The shrinks got too litigious, and "mental health" is practiced as a branch of "law" alongside "intellectual property" and other matters that are either "imaginary" or "all in your head" ...
There are laws against "simulating legal process" over such imaginary matters etc. <https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-11/chapter-56/article-4/section-11-56-620/> but such laws are never enforced, because even without a Constitution the law itself can't be illegal in a court of law, and even if it were, the attorneys can't prosecute themselves or else they'd put themselves out of business for their own practices. The "law" itself by definition being whatever "lawyers" keep themselves in business practicing and billing for. Unless you think you can be successful in court as yet another crackpot mentally ill "pro se" petitioner with a flat tire or another speeding ticket or traffic violation on the way to court you must answer, with paying off all your parking tickets and getting your vehicle released from city hall impound after court, but your own petitions are just going to be professionally dismissed for failure to appear at any one of those numerous perfunctory court hearings for filing a suit. Cops have grappling hooks and shoot-out axle nets to physically disable and stop your vehicle on the road now. That's why the real pro lawyers always hail a cab or take Uber or Lyft to court because you can't even consider driving or parking your own vehicle in a hostile red-light district. On March 28, 2025 2:48:29 AM PDT, [email protected] wrote: >On 2025-03-28 07:01, justina colmena ~biz wrote: >> On Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:51:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time izzy Meyer >> wrote: >>> Curious why you chose to invalidate this person's experience that they >>> made themselves vulnerable about. Sure- you have your views on things, >>> and that's totally cool. But maybe try being a bit more forgiving of >>> someone who, again, made themselves vulnerable next time? >> People serve process with mental health allegations that sticks worse than a >> felony record in court for the rest of a person's life, and they want others >> to be forgiving of them? >> >Oh ! I think I get you. I had the impression that you were sympathetic to >antipsychiatry, especially given the related posts on your blog. I'm still >not very sure but ... I've never been charged for anything criminal or against >the law, you're making quite a broad generalization here. >When talking about mental illness and the aforementioned soothing I get from >obsd and suckless, I was alluding to the relative cognitive overload >undeliberately enforced by other projects which seems mostly absent from these >two – as hinted at in the title of my page UNIX.html @saboua.xyz > >> Mental health services, like those of astrologers or magicians, psychics, >> tarot card readers, palmists, have gained far too much of a sheen of >> legitimacy (or color of law, as it were) in court for service of process and >> summons to appear -- Say does a person really have an organic "mental >> illness" >> of known etiology? Or is it simply a case of simulated legal process with a >> catch-all diagnosis to make a person appear "formally mad" in a court of law >> for some other legal summons? >> >That's right. A lot of diagnoses are abusive, esp. when considering the >prevalent >traumatic liminal state that pervades among our relatives within society. But >as >for me I attribute this to Big Pharma's lucrative motive, not legal summons >which >I've seen cases of while at the ward. > >> Absolutely no morality is inherent in the "law" just because it's the law. >Precisely. Legal is not necessarily moral. > >Sylvain Saboua
