Thursday, August 27, 2026
I hope she is convicted
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Shake, Rattle & Roll (Unfit to Stand Trial at EMHC)
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
Hiroshima, Cannae and Troy
Thursday, August 6, 2026
Cannae and Hiroshima
Eighty-one years ago today on August 6, 1945, a nice man from Ohio named Paul Tibbets flew an airplane named after his mom to Japan to kill 70,000 people at 8:15 AM, with a single weapon named Little Boy.
An oddly comparable apocalypse had been perpetrated almost exactly 2,161 years earlier. On August 2, 216 BCE, 50-60 thousand Romans lay dead or dying in pools of their own blood, vomit and feces at Cannae. The Romans were killed in more intimate and terrible ways (limbs hacked off, faces, chests and abdomens punctured and mangled) over a more extended period of a few hours, rather than instantaneously vaporized like the citizens of Hiroshima.
These two horrible events, which if we would remember anniversaries should be observed together in the first week of every August, had similar impacts on the societies which lived through them.
Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial, by Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell (Harper Perennial, 1996), is a startling book. I offered it to my father-in-law, who had been a 19-year-old American soldier trained to pilot Higgins boats to the beaches for thirteen Pacific landings, and who would have been ordered to storm mainland Japan in a deadly first wave if Truman had decided not to use the atom bomb to end World War II. Hypothetically but for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bob might never have survived the war, my wife would never have been born, and my children and grandchildren would not exist. I'll never forget Bob's perspective on the Lifton book. He very rarely spoke about the war, but he said Lifton was right, Paul Tibbets never had to drop that bomb: the USA, Truman, et al., were probably guilty of a transcendently immoral act that just incidentally saved his own life.
At the same time, he said when societies fail to avert destructive wars, any and every terrible weapon simply will be deployed. No other morality exists. If Abraham Lincoln had been in possession of a nuke in 1863, he definitely would have used it against Richmond! Lincoln could only afford his wonderful "malice toward none and charity for all... to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who (had) borne the battle, and for his widow and for his orphan..." in 1865. That was after "every drop of blood drawn by the lash (was) paid by another drawn with the sword." That's the only way it ever works.
In The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic, by Robert L. O'Connell (Random House, 2011) a renowned military historian meticulously narrates one of the most famous battles in the history of Western civilization. My daughter was a classics major who wrote a fascinating thesis about Roman society, but coincidentally developed great admiration for Hannibal Barca during her studies. The Carthaginian commander was fatally wrong about the nature of Roman power, and his inability to separate the alliances ultimately brought the slaughter of his own people and such destruction of his once-great home city as can compare with the atomic obliterations in Japan many centuries later.
The impact of Cannae on the Roman psyche was analogous to the impact of Hiroshima in America. The handful of Roman survivors of the battle were shamed and banished to Sicily. Those disgraced remnants became a nucleus for a future army, but the spectre of Cannae haunted everyone. No matter how all-powerful Rome was later, she remained instinctively afraid, she always expected the empire's fall, and she always knew that it must deserve to fall. The Republic went into full panic after its catastrophic defeat in 216. The Senate appointed a dictator, began drafting young boys, criminals and slaves to fill the ranks of the legions for the existential crisis, and even banned public mourning for those 20% of military-age Roman men whose bodies were rotting in the southern Italian field.
Perhaps Rome only became a brutal empire as a reaction to its chronic nightmare of another Cannae. Maybe if not for that nightmare the Republic could have survived. Perhaps the USA was similarly harmed by the unspeakable flight of the Enola Gay.
It seems to be the same whether you are victor, vanquished, or both: when so much is destroyed and you were there, you think it must somehow have been at least partly your fault. It changes you toward a darker future.
That darker future often brings desperate solutions. E.g., "psychedelic assisted therapies" or psychiatry itself, little manipulations of the brain to "improve" human cognition, emotion and behavior which only cause more harm and make people crazier than ever.
We need to pay better attention, and solve this.
Sunday, July 19, 2026
Marshall Bell, Residential Services Supervisor
On April 29, 2025, a room camera recorded a patient being physically and mentally abused by a staff at Kiley Developmental Center (AKA, "Kiley Snake Pit") in Waukegan, IL, while another staff stood and watched. It was not subtle: the Illinois State Police (ISP) investigated the incident and recommended criminal prosecution of the staff. The Lake County State's Attorney exercised his discretion to not empower a grand jury or bring charges.
I have seen the room camera video. I may soon post it for the public on this blog. What it shows is a male staff hitting, insulting, and threatening a developmentally disabled patient who is attempting to retreat to his bed in his room. The staff assaulting the patient is identifiable as Marshall Bell. He is a "Residential Services Supervisor" who earned an annual salary of $65,000 in 2024, which was raised to $68,900 in 2025, when the Illinois State Police recommended his prosecution for beating up on the patient at Kiley Snake Pit. Bell never lost his job as would be expected. He was most recently paid on July 14, 2026, and his salary has evidently been raised again.
It might be interesting to try getting a straight answer from Marshall Bell's boss Takisha Hankerson, or from Takisha's boss Tonya Piephoff, or from Tonya's boss Dulce Quintero, or from Dulce's boss JB Pritzker, to this question: "Does Marshall Bell get a raise every year despite the fact that he terrorizes and beats up vulnerable patients, or because he's so good at beating up and terrorizing vulnerable patients?" Why is anyone like this still employed, and what the hell is the story at Kiley Snake Pit?
If the room camera video didn't tend to substantiate my allegations here, I would publicly retract them and sincerely apologize, on this blog, to everyone named here as well as to everyone who wants me to be more "civil" and professional as a lawyer. But the video substantiates the allegations, no matter the Lake County State's Attorney's priorities.
When Marshall Bell terrorizes the most vulnerable people among us and continues to get paid with our tax dollars, it occurs to me that criminal law won't solve every dispute. Sometimes people have to stand up to bullies and tell unpleasant truths. That's as important a part of the legal profession as civility.
So... stay tuned.
Sunday, June 14, 2026
SLOUCHING, part 15
The following is the only portion of my thesis from 28 years ago which I apparently never published on this blog. I was recently reminded of this Appendix 3 while talking about how Adelle Davis' various best-selling books were all mentioned in the substantial June 1, 1974 New York Times obituary, except one. Her book about LSD, authored under the pseudonym "Jane Dunlap," was evidently hidden. This obituary was what led me during my thesis research to Davis' son George Leisey, who well recalled being interviewed by the Times obit writer Wolfgang Saxon. Leisey told me that he certainly had spoken about the LSD book to Saxon, and he never knew why an important part of his mother's life had gone unmentioned. This may be over-obvious now.
The text below completes the serialization (on this blog) of my 1998 Northwestern University history thesis. With psychedelic drugs all the rage in psychiatry more than half a century after Adelle Davis' death, some lessons from the 1950s and 60s may be urgently worth learning. (Refer to SLOUCHING, parts 1-14 published on this blog between October 2018 and May 2019.) My sense is that many details of that earlier story will repeat themselves all too precisely, and what's currently called a "psychedelic renaissance" won't even be close to a good thing in the final view of history.
Understanding what happened in the USA, specifically with LSD between 1945 and 1975, is a critical errand in our new age of rage and confusion. We cannot make social policy or medical science by blind reaction to developing events, such as orthodox psychiatry's abject failure to ameliorate mental/emotional/behavioral difficulties with what they have laughingly called "medicine".
The single, fundamental concept that psychedelic drugs insistently present as the basis for social improvement is a simple two-word phrase: NO CONTROL! This also means no responsibility and no understanding. It turns the human species into a herd of animals who do not think, but only stampede randomly. "Social improvement" and "spiritual enlightenment" combine into a very dark guise for nihilism and anarchy, the actual goals of psychiatry. The hour of Yeats' rough beast has perhaps come round at last.
________________________________________________
Adelle Davis, Best-Selling Author, Nutritionist, Dies
PALOS VERDES ESTATES, Calif., May 31 (UPI)—Adelle Davis, one of the nation's best known authorities on nutrition, who contended that almost any disease could be prevented by proper diet, died at her home today of bone cancer. She was 70 years old.
Miss Davis had written four widely read books and made countless lecture and television appearances with the message, “You are what you eat.”
She had been undergoing chemotherapy treatments and recently returned from a hospital to her home in this Los Angeles suburb.
She is survived by her husband, Frank Sieglinger, a, lawyer; a son, George Leisey, and a daughter, Mrs. Barbara Frodahl.
A funeral service is to be held Monday.
An Outspoken Believer
By WOLFGANG SAXON
The guru of lay nutritionists, Adelle Davis was a strong and outspoken believer in a healthful diet as the key to well‐being, and she propounded her message in books that sold in the millions and as a television talk‐show guest who would mince no words.
When informed last year that she was suffering from cancer of the bone marrow, Miss Davis later recalled, her reaction was one of shock and disbelief. “I thought this was for people who drink soft drinks, who eat white bread, who eat refined sugar and so on,” she told an interviewer.
Miss Davis said her first thought was, “I have been a failure.” But in reviewing her life, she concluded that while she had eaten well on the Indiana farm on which she grew up, she changed her diet for the worse when she went away to college and ate what she called “junk food” until the nineteenfifties.
Until recently the picture of health, with glowing skin, Miss Davis castigated Americans for paying a lot of money for food that, she said, couldn't be unhealthier if it had been designed that way. “A woman wants to murder her husband can do it thoroughly in the kitchen,” she once said in the blunt way of speaking that was one of her trademarks. “There won't even be an inquest.”
She bristled at the very thought of “enriched” white bread and packaged mixes, and advocated whole‐grain bread, milk, fresh fruit and vegetables, an egg or two and some cheese every day and liver and fish several times a week.
On the question of cholesterol, she told an interviewer once, “We need choesterol in the body.”
Advocate of Vitamins
Miss Davis was among the country's most vocal proponents of vitamins to supplement a good diet, and she swallowed dozens of vitamin pills daily. She also carried her own brewer's yeast wherever her lectures or television appearances would take her, and at home in California she played tennis five times a week until recently.
Miss Davis's books—“Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit,” “Let's Cook It Right,” Let's Get Well” and “Let's Have Healthy Children”—were entitled as positively as she sounded in person.
They also sold more than two and a half million copies in hard covers and about seven, million in paperback.
University based nutritionists often tended to agree with what she said about bad dietary habits and the poor nutrition of Americans, regardless of income. But they objected that she derived her conclusions mainly from anecdotal evidence or from an unscientific approach to the subject.
Thus, they would seize upon her suggestion that Germany conquered France in World War II because German black bread and beer were nutritionally superior to French white bread and wine, her warning that Russians eat much less of what she said were illness‐breeding refined foods than do Americans, or her statement that there was no crime where there was good diet, while, she noted, the murderous Manson clan of Southern California had subsisted mainly on candy bars.
Yet Miss Davis did have an academic and practical background in her field. After leaving her native farm in Union Township, Indiana, where she was born the last of five girls, she attended Purdue University, the University of Wisconsin and the University of California at Berkeley, where shse majored in dietetics. Fellow students at Purdue called her “Vitamin Davis” in 1924 because she talked about vitamins incessantly as she pursued the search for information on nutrition.
Dietitian at Bellevue
She went to work as a dietitian at Bellevue Hospital in New York, supervised nutrition in the Yonkers public schools and, in 1931, became a consulting nutritionist for three New York obstetricians. During that period, she also wrote two small books and a textbook.
Later in the thirties, she moved to California, married—and was subsequently divorced —and earned a master's degree in biochemistry at the University of Southern California. Again she worked as a consultant nutritionist, for California clinics, and planned thousands of individual diets for people suffering from a great variety of illnesses or malfunctions.
Miss Davis was one crusader and mother who was hardly surprised when consumerism and the demand for organic food came to the fore in recent years, with millions of Americans who began to take the warnings of nutritionists more seriously.
Yet she witnessed the sudden proliferation of “health food” stores with a wary eye. “It's tragic the junk a lot of them sell, the misstatements they make,” she said recently. She also observed that cancer, in her opinion, was related to the inadequacies of the American diet, and voiced the hope that her illness would not dishearten people who had held her nutritional advice in high regard.
Miss Davis, who with her second husband grew vegetables and fruit in their garden, recommended a minimum daily vitamin supplement that might include vitamin C, at least 100 units of vitamin E and one or two fish‐liver oil tablets, the source of both vitamins A and D.
“And if you want to feel twice as good, brewer's yeast,” she would remark.
Friday, June 5, 2026
Psychiatry, psychedelic drugs and democracy
Sunday, May 31, 2026
NY Times on "fears among psychiatrists"
Tuesday, May 5, 2026
Indira Vazzalwar, M.D. (overseer)
Saturday, April 25, 2026
Pritzker, Trump, and National Health Security
Monday, April 20, 2026
Trump's order on psychedelics
Friday, April 17, 2026
Hermann Göring and JB Pritzker
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Sometimes we have to spin the words a little
Friday, April 10, 2026
Caring nurses
I received a comment about a recent article, which I published on the blog. The person posting the comment is "Anonymous," but their identity is not hard to narrow down. Whoever it is seems quite bitter about the article, and calls me a snake and a little puppet without a single thought of my own. I don't know how I can be both... a "snake" is presumed to act intentionally in a deceitful, underhanded or backstabbing way; but a puppet without a single thought of its own would have no intention.
Other than this evident confusion, the comment is reasonably well written, which makes me think the person who posted it may be educated, perhaps a professional of some sort (like maybe a nurse). The commenter seems to accuse me of slandering either him/herself or some other person he/she is defending as a "caring nurse" from whom I may someday need help.
If various pictures I have recently posted (e.g., here, here, here) show what is meant by "help" then I definitely don't want it, for myself or for any other human being!
Since this commenter said he/she would pray for me (the promised "prayer" sure reads like a covert curse, but never mind), I'll offer a couple bits of biblical perspective on whatever help I may someday need:
Give us help from trouble, for the help of man is useless. Psalm 60:11.
My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth. Psalm 121:2.
It's totally amazing to me that people who produce such terrible results while claiming to be in a "helping profession," and who say they only intend to "help" when they clearly harm others every day, can live with themselves at all, let alone presume to judge others' actions. I am happy when people sometimes say I have helped them, although I never promise to do so or claim that I have done so. Help is only in the eye of the receiver. Trying to authoritatively declare some medical or health care "specialty" of help is ridiculous and insulting to human dignity. Believing that help can be forced on a person is the root of most evil.
This is potentially a conversation that I would love to have with the person who posted the comment about my article mentioning Nurse Cecily and Nurse Anita, and others at Kiley snake pit. I might find out I am misestimating them, and I might apologize and retract things I have written. Help is always negotiated.
But people with guilty consciences have to remain anonymous.
Thursday, April 9, 2026
Suborning perjury, conspiracy, obstruction, at Elgin Mental Health Center & throughout IDHS
Dr. Vikramjit Gill, N Unit staff, and all IDHS mental health clinical employees: you need to take careful note of federal and state criminal law.
18 U.S.C. 79, Section 1621, Perjury generally, states:
Whoever--(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under SECTION 1746 OF TITLE 28, United States Code, willfullly subscrices as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is apllicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
And Section 1622, Subornation of perjury, further states:
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more that five years, or both.
Section 1623, False declarations before grand jury or court, also states:
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under SECTION 1746 OF TITLE 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or, if such proceedings are before or ancillary to the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review established by Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803), imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessrily false, need not specify which declaration is false if--(1) each declaration is material to the point in question, and (2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section. In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to ant court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each delaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.
In light of the foregoing federal criminal statute, here's a serious question based on two decades of my own experience in state-operated mental health and developmental disabilities facilities:
Could a psychiatrist or other clinician be prosecuted for subornation of perjury when he tells a court or leads a court to believe that a patient is willingly taking psychotropic medication, when he has also told that patient to merely say he will take it to obtain release or placement in a community facility, while knowing that the patient intends to stop taking the medication, or encouraging the patient to believe he may stop taking it, as soon as the court has ordered his release?
In Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/31-4, Obstructing justice, states:
(a) A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(1) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information...
In Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/8-2, Conspiracy, states:
(a) Elements of the offense. A person commits the offense of conspiracy when, with intent that an offense be committed, he or she agrees with another to the commission of that offense. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of that agreement is alleged and proved to have been committed by him or her or by a co-conspirator.
(b) Co-conspirators. It is not a defense to conspiracy that the person or persons with whom the accused is alleged to have conspired: (1) have not been prosecuted or convicted, (2) have been convicted of a different offense, (3) are not amenable to justice, (4) have been acquitted, or (5) lacked the capacity to commit an offense.
In light of these Illinois statutes, here's a second serious question based on two decades of my own experience in state-operated mental health and developmental disabilities facilities:
Could clinical and administrative staff be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and conspiracy to suborn perjury, if they follow a common institutional practice or procedure of telling or inducing a patient to lie about his willingness to take psychotropic medication merely to obtain placement by a court in a community residential facility, while knowing that the patient intends to stop taking the medication as soon as possible?
I believe such criminal prosecutions are viable. In fact, I intend to do my best to convince State's Attorneys and Justice Department officials to investigate these crimes and indict people for them. I know at least one "patient" at EMHC who was recently, explicitly, told by his psychiatrist to just pretend he will take Abilify for long enough to get accepted for a placement and enable conditional release; then he can refuse the drug or stop taking it once he's out of EMHC. In fact, the same psychiatrist has occasionally joked with me about his supervisors and superiors committing this kind of obstruction of justice by prescribing psychotropic drugs off-label or in subclinical dosages for patients who only present symptoms which the "doctors" admit will not be effectively treated by the "medication" (eg, personality disorders).
I told a patient today, and I have told many clients for decades: DON'T conspire in perjury or obstruction! Be honest about the meds. If meds help you, fine, I have no necessary problem with that.
But DON'T LIE! Let the slave masters and the overseers do the lying, they surely will. They will also try to make their "patients" lie. But by whatever steadfast recalcitrance or cunning contrivance, resist invitations to such conspiracy.
Psychiatrists have no valid diagnoses or successful treatments. They MUST lie just to keep their jobs.
Psychiatria delenda est!
