuries.
            24.  Defendants State and Facility are also properly sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the challenged delegated final decisions of Defendant Brain Dawson in his official capacity as Hospital Administrator of Defendant Facility, and for the challenged delegated final decisions of Defendant James Patrick Corcoran in his official capacity as Medical Director of Defendant Facility, and for those of any other final delegated decision makers, with respect to the hereinafter challenged deliberately indifferent policies, decisions, widespread habits, customs, usages and practices.

            25.  Plaintiff was in custody and under the control of Defendants’ and each of them during and at all times described of in this Complaint.
            26.  At all times describes in this Complaint, Plaintiff was an unarmed, defenseless male with little or no sexual experience and disabled, such that he was no match for the trained and sophisticated Defendants.
            27.  All of the above-described acts and/or omissions by the Defendants were intentional, knowing, willful, wanton, malicious and/or in reckless in disregard for the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights and welfare, and were done pursuant to the preexisting and ongoing deliberately indifferent official custom, practice, decision, policy, training, and supervision of the Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson, acting under color of state law.
            28.  With deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens to be free from excessive force, and from slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime for which they have been duly convicted, Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson have ongoingly ordered, encouraged, tolerated, ratified, and acquiesced to a dangerous environment of patient brutality, rape, sexual exploitation, assault, battery, and sexual assault of a disabled person by:
a.              failing to conduct sufficient training or supervision with respect to the constitutional limitations on the use of force, false imprisonment and unlawful sex with Facility patients;

b.              failing to adequately punish unconstitutional uses of force and unlawful sex with Facility patients;

c.              ordering and tolerating the use of unconstitutional force, false imprisonment and unlawful sex with Facility patients;

d.              failing to properly or neutrally investigate complaints of excessive force, false imprisonment and unlawful sex with Facility patients; and,

e.              ordering, tolerating, encouraging, and permitting collusive statements among the Facility staff and the police in such situations.

            29.  It is the longstanding, widespread, deliberately indifferent custom, habit, practice and/or policy of the Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson to order and permit staff members to use excessive force, battery and unlawful sexual acts against individuals when such activities and perversion are unnecessary and unjustified. It is also the longstanding, widespread, deliberately indifferent custom, habit, practice and/or policy of the Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson to fail to supervise and train staff in the appropriate constitutional implications and limits on rape, sexual abuse of the disabled and sexual perversion, despite knowing that these staff are critical to the protection of the constitutional rights of the patients, and therefore may create a significant risk of injury to the public who are patients at the Defendant Facility.
            30.  With deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens to be free from excessive force, and in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson have ongoingly ordered, encouraged, tolerated, ratified, and acquiesced to unconstitutional and abusive uses of force, sexual abuse and deprivations of fundamental humanity under auspices of “mental health treatment” by:
a.              failing to conduct sufficient training or supervision with respect to the rights of citizens to be free from force and sexual misconduct in mental health facilities;

b.              failing to adequately punish rape and sexual misconduct actions of the Facility staff;

c.          ongoingly ordering and tolerating unlawful rape, sexual misconduct, force, and manipulation-based selective treatment among the staff and in decisions regarding the ongoing incarceration of those found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity; and

d.              failing to properly investigate complaints of unlawful sexual misconduct, rape, and toleration of collusive statements by involved staff in such situations.

            31.  It is the longstanding, widespread, deliberately indifferent custom,
habit, practice and/or policy of the Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson to order and permit staff members to engage in sexual acts with patients and disabled persons, as well as to fail to supervise and to train staff in the constitutional rights of individuals.
            32.  With deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens to be free from excessive use of force and sexual abuse, Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson have ongoingly ordered, encouraged, tolerated, ratified, and acquiesced to the excessive force and rape, sexual misconduct and sex with disabled patients, and have covered up reports of incidents by their refusal or failure to investigate complaints regarding staff misconduct.
            33.  It is the longstanding and widespread custom, habit, practice and/or policy of the Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson to find no fault with staff conduct as long as any story is offered by staff, regardless of how incredible.
            34.  Defendants Corcoran and Dawson require senior staff to routinely ratify, acquiesce, rubber stamp, and tolerate malicious collusive conduct and unconstitutional actions of staff by routinely ignoring serious complaints of sexual misconduct and other violent sexual acts against Facility patients, and by encouraging fabrication of evidence by the staff.  Defendants State, Facility, Corcoran and Dawson did precisely that, in this case.
            35.  These final policy decisions by Defendants Corcoran and Dawson in their roles as final delegated policy decision makers with respect to reviewing misconduct created liability for Defendants State and Facility. They are also  further evidence of the ongoing and deliberately indifferent custom, habit, policy, decision, practice, training and supervision of the staff of Defendants State and Facility, wherein the Defendants Corcoran and Dawson order, tolerate and encourage lawlessness and disregard for the federal rights of patients.
            36.  In the period addressed by this Complaint, and before and since the events described herein, Defendants Corcoran and Dawson, without serious investigation, have declared or suggested that other complaints of sexual misconduct involving excessive force and unlawful sex with disabled patients and outrageous actions by staff were unfounded, and they have provided cover-up support to members of the staff who were violating the constitutional and statutory rights of patients.
            37.  As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of each of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been substantially injured.  These injuries include, but are not limited to, loss of constitutional and federal rights, physical injuries, physical and mental impairments, great pain and emotional distress, and/or aggravation of pre-existing conditions, and ongoing special damages for medically/psychologically related treatment necessitated by the unconstitutional and brutal concerted conduct of all the Defendants.
            38.  The Plaintiff now suffers from these injuries, with an inability to consistently live a normal life free from the trauma of rape, sexual manipulation and control by Defendant Lenhardt and by the very staff charged with responsibility for his treatment or rehabilitation.
            39.  The Plaintiff also suffers persisting emotional damage the extent of which has not yet been fully ascertained. Plaintiff continues to suffer ongoing emotional distress, with significant stress related symptoms.
            40.  Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages on all claims against the individual Defendants personally, to redress their willful, malicious, wanton, reckless and fraudulent conduct.



42 U.S.C. § 1983 -Excessive Force, Unlawful Search, Seizure and False Imprisonment in violation of the Forth and
Fourteenth Amendments (against all Defendants)

            41.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth at length herein.
            42.  Relevant portions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide that:
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress . . .

            43.  Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and all of the individual Defendants to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
            44.  All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as staff of the State and/or Defendant Facility and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
            45.  At all times complained of herein, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Forth and Fourteenth Amendments to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force, assault, battery, sexual misconduct and rape by the staff of the State.
            46.  At all times complained of herein, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Forth and Fourteenth Amendments to bodily integrity and to be free from unlawful searches, seizures of his property and imprisonment under false allegations, lies or trickery by the staff of the State.
            47.  Any reasonable person knew or should have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
            48.  The actions, deception and enslavement as well as the use of force by Defendant Lenhardt, as described herein, were also malicious and/or involved reckless, callous, and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's federally protected rights. The force and failure to protect the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and the use of unlawful excessive force, assault, battery, sexual misconduct and rape by the Defendant violated the Forth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiff. Defendant Lenhardt used deception and other trickery involving the sexual enslavement of the Plaintiff to falsely imprison Plaintiff and prolong his incarceration without justification and only to satisfy her sexual perversion.
            49.  The force used constituted excessive force, assault, battery, sexual misconduct and rape in that it could have caused and did cause serious injury to the Plaintiff.
            50.  None of the Defendants took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking excessive force, assault, battery, sexual misconduct and rape of Defendant Lenhardt or from the continuing excessive force, assault, battery, sexual misconduct and rape prolonging the Plaintiff’s imprisonment despite being in a position to do so. The Defendants are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force and other constitutional violations caused by each other Defendant.
            51.  Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's federally protected constitutional rights.
            52. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiff's rights, in full conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical and emotional injuries.
            53.  The actions of the Defendants, and each of them, in the context and
circumstances where the Plaintiff represented no threat of harm to himself, other patients or staff violates the contemporary standards of decency, and at no time was the Plaintiff’s imprisonment justified by his own conduct, but only due to the misconduct and violations of his rights by the Defendants.
            54.  The Defendants, and each of them, conducted a malicious and sadistic
use of force to cause harm to the Plaintiff by forcing him to submit to excessive force, assault, battery, sexual abuse and rape which constituted an unlawful bodily touching and stripping away his dignity and humanity by submitting to a female staff member under whom the Plaintiff’s freedom and wellbeing were solely and completely under her control.  Such actions violate contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident.  The Defendants used force in a willful, wanton and unnecessary fashion, as there was no need for sex at any time or under any circumstance nor was any force, assault, battery, sexual activity and/or rape appropriate for a trained, responsible staff member in the mental health profession.
            55.  The Defendants’ excessive force, assault, battery, sexual abuse and rape exceeded any reasonable use of force as no force was required whatsoever.  The use of force involving the sexual enslavement of the Plaintiff constitutes force, assault, battery, sexual activity and/or rape, seizure and imprisonment of the Plaintiff where such a use of force is so repugnant as to shock the conscience of mankind.
            56.  The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were the direct and
proximate causes behind Plaintiff's injuries.
            57.  The individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other.
            58.  The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
            59.  The individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct.
            60.  The Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting pursuant to municipal/county custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
            61.  As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional limit.
            62.  On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost abilities to recover and may further suffer physical and emotional pain from ongoing and continued loss of society through the prolonged false incarceration and other sexual abuses outlined herein.
            63.  Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law.
            64.  In addition to compensatory, economic and consequential damages, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –Direct Orders and Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices, Customs, Training, and Supervision in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments (against all Defendants)

            65.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
            66.  42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress . . .

67.   Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and Defendants
to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
68.   The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting
under the color of state law.
69.   Plaintiff had the following clearly established rights at the time of the
complained of conduct:
a.   the right to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force, unlawful search, seizure and imprisonment by State’s staff under the Forth and Fourteenth Amendments;

b.  the right to due process of law without interference with his liberty interests and constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;

            70.  Defendants Corcoran, Facility and State knew or should have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
            71.  The acts or omissions of these Defendants, as described herein, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.
            72.  Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct.
            73.  Defendants Corcoran, Facility and Defendant State were, at all times relevant, policymakers for the Defendant Facility, Defendant State and Defendant Facility, and in that capacity established policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices for the same and gave direct orders to violate the Plaintiff’s rights in this case.
            74.  These Defendants ordered and committed the actions, developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, which were direct and proximate causes behind the violations of Plaintiff's constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other claims, all of which resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various available alternatives.
            75.  Defendants Corcoran, Facility and State have ordered, created and tolerated an atmosphere of lawlessness, and have developed and maintained long-standing, institution-wide customs, punishment and enforcement related policies, procedures, customs, practices, and/or failed to properly train and/or supervise its staff in a manner amounting to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and of the public.
            76.  In light of the duties and responsibilities of those staff that participate in controlling the behavior of recipients of services and preparation of reports on alleged sexual misconduct, the need for specialized training and supervision is so obvious, and the inadequacy of training and/or supervision is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional and federal rights such as those described herein that the failure to provide such specialized training and supervision is deliberately indifferent to those rights.
            77.  The unlawful orders and deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by Defendants State, Facility and Corcoran resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various alternatives available to these Defendants and were direct and proximate causes in the constitutional and federal violation injuries complained of by Plaintiff.
            78.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
has suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, continues to suffer present adverse effects and deprivations of his rights, and reasonably fears that he will suffer the same adverse effects in the future, thereby entitling him to injunctive relief and orders of the Court prohibiting contact from the Defendants.
            79.  Plaintiff continues to suffer loss of opportunity and ability to recover and will further suffer physical and emotional pain from ongoing and continued loss of society from the prolonged incarceration and failure to report the misconduct or other false reports used to cover-up Defendants’ use of excessive force and unlawful sexual misconduct. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law.
80.   Plaintiff seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 to redress Defendants' above described ongoing deliberate indifference in policies, practices, habits, customs, usages, training and supervision with respect to the rights described herein, and with respect to the ongoing policy and/or practice of the State in failing to investigate or appropriately handle complaints of the same, which Defendants have no intention for voluntarily correcting despite obvious need and requests for such correction.


Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –Direct Orders, Deliberate Policies, Practices, Customs, Training , and Supervision effectively establishing a state system of slavery or involuntary servitude unrelated to any punishment for criminal conviction, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment (against Defendant State only)


            81.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

            82.  42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress . . .


            83.  Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and Defendants
to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
84.   The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting
under the color of state law.
85.   Plaintiff had the following clearly established rights at the time of the
complained of conduct:

a.  the right to treatment for his mental illness which is adequate and humane, and reasonably calculated to enable improvement of his mental condition so that he will not be a danger to himself or others and can regain his liberty and rejoin the community, or treatment that is reasonably calculated to prevent his further decline;


b.  the right to remain free from all purposely inflicted abuse, physical injury, sexual abuse, or mental injury as punishment for any crime of which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity;


c.  the right to be released from involuntary psychiatric commitment at a time no later than when he has recovered his sanity and is no longer mentally ill and dangerous.


            86.  Defendant State knew or should have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.

            87.  The acts or omissions of Defendant State, as described herein, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.

            88.  The Defendant ordered and committed the actions, developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, which were direct and proximate causes behind the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional, federal and statutory rights as set forth herein and in the other claims, all of which resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various available alternatives.

            89.  Defendant State has never defined, discovered or researched what type of treatment may be adequate, humane, and reasonably calculated to enable improvement of any mental condition so that an individual will not be a danger to himself or others and can rejoin the community, or what type of treatment might prevent anyone’s further deterioration.  Instead, the Defendant has abdicated all responsibility for such judgments or understandings in favor of orthodox medical authority.

            90.  Such medical establishment, talent or authority as the Defendant State has been able to impress or lure into an enterprise of “forensic mental health” was never scientifically competent to provide treatment reasonably calculate to improve or cure mental illness, or to resolve insanity, or to help persons such as the Plaintiff.

            91.  As a direct result of Defendant State’s refusal or neglect of its responsibility, and its abdication as identified herein, institutions such as Defendant Facility have never been honest hospitals employing doctors to help patients; instead they have become plantations employing overseers and perverts to control and exploit disabled people.  Illinois’ forensic mental health system is in fact slavery, in a very literal sense.

            92.  Plaintiff seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to abolish this slavery, pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment.





Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiff and against each of the Defendants and grant:
A.    compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limit;

B.    economic losses on all claims allowed by law;

C.    punitive damages on all claims allowed by law against individual Defendants and in an amount to be determined at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limit;

D.    attorneys' fees and the costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;

E.    pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate;

F.     Court ordered equitable and injunctive relief from any contact or communication from the Defendants including further sexual advances, assaults or other seductive sexual communication from the Defendants;

G.    Court ordered declaratory and injunctive relief such as may help to end psychiatric slavery, exploitation, and sexual abuse under the guise of mental health in Illinois; and

H.    any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other appropriate relief at law and equity.




Respectfully submitted,

   /s/ S. Randolph Kretchmar                        
S. Randolph Kretchmar
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff

Law Offices of Kretchmar and Cecala, PC.
1170 Michigan Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091

Psychiatria delenda est!