Psychological Torture in the American Legal System.

November 19, 2009 at 2:14 P.M. I experienced great difficulty reaching these blogs today. Many "unusual" phone calls were received this morning. Several writings were defaced overnight. I have struggled to correct them today. This harassment is part of the continuing effort at censorship and suppression of speech from New Jersey's corrupt government, in my opinion. More such crimes must be expected. The true number of hits at these blogs is probably between 50,000 and 100,000. This is an estimate on my part based on the projected number of hits before the measure of hits at these blogs was disabled, very likely by New Jersey's hackers or Cubanazos acting for Senator Bob. ("How Censorship Works in America.")

April 26, 2010 at 10:45 A.M. At this time, the number of hits is counted irregularly and unevenly. No one can say how many hits are received at these blogs, every day. I have no idea whether my books still exist or how many hits they have received at lulu. ("Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")

When it comes to the mentally ill too many U.S. judges -- especially in jurisdictions like New Jersey that are riddled with corruption -- tend to throw these afflicted persons into prisons and jails, which have become warehouses for the mentally ill, in an effort to "teach them a lesson." But the severely mentally ill cannot be taught a lesson because they do not understand why they are being hurt or punished, nor can they alter their conduct to conform to rules and requirements that they do not -- and can not -- understand. "Justice for the Mentally Disabled," (Editorial) in The New York Times, October 21, 2009, at p. A30. (Integration of mentally ill persons in safe and healthy group homes in New York is long overdue.)

Mentally ill offenders are often trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare of "heads you win, tails I lose" jurisprudence. To deny their responsibility results in the imposition of even more severe penalties against them, but to admit their responsibilities precludes any excuses being raised by them to mitigate the penalty to be imposed upon them. See Ned Martel, "An Image of Prisons as a Warehouse for the Mentally Ill," in The New York Times, May 10, 2005, at p. E8; and the PBS "Frontline" documentary entitled: "The New Asylums."

Crucial information has now emerged pertaining to these issues: Jane Mayer, "The Secret History: Leon Panetta's C.I.A. Challenge," in The New Yorker, June 22, 2009, at p. 50, pp. 58-59. (American Psychological Association, Joseph Matarazzo, Kirk Hubbard of the C.I.A., and others in the so-called "therapeutic" community's participation in creating and applying psychological torture methods tested, allegedly, on mentally ill persons who were unaware of being used for such purposes.)

For recent continued perpetuation of cruelties against the mentally ill, including children, see Solomon Moore, "Mentally Ill Offenders Stretch the Limits of Juvenile Justice," in The New York Times, August 10, 2009, at p. A1. Children with emotional troubles -- who are usually victims of horrible trauma -- are kept in cages in violent environments. They are haphazardly medicated and, often, RAPED. These actions are taken in your name, if you are an American. Persons indulging in such tactics to deal with juvenile offenders disapprove of my "ethics." I find the word "ethics" on the lips of judges I know in New Jersey to be a horrible and infuriating lie. For one account of the dangers faced by disturbed young people in America, see Ian Urbina, "Recession Drives Surge in Youth Runaways," in The New York Times, October 26, 2009, at p. A1 and Ian Urbina, "For Runaways on the Street, Sex Buys Survival," in The New York Times, October 27, 2009, at p. A1.

The assumption by many of the people appointed as judges -- especially in enclaves of organized crime and corruption, as I say, like New Jersey -- is that claims of mental illness are usually mere "malingering" or that the mentally ill are somehow contagious so that they should be confined forever and kept apart from the rest of society. See Laura Masnerus, "Questions Rise Over Imprisoning Sex Offenders Past Their Terms: Unfinished Sentences -- Keeping Prisoners as Patients," The New York Times, November 17, 2003, at pp. A1, B8 (referring to the New Jersey legal system); and on judicial corruption generally, see "The Best Judges Money Can Buy," at: http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/finestjudges_03a.htm and "A Tale of Two States," http://politics.fandm.edu/040830_taleof.html

There is widespread contamination by organized crime and corruption of the legal systems of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. New Jersey is now the most corrupt and inept jurisdiction in the nation. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.") If you are a New Jersey lawyer or judge -- whether you participate in these atrocities against me or refuse to do so -- these facts and the continuing reality of political corruption in New Jersey should sicken and shame you. ("Driving While Black [DWB] in New Jersey" and "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey.")

Recently, federal appellate courts took the unusual step of criticizing, explicitly, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division as providing incompetent review in appellate cases while reversing the conviction of a man who served 22 years in prison for an offense that he probably did not commit. Incompetence in New Jersey's appellate judiciary is only surpassed by unmatched levels of corruption and mafia involvement on the part of politically-appointed municipal judges and prosecutors. New Jersey's courts will stonewall, refuse to apologize to this victim, harass, obstruct and try to further harm this man, economically and professionally, in order to avoid admitting what is obvious to the world. New Jersey's judiciary is an adjunct to the mafia:

"The decision written by Judge Theodore A. McKee, criticized the New Jersey appellate courts and found that the evidence was so lacking that 'no reasonable juror' could have found Mr. Kamienski guilty." David Kocieniewski, "After 22 Years in Prison, Man Convicted of Role in 2 Murders is Freed," in The New York Times, June 17, 2009, at p. A24. This is only one of many instances of gross failure by New Jersey's tainted judiciary, followed by cover-ups and disgraceful attempts to find "ass-cover." For comparison, see again, "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey" and "America's Holocaust."

Mentally ill offenders cannot be deterred for the excellent reason that they have no control over their actions and are not even aware of them in many cases. They are not utilitarian calculators engaged in rational decision-making procedures. It is not a good idea to criminalize mental illness. Persons who "act out" because of delusions or neurological impairment should not be punished for it, since they may have no control over their behavior. Any N.J. attorney witnessing the deliberate torture of offenders or mentally ill persons -- even the innocent -- and voicing a protest will be called "unethical" and may be sanctioned or disbarred. I think that they should be disbarred for failing to protest tortures and thefts by colleagues, including colleagues who happen to be politicians or judges:

"One mournful mental-health prison consultant, Fred Cohen, seems as if he's about to suppress his millionth sigh as he describes a penitentiary's in-house tribunal. This panel of guards hands down increased sentences for behavior that is against prison rules but in keeping with an illness's symptoms: cursing, spitting, refusing to give back a food tray."

The New York Times, May 10, 2005, at p. E8. ("A Killing in New Jersey's House of Healing.")

To criminalize mental illness (as a status) along with its symptoms (judged as behavior) is roughly equivalent to criminalizing diabetes or tuberculosis, or punishing persons with epilepsy for the gestures that they make during a seizure. I am not suffering from any of those illnesses, fortunately. However, I can sympathize with those who are afflicted in such ways. Despite case law suggesting that such a thing should not happen, it is happening. Although this clearly violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment," judges do not wish to be seen as soft on crime. Hence, mere technicalities -- like the Constitution -- must not be allowed to get in the way of their need to "protect the public" and, more importantly, to keep their jobs. There is, almost always, a sexual component to hideous cruelties imposed on the most powerless members of society. One glimpse at the secret smile on the lips of judges torturing victims with threats and humiliations will last a lifetime. How are things in Clifton's Municipal Court?

This is further evidence of barbarism in a U.S. -- and, especially, in New Jersey's -- legal system which is deeply flawed in many of its dealings with the poor, mentally ill, and minority group members, as well as other courthouse "customers." Many nations have adopted highly humane legislation governing the mentally ill and have abolished the death penalty long ago. Barbarism in the legal treatment of the mentally ill in the U.S. is a betrayal of the American Constitutional tradition, which I admire and celebrate. The problem is not so much in legislation, as in the failure to live up to the best understanding of the highest law in the land or to apply those laws consistently. For many Right-wing Cubans in New Jersey the mentally ill are a burden on society that should be "removed." ("Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?" and "44 Persons Arrested in Latest Corruption Sweep in New Jersey.")

It should be understood that persons who are severely mentally ill do not belong in the criminal justice system. They should be in genuine hospital settings, as opposed to institutions calling themselves "hospitals," which are more like state subsidized chambers of horrors (like the very worst prisons and jails), where patients are beaten, raped, abused and/or made unwilling subjects of medical experimentation, even as they are transformed into lucrative sources of public funds for unscrupulous "doctors," like New Jersey's Terry A. Tuchin. Did you lie about your medical credentials, Terry Tuchin? Little has changed since Geraldo Rivera's investigative documentary of mental institutions, which was more than twenty years ago. (Again: "A Killing in New Jersey's House of Healing.")

Due process and human rights concerns dictate not only a humane treatment setting, but limited terms for patients -- comparable to the sentences received by those found guilty of their underlying offenses in the criminal justice system -- since patients should not be deprived of liberty, indefinitely, on the basis of therapists' whims, often informed by no more than a glance at a patient's file and likely means of payment. The New York Times, November 17, 2003, at p. B8.
To respond to public concerns regarding "dangerousness" (who is not "potentially" dangerous?), there ought to be supervised and monitored release into the community -- with continued therapy -- for those who reach the end of their terms, subject to periodic review. This will ensure public safety, while allowing psychiatrists and lawyers to continue to "milk the cow" of public funds, thus providing no cause for them to oppose humane reforms on the grounds that such reforms might, heaven forbid, limit their incomes.

Another bizarre and popular abuse by psychotherapists and their co-conspirators has to do with the manipulation of the "forensic psychiatry" evaluative systems of the various states. Forensic psychiatry "treats of the psychology of the law, of courts and legal procedures, particularly of the nature of evidence and its reliability." J. P. Chaplin, Ph.D., ed., Dictionary of Psychology (New York: Dell, 1985), p. 183.

Therapists are "appointed" (which is usually a payback for contributions made earlier to the same politicians and/or judges who appoint them) at public expense, to perform so-called "routine" evaluations of persons who have been indicted. This allows therapists to "interview" (anonymously) individuals "under hypnosis," only for the limited purpose (allegedly) of learning facts necessary to render a professional opinion concerning competence, dangerousness, or mental status and only after defense counsel is afforded an opportunity to be present. The reality is very different.

Many forensic psychiatrists have established sweetheart deals with prosecutors and courts by (secretly) extracting information during sessions -- something which is unknown to victims -- information that may be turned over to the authorities and used against victims. These so-called "whores of the court" have even become instruments of investigative efforts against the interests of those whom they claim to serve and others. Almost always such despicable "professionals" share their loot with judges and prosecutors by means of under the table payments in cash. (Terry Tuchin? Diana Lisa Riccioli?)

Did Ms. Riccioli represent herself as a physician or therapist? Was Diana's effort at such fraudulent misrepresentation of her credentials facilitated by "relationships" with prominent members of the judiciary, such as Ms. Poritz? Did Diana make money through such misrepresentations? Do you wish to speak of "lying"? Why the cover-up at this point in time, Mr. Rabner? Ms. Milgram, are you trying to protect Ms. Poritz or any other members of New Jersey's lesbian legal establishment? Time to insert another "error" in this essay? The "lesbian love-fest" is no excuse, Anne. ("Another Mafia Sweep in New Jersey and Anne Milgram is Clueless" and "Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love Fest!")

Efforts to aid the memory of witnesses under hypnosis should not be confused with the heinous and despicable practice of questioning a person under hypnosis, with the aid of drugs, about matters that may well expose that person or others to civil or criminal liability, with a complete disregard for the victim's rights to counsel, to remain silent, and not to be questioned at all under impairment. (You getting this Terry and Diana? John? OAE?)

The absurd claim that no information extracted in this manner will be used against a person is belied by the tendency of law enforcement to obtain confirmation of items from other sources that will allow them to use the information while lying about how and where they got it, or from whence came their knowledge of "sources." Many African-American victims of such tortures are sitting in prisons or have been permanently harmed by such monstrocities. Assatta Shakur, for example, was tortured in New Jersey with the eager assistance of law enforcement officials and medical personnel. Theft of money or jewelry from an impaired, drugged or hypnotized victim is always welcome to these so-called "therapists." How's the watch, Alex Booth, Esq.? "I'll watch your back," right? "Put away the lawyer, Juan." "I'll represent you," remember Alex Booth? I do.

Abuse by so-called "therapists" -- while victims are under hypnosis -- is on a par with the tortures at Abu Ghraib, sometimes resulting in physical assault, battery, or even rape, as therapists become accustomed to wielding power over helpless people by assisting in violating victims' Constitutional rights. Complicity by state courts in covering up such atrocities make them worse. See "The Legal Prohibition Against Torture," http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm ("Crimes Against Humanity in New Jersey" and "What is it like to be tortured?")

How can you wear judicial robes in New Jersey, for example, and cover-up such atrocities? Each day that the cover-up continues, Mr. Rabner, is a renewal of years of torture for many victims. How much cash do you need, Stuart? Secrecy in such proceedings and suppression of records of such interrogations make them anathema under both the U.S. Constitution as well as international ethical and legal precepts. Victims are unlikely to be in a position to identify the criminal "therapist" who commits such crimes because hypnosis affects the perceptual capacities of persons. Besides, such therapists-for-hire are reluctant to identify themselves anyway, taking every precaution to avoid doing so and covering up what they do. Still "on the tit," Terry Tuchin? How does a Jew become Mengele?

The authorities may decide to film the proceedings for their own amusement or for their purposes of "instruction," without the victim's consent, and may even profit -- financially or otherwise -- from that filming. None of this will be disclosed to a victim, who will be denied (illegally) his or her own records, or any and all reports bearing on such "incidents" together with autonomy rights. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")

James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, "Existence of E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress," in The New York Times, June 17, 2009, at p. A1: "The agency's [NSA, like N.J.'s A.G.,] monitoring of domestic e-mail messages, in particular, has posed longstanding legal and logistical difficulties, the officials said." This is worse than anything done to Google in China. Americans are monitored when using the Internet. Records are kept of all persons seen by "therapists," persons who may be questioned or worse (secretly). Purchasing habits for many persons are monitored, secretly. All substantial bank transactions are detected by government computers. Credit card purchases of books and films can be "followed electronically" when it comes to secretly targeted individuals, including those who have committed no crimes. Judges and politicians will lie or stonewall in response to challenges to these atrocities. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")

In the aftermath of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, it has become clear that such totalitarian tactics are used within the United States against individuals in the legal system, individuals who will not be in a position to do anything about torture -- despite the obvious unconstitutionality of all such proceedings -- due to lack of resources and influence. Victims are usually poor and members of minority groups. Tuchin's alleged victims, I am sure, will be primarily members of minority groups. Assata Shakur, "Prisoner in the United States," in Still Black, Still Strong: Survivors of the War Against Black Revolutionaries (New York & Paris: Columbia-Semiotexte, 1993), pp. 205-220. ("They just fabricated things and fed them to the press. ...")

I am sure that false allegations about me were fabricated and fed to friends and relatives in order to discredit these comments and enlist their cooperation in illegal spying efforts. These tactics are not unusual for New Jersey's mafia-affiliated government officials, often these individuals are in the pay of the Garden State's many child pornographers. Perhaps this explains the common reference in the state's legal profession to the OAE as "walking turds." Still like the "young" ladies, Ms. Poritz? Diana? ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

Persons are routinely tortured -- sometimes, allegedly, at the secret request of public agencies and courts (presumably), or other powerful groups -- in the most corrupt places, like New Jersey. These institutions and factions will then deny that such state crimes occur, or claim no knowledge of it when it becomes clear that they have occurred, while hiding all records and videotapes from victims. Politically-connected psychiatrists and other "therapists" question people under hypnosis, which means that victims are both more vulnerable and much more highly suggestible than in an unimpaired state. Among the victims are persons who have not been indicted (something which should never happen), without even a lawyer being present to represent them in that impaired state, so as to gather information from them, secretly and illegally, by betraying the trust arising from the false therapeutic setting. Hypnosis against a person's will is an irreparable injury and violation, a kind of rape, from which recovery is difficult. Yes, such hypnosis is possible and not unusual in New Jersey's legal system.

This technique amounts to therapists defecating on the therapeutic role (Terry and Diana) and on the humanity of their victims. It is no longer clear what credentials, if any, are possessed by these monsters, Tuchin and Riccioli. True unethical conduct on the part of persons trained in law is for lawyers to sit, passively, being aware of -- or witnessing -- such crimes committed against a person, while failing to take any action to halt the abuse. Perhaps posing for a portrait instead. The deepest betrayal of the very notion of legality (or ethics) consists in pretending that such horrors have not occurred, even if one knows better, while judging the "ethics" of others. See generally, Sanford Levinson, "Cruel but No Longer Unusual," Los Angeles Times, Book Review, November 23, 2004, http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2004/112304_levinson.html and Bob Ingle & Sandy McClure, The Soprano State: New Jersey's Culture of Corruption (New York: St. Martin's, 2008).

Do you presume to judge my ethics in New Jersey's corridors of power? How do you live with yourself, Ms. Poritz? Was a sexual relationship worth the betrayal of your oath as a judge, Ms. Poritz? Or was it all about cold, hard, cash? ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Information procured in this manner is turned over to the authorities -- who sometimes even show up (that is you, John) so as to be part of the fun -- and who will seek to impose civil or criminal liability on that same tortured individual on the basis of this ill-gotten information, provided that it is corroborated by other sources, so they do not have to reveal where they got it in the first place. It is no justification of such crimes to say: "It might have been for your own good." The goal for government lawyers is to provide "ass cover" for protected state criminals. ("Why U.S. Courts Must Not Condone Torture.")

Stealing from impaired persons' family members or sexual violations provide further amusement for forensic psychiatric professionals along with their "assistants." Ironically, it is persons who participate in such governmental criminal conspiracies who speak of the need to "get tough on crime." ("Senator Bob Loves Xanadu!" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")

"Therapists" refuse to identify themselves to their victims. The impaired victim cannot even hold "therapists" accountable for their actions or incompetence; they violate the subject's rights to privacy and autonomy; disregard their obligations to protect the person's confidentiality, or even dignity in the impaired condition; sometimes extending their "evaluations" over a period of years in an effort to wear the "two hats" of therapist and evaluator -- really human rights violator -- thereby doubling their income from the public treasury while disregarding all conflicts of interest. By far the most loathsome persons that I have encountered in courthouses are these alleged "therapists" for hire who are often known, as I have indicated, as "whores of the court." (Diana?) What kind of scams did you come up with to get money from insurance companies, Terry? Did you have to kick back to Stuart Rabner or Debbie Poritz? How much did you steal from me, Terry? How much did you steal from Marilyn, Diana? How many others have you raped and stolen from in New Jersey? How many of those victims are minority group members? Now I understand Twana Brawley's experiences.

Rationalizations alleging that medical ethics do not apply to forensic psychiatrists performing State requested "evaluations" (for twenty years?), rather than providing individual therapy, have not withstood criticism and are violative of international medical norms. A psychiatrist should always be a physician first and foremost. At the moment when such a professional abdicates the duty of medical care in order to gather evidence or to serve other interests of the State or a private client, other than the patient, he or she becomes something different from a physician or therapist, a torturer in fact. (You getting this, Terry?) There is no "therapeutic theft or rape" by forensic psychiatrists that is hunky-dory, legally, not even in New Jersey. There is no involuntary and secret imposition of hypnosis or drugging that is properly called "therapy." This is how a Jew becomes Mengele.

The use of training in psychology or psychiatry to hurt rather than help persons -- anything done secretly or without the knowing and unimpaired consent of a person is hurtful -- is always unethical, sometimes criminal. It makes a "therapist" a criminal. Psychology and psychiatry are not "weapons." Medical training is not to be used to damage people for life, severely and irreparably. A human being is never reducible to mere "behavior." A person's behavior is incomprehensible, in fact, without taking account of the meaning of that behavior for the person engaging in it. This meaning can only be conveyed freely by an unimpaired person who wishes to do so, not by torturers seeking to extract the meaning of actions from victims.

Do you speak to me of "ethics," Mr. Rabner? How does a Jew become Mengele, again? How does a Jew become Eichman? For whom do you think that these tactics and methods of psychological torture are being developed? Why do you think Al Qaeda and others are interested in these psychological tortures? Who do you think will be the ultimate victims of these methods? Many of the first efforts to develop such techniques of psychological torture originated with Nazi physicians and intelligence officers, some of whom made their way to America and the "U.S. intelligence services." Tragically, among these early Nazis were self-hating Jews. ("American Tortured on Video by Taliban.")

A pure external perspective on action ("Did the person do something which is not allowed?") obliterates the chance of making any kind of intelligent legal or moral assessment of that action or of the agent. Besides, the evaluative or prosecutorial function immediately destroys any therapeutic connection, turning that connection into a form of betrayal of the subject and of the therapist's oath, as well as undermining the Constitution's guarantee of civil rights. On the epidemic of mental health professionals' complicity in torture on behalf of the State, see http://www.fortda.org/Spring_99/Ethics.html

Bringing about the condition or events used to justify psychological torture makes things worse. Indifference to the torments inflicted on helpless subjects by psychologists and psychiatrists is complicity in what remains a "crime against humanity" -- psychological torture. This is true regardless of the entities apathetic to such evil, including New Jersey's tainted courts or any other public officials. (See "Harold Pinter's Nobel Acceptance Speech in New Jersey.") See Robert Jay Lifton, "Doctors and Torture," The New England Journal of Medicine, July 29, 2004, http://www.content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/5/415 and Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: MacMillan, 2009), pp. 233-246.

All of these abuses and worse still take place secretly, I believe, behind the scenes in New Jersey, and clearly violate the ethics of forensic psychiatry, not to mention the Constitution of the United States. These abuses are convenient for those who want to "get something on somebody," and for public officials who decide to look the other way when it happens. It is the ultimate betrayal not only of individuals -- many of whom commit no crimes -- but also of our Constitutional tradition. See Robert M. Wettstein, M.D., "Ethics and Forensic Psychiatry," in Ethics Primer of the American Psychiatric Association, pp. 65-73 and SA Greenberg and DA Schuman, "Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles," in Professional Psychiatry: Research and Practice 28: pp. 50-57, (1997) and R. Rosner, Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry (New York: Chapman & Hall, 1994). (Even Judge Posner believes that human beings, or "legal objects," are entitled to some rights when subjected to so-called "psychiatric evaluation.")

Please compare my essays "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory" with "Richard A. Posner on Voluntary Actions and Criminal Responsibility."

Granting "therapists" this sort of secret power over others is dangerous. In no time at all they will take advantage of those placed under their "care." It was Stalin who pointed out, with a smile, that "psychiatrists [or anyone] given unlimited power over others will soon turn to exploitation and torture." He certainly must have known what he was talking about. For a particularly grisly account of such abuse, see Patrick McGrath's review of Andrew Scull's Madhouse: A Tale of Megalomania and Modern Medicine (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), in "Nonelective Surgery," in The New York Times, Book Review, Sunday, May 29, 2005, at p. 18 (concerning the history of the Trenton Mental Hospital); and compare Robert Jay Lifton, "The Nazi Doctors," in Donald L. Niewyk, ed., The Holocaust (New York & Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), p. 60.

Writing in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis reported that U.N. Human Rights Investigators have determined that American psychologists and psychiatrists are among those advising interrogators concerning the most effective techniques of psychological torture to extract information from "detainees," probably including the use of hypnosis. I can only hope that none of them now provide the same services, surreptitiously, for state governments or "others" within the U.S., or would lend themselves to "framing" someone who is too inconvenient to be permitted a forum from which to criticize exactly those so-called "therapeutic" practices. No wonder I face criminal censorship and suppressions of speech every day. The Philosophy Cafe? Lulu? Publish America? ("How Censorship Works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.") Do you wish to insert any more "errors" in this essay?

Even the threat of framing, physical harm or assassination will not deter the committed critic of such evil from speaking out against torture -- nor, eventually, from coming face-to-face with those who do such things and demanding justice. My next step is direct confrontation. Torturers should know that they cannot hide much longer from victims or from those who care about them. Their numbers are growing every day. Psychological torture is not acceptable anywhere. Torture is becoming increasingly common, along with the cover ups and hypocrisy that usually accompany such inhumanity:

"... former interrogators said the ... doctors' role was to advise them and their fellow interrogators on ways of increasing psychological duress on detainees, sometimes by exploiting their fears, in the hopes of making them more cooperative and willing to provide information. In one example, interrogators were told that a detainee's medical files showed he had a severe phobia of the dark and suggested ways in which that could be manipulated to induce him to cooperate." ("America's Unethical Medical Torturers" and "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" then "Torture in America's Legal Ethics Debate.")

"Interrogators Cite Doctors' Aid at Guantanamo," The New York Times, June 24, 2005, at p. A1. For an updating of this information suggesting that use of medical training is a matter of policy for U.S. governmental entities concerned with torturing persons, see "Medically Assisted Torture," (Editorial) The New York Times, March 4, 2009, at p. A18. (American doctors -- like Ridgewood, New Jersey's Terry A. Tuchin -- "assist and facilitate" in tormenting and devastating "witnesses," especially Muslims, questioned by branches of the U.S. government.)

Threats against and harming of family members may also be useful for manipulation of victims. Do you use Anthrax on victims, Terry Tuchin?

"... medical and scientific personnel have played a role, largely hidden, in helping to design and monitor interrogations that are intended to exploit the physical and mental vulnerabilities of detainees."

Jane Mayer, "The Experiment," in The New Yorker, July 11 & 18, 2005, at p. 60 (emphasis added). Ms. Mayer's follow-up research establishes the complicity of American doctors in developing and using medical knowledge to inflict devastating psychological and physical suffering on victims for life. Jane Mayer's The Dark Side (New York & London: Penguin, 2009). C.I.A. experts are leading the field in this area of research in psychology. Who is the C.I.A.'s "Deuce Martinez"? Cubanoid? (Mayer, The New Yorker, June 22, 2009, at pp. 50-59.)

I wonder whether the "departure" of Senator Mel ("Mel-the-Man") Martinez from the U.S. Senate is related to these events and whether the Senator has visited my sites? I suspect that Mr. Martinez has visited my sites, either personally or through persons acting as his agents and with his knowledge. I wonder whether former Senator Mel Martinez or Illiana Ross-Lehtinen has knowledge concerning the persons engaging in cybercrime against these blogs. What did they know and when did they know it? Senator Bob? ("How censorship works in America" and "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

There are reasons to fear that such techniques are indeed used secretly in some of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the U.S., as part of hidden "information-gathering" in civil and criminal proceedings deemed important "for the public good." This practice long predates 9/11. The human and Constitutional rights of the members of that same public are expendable. The American people's rights are deemed "collateral damage" by Miami's Cubanoids. The phrase "protecting the public" is amenable to any number of interpretations. One interpretation is that each member of the public benefits most when his or her rights along with simple humanity are recognized and respected. ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Jaynee LaVecchia and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Those of us shocked and offended by the images of torture committed by persons wearing uniforms of the U.S. armed services at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, should note that similar tortures take place in the United States at the hands of self-styled therapists and at public expense, every day, in prisons and mental institutions. Since the victims tend to be poor and/or minority group members -- who are politically powerless -- the responsible government officials, seemingly, could not care less. My daily struggle against censorship takes place, publicly, over a ten year period that I have been on-line. My requests for information are ignored in violation of state as well as federal laws, also publicly. Have you no shame at New Jersey's Supreme Court and OAE? Perhaps Mr. Christie has a better appreciation of what is at risk in this matter.

Although it is usually difficult to prove, there is a widespread belief that such methods are used secretly by corrupt "therapists," in league with government officials and/or organized crime figures to "get information that can be used against people." This may explain the popularity of America's attack politics. These techniques were used by intelligence services originally, but are now said to be part of the secret arsenal of powerful entities in society engaged in clandestine efforts aimed at the destruction of inconvenient POLITICAL critics, or anyone else who is targeted, probably for purposes of self-enrichment and sexual exploitation. China and Cuba have not been accused of such monstrosities. ("Is This America?" and "Why do they hate us?")

Quotation marks were removed from a title in the foregoing paragraph. I have now restored that correction. This essay has been altered by hackers and corrected by me about one hundred times, so far. ("American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles" and "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me'" and "'Che': A Movie Review," then "Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")

There may even be cause to fear that honest law enforcement officers will be threatened through the use of these techniques, or they may be used some day against uncooperative public officials, even good and honest judges, or against celebrities who may be blackmailed. There must be some judges who are good and honest, not in New Jersey perhaps, but somewhere. We must protect the independence and safety of judges. We must allow for human mistakes by courts. Crimes committed against participants in the legal system goes beyond what may be called a "mistake." When committed by judges, such crimes disgrace the law much more than any ordinary breach of court "ethics" rules. (See again "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey," "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey," and "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Most of all, we must guard against the evil abuse of human beings who are turned into "objects" acted upon, secretly, by self-proclaimed "therapists," who remain in the shadows beyond the reach of the law. No one should be beyond the law or beyond accountability in a free society. (See "An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli.")

These techniques continue to be used by intelligence services against selected American citizens for purposes of "experimentation with interrogation methods," which would make doctors and others engaging in the practice the equals of the worst torturers in totalitarian systems, something that I will continue to hope is not true -- at least not at the federal level. But see, H. Bruce Franklin's, "Torture, American Style: The American Prison and the Normalization of Torture," http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/resources/torture/brucefranklin.html

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that other countries and "entities" (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban) are working to develop or perfect these psychological torture techniques and to use them against Americans as well as "others" in response to the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo tortures. Furthermore, I am confident that foreign intelligence agencies are assisting these groups in the development of such psychological torture methods to be used against Americans. There are many (often horrifying) accounts of torture at the hands of "therapists" in the American legal system. A human being is not a rat to be subjected, unwillingly, to experimentation nor to violations of his or her autonomy and privacy by "therapists" who happen to find their own theories interesting. Violations of human rights resulting from subjecting a person to non-consensual drugging or hypnosis, censorship and suppressions of speech, rapes and other sexual violations, are not legitimated because the torturer says: "We can learn from you" or "this way you can contribute to society." I do not believe in therapeutic theft.

Asking for permission or consent after the subject is under hypnosis is irrelevant, since no valid consent can be extracted from any person under such conditions. A person is not only what is externally observable, not his or her behavior alone. A person is a locus or rights and responsibilities, of motives, desires and intentions that must be respected. Anything done to a person without his or her uncoerced, unimpaired and freely-given, narrowly-taylored, informed and limited consent, can only be a form of torture and cannot be called "therapy." Persons subjected to such horrors are scarred and even crippled for life in their ability to interact with others or to function effectively in society. It is harmful to cajole or force associations between a victim and persons complicit in his torture. (See "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prisons," "America's Holocaust," and "Habeas Corpus.")

One is reminded of Foucault's suggestion in Discipline and Punish that, with modernity, the most effective technologies of power shift from the infliction of physical torture on the body of the accused to the use of mental disciplines aimed at "subjectivation," which will be extended by analogy from the prison to society as a whole. "Hands off" torture techniques (a C.I.A. and OAE specialty) are even more frightening because they are much more difficult to prove and more tempting for governments or others to use. Officials can always deny that torture has ever happened. ("The Torture of Persons.")

Anyone who engages in such activity is tainted by the evil of it. Sweeping such things under the rug to avoid embarassing the legal system or prosecutors is a tragic mistake. For judges anywhere to permit such heinous actions to go unpunished -- to turn a blind eye to torture -- is to disgrace their judicial robes. Mr. Rabner, how do you explain your inaction? Ms. Milgram? There are legal systems that should be embarassed, so that they will be reformed. New Jersey's besmirched legal system is in need of such drastic reforms. (See again: "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

How much does a judgeship go for these days, Bob? $25,000 in cash? New Jersey's legal system has been dismissed as "America's shit hole." ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.") This is too kind an assessment of an utterly failed legal structure and jurisdiction consumed by corruption and incompetence, malice, racism, thievery and hypocrisy. The opinions of prominent persons in that legal structure concerning one's ethics are rendered laughable by the disgrace that clings to the judiciary and laws of a state that is a "byword for public corruption" (Wall Street Journal) everywhere in the world. The stench experienced by visitors travelling on the N.J. Turnpike and Parkway is a moral corruption or putridness that clings to New Jersey's courts and institutions like a foul miasmic cloud. The courts and their denizens in the Garden State deserve to be described as revolting examples of "failed" institutions.

The torturer who speaks in psychobabble platitudes and empty social science jargon ("adjust") has become a familiar presence in horror fiction and also in our worst nightmares. "He" can be seen in Hollywood classics like "Cool Hand Luke" ("What we've got here is a failure to communicate ..."), or "she" can be detected in the presiding "Nurse" and symbol of Fascist rule in the book and film, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." We recognize those characters because we have dealt with such monsters. These days, sadly, they are often prosecutors or judges, perhaps other government officials, or mental health experts claiming to work "for" corrupt government officials in a kind of realization of Orwell's, Huxley's, and Kafka's worst nightmares. I cannot believe that Americans endorse or accept such tactics of "interrogation" or "information-gathering." How do you live with your hypocrisy, Mr. Rabner? (Again: "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

We must improve the legal system's "handling" of mentally ill offenders, abolish torture, and amend or re-write outdated legislation in order to satisfy humanitarian concerns, or the U.S. will remain a pariah of the civilized world on this important issue. The U.S. must always be a world leader on human rights issues and a symbol of humanitarianism in the drafting and administration of laws. The nation is in danger of becoming the exact opposite of a moral example for the entire world when it comes to the routine inhumanity of torture. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of U.S. victims of torture are minority group members, especially women. ("Crimes Against Humanity in New Jersey.")

I am confident that most of Terry Tuchin's victims will be minority group members. Are you a racist, Terry Tuchin? Diana Lisa Riccioli? Deborah T. Poritz? It is difficult to conclude that officials who allow any persons to be subjected, unwillingly, to experimentation or torture can be anything other than racists or bigots of one kind or another. I am sure that a vast majority of New Jersey's victims of psychological torture and hypnosis-based interrogation will be minority group members for some time to come.

Law implies respect for the possible justifications and explanations of a person's actions, trust in reason and civilization as the standards governing treatment of persons in custody. It is for the welfare of persons that legal institutions and judges exist. It is not the mission of citizenry in a democracy to improve the quality of life for judges ruling over them. This should even be true in New Jersey, where judges may be seen heading home at 3:30 P.M. during weekdays, while drawing a $141,000.00 per year salary and handsome benefits, as the state faces a $36 BILLION debt (prior to the receipt of stimulus funds) because of theft and incompetence that goes unpunished, resulting in these unpayable debts and soaring interest rates. $8 BILLION deficit as public funds continue to disappear or are used to pay the wages of employees listed on the books who happen to have died years ago. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")

West New York, New Jersey cannot pay police officers more money despite some of the highest taxes in the nation. Union City, North Bergen (despite its alleged "double set of books"), Guttenberg and other towns are facing similar predicaments as well as new lawsuits for racial and other illegal discrimination. No fireworks for the Fourth of July? New Jersey has approved a $1 BILLION tax increase for 2009-2010. This is your money that has been and will be STOLEN.

Law is antithetical to torture. Law is incompatible with torture. Torture must not thrive in a just legal order. It is the victims of horrible tortures who come before U.S. courts and the world demanding to be heard. Victims of psychological torture at the hands of forensic experts, using hypnosis and other techniques designed to guarantee the torturers' anonymity, should know that they are not alone and that there is help available: "Long after the torture ends many [victims] continue to suffer in silence, their trust in humanity so shattered, they cannot seek the help of others, not even of family or friends [who may have been co-opted into assisiting the torturers' criminal efforts by INFORMING on family members]." Uwe Jacobs, "Struggling With Our Own Inhumanity," http://www.sfgate.com/ March 2, 2005. ("What is it like to be tortured?")

October 28, 2009 at 2:30 P.M. My t.v. is dead, again, and no phone service is available (creating a potential life-hazard for relatives), and cybercrime against me also continues every day. Censorship of my Internet writings and books, denials of access to web sites, images, e-mails and worse violations of my rights are normal for me.

I do not believe or accept that the United States of America, as envisioned by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, is a land where torture and continuing violations of human rights, can be permitted to go unpunished for a small fee. Mr. Rabner and Ms. Milgram, perhaps it is time to step down and allow others to actually discharge the responsibilities of the offices which you have disgraced. Mr. Christie and Ms. Dow, what is today's excuse for not dealing with this crisis? Lack of funds, perhaps?

Sources:

My primary sources for this essay are listed below:

"The Torture Debate: The Missing Voices," (Editorial) in The New York Times, May 7, 2009, at p. A32.
"The Torture Debate: The Lawyers," (Editorial) in The New York Times, May 7, 2009, at p. A32.
Atul Gawande, "Ordinary Torture," in The New Yorker, Mar. 30, 2009, at p. 36. (Routine use of solitary confinement and other psychological techniques intended to induce psychosis or suicide of victims in American prisons, like frustrations and censorship.)
Jane Mayer, "The Torture Reckoning," in The New Yorker, June 22, 2009, at p. 50. (C.I.A. secrecy and the struggle for reform of "America's Guestapo.")
Philip Gourevich, "Torture on Trial," in The New Yorker, May 11, 2009, at p. 33. (Lawyers, tribunals, America's legal establishment is complicit in "crimes against humanity" committed against "little brown people.")
Mark Danner, "The Secret Red Cross Report on US Torture at Black Sites," in The New York Review of Books, April 9, 2009, at p. 69. ("Black sites" includes many more prisons than Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, including -- many believe -- some within the United States.)
Mark Danner, ed., Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture (Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2004).
Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror (New York: NYRB, 2004).
Karen J. Greenberg, ed., The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Andrew Sullivan, "The Abolition of Torture," in Sandford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 307.
Juan Galis-Menendez, "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?" http://Critique@groups.msn.com/ (MSN Groups has closed, I am told, depriving me of the use of images. Defacements, hacks, suppressions and censorship of these writings are routine, partly in response to my use of images protesting Israeli actions in Gaza.)
"A Despicable Enemy," in The New York Post, July 12, 2008, at p. 20. (Editorial documenting torture of American soldiers in response to U.S. torture tactics. Many more such documented tortures of Americans, sadly, may be expected in response to the atrocities committed at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Please see my essay, "American Tortured on Video by Taliban.")

"Errors" may be inserted in these listed sources in order to obstruct follow-up research by readers or merely for harassment purposes.

The following essay has been reprinted without permission by a person or persons unknown to me at: http://www.myepilepsy.com/?q=node/961275 (Discrediting efforts on the part of the OAE?) Unless an essay bears my name and/or an acknowledgment, it should not be attributed to me, since it may have been taken from this site, illegally, and falsely ascribed to me in an attempt to discredit my views or as part of continuing plagiarism of my work. I am not an epilectic nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party. I am not with Al Qaeda. I do not have cancer or AIDS. I am not a Mets fan. I am "independent," politically speaking. Plagiarism of my writings or theft of my ideas without attribution is not uncommon, as I say, even as my book is still suppressed and not sent to booksellers. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?")

What is the connection between Lulu and New Jersey? Publish America? Should American jurisdictions be complicit in censorship that is content-based and political? ("How Censorship Works in America.")

Andrew Sullivan, "Dear Mr. Bush, You Approved Torture -- Only You Can Fix the Damage," in Atlantic Monthly, October, 2009, at p. 78.
David Cole, "The Case Against the Torture Memo Lawyers," in The New York Review of Books, October 8, 2009, at p. 14.
Philippe Sands, "Torture -- The Complicit General," in The New York Review of Books, September 24, 2009, at p. 20.

A focus for one's sense of outrage at the failures, or worse, of the U.S. legal system may be found at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/images/justices.jpg (N.J. continues to be the most corrupt legal system in the nation.)

What do judicial robes mean to the people who wear them? How can anyone put on such robes, be aware of and/or ignore torture? See Nina Bernstein, "9/11 Detainees Describe Abuse Involving Dogs," The New York Times, April 3, 2006, at p. B1 (concerning vicious dogs used in the torture of persons accused of crimes and presumed innocent in Passaic County, New Jersey).

Dozens of accounts of racism, corruption, inhumanity and incompetence in New Jersey's legal system are available in addition to the hundreds of articles found in these blogs that are supported by thousands of objective sources. Do you speak of "legal ethics," Ms. Milgram? Mr. Rabner? Ms. Poritz? Do you "persons" still claim to be my intellectual and ethical "superiors"?

Dr. Harold Mandel, "Psychiatry and Psychology Have Become Abusive Disciplines," http://www.topix.net/content/cj/140298183753272823 (Psychiatrists in America sell their services and violate fundamental human rights of victims subjected to illegal questioning or rape under hypnosis.) Is this "therapy" in the U.S.A.?

U.S. Lawyers Escape Prosecution for Torture -- Unethical?

David Cole, "The Case Against the Torture Memo Lawyers," in The New York Review of Books, October 8, 2009, at p. 14.
Scott Shane, "2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11's Wake," in The New York Times, August 12, 2009, at p. A1.
Eric Lichtblau & Eric Lipton, "E-Mail Reveals Rove's Key Role in '06 Dismissals," in The New York Times, August 12, 2009, at p. A1.
Scott Shane & David Johnston, "Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic," in The New York Times, June 7, 2009, at p. A1.
Adam Liptak, "Justices Void Ex-Detainee's Suit Against 2 Officials," The New York Times, May 19, 2009, at p. A16. (Torture, including beating of innocent detainee, not grounds for law suit against former Attorney General, John Ashcroft, but others may be sued.)
Scott Shane, "Ethics Complaint Is Filed Against Lawyers for Bush Over Torture Policy," The New York Times, May 19, 2009, at p. A16. (Ethics grievance will probably be dismissed because of lack of standing, one complaint has been dismissed already.)
David Johston & Scott Shane, "Toture Memos: Inquiry Suggests No Prosecutions," The New York Times, May 6, 2009, at p. A1.
Neil A. Lewis, "Official Defends Signing Interrogation Memos," The New York Times, April 9, 2009, at p. A12. (Jay S. Bybee, a U.S. Federal Circuit Court judge signed torture memos.)
"The State-Secrets Privilege, Tamed," (Editorial) The New York Times, April 30, 2009, at p. A26. (Abuse of state secrets power by government to "stone wall" and deny "free speech" rights to citizens.)
David Kocieniewski, "Report Finds Patronage Rife At a University: Federal Monitor Studies a New Jersey School," The New York Times, April 4, 2006, at p. B1.
Thomas Shaffer, "Christian Theories of Professional Responsibility," 48 So. Cal. L. Rev. 721, 752-759 (1975).
Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons (New York: Vintage, 1962).
Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: MacMillan, 2009).


" ... Get the legal people in on this Watergate Thing."
-- Richard M. Nixon, Esq.

"An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush administration lawyers committed serious lapses in judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations but that they should not be prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on its findings."

"The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask state bar associations to consider possible disciplinary action, which could include reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said."

New Jersey's OAE is guilty of horrifying human rights violations and yet unethical actions by agency lawyers continue to go unpunished, every day, making a mockery and fraud of N.J. Supreme Court ethics decisions and contaminating all legal proceedings in that foul-smelling territory called, "the Garden State." Each day that the cover-up continues, Mr. Rabner, is a renewal of twenty-one years of torture for many victims. There is still time to prevent further suffering by many innocent persons. Your continued indifference to such suffering, Mr. Rabner, borders on evil.

Very little (if anything) will happen to these crooked and corrupt lawyers -- despite the broken lives and murdered victims at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, or in New Jersey. This is to say nothing of the damage to the integrity and well-deserved decline in respect worldwide for the U.S. legal system, along with trashing the priceless American Constitution. Censorship? Cybercrime? What does the "E" in "OAE" stand for, Mr. Rabner?

"The conclusions of the 220-page draft have not yet been approved by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The officials said that it is possible that the final report might be subject to further revision but that they did not expect major alterations in its main findings or recommendations."

"The findings, growing out of an inquiry that started in 2004, would represent a stinging rebuke of the lawyers and their legal arguments."

Do you speak to me of legal ethics, Anne Milgram, Esq.? "Ass covering," Peter ("See-No-Evil") Harvey, Esq.?

"... but they would stop short of the criminal referral sought by human rights advocates, who have suggested that the lawyers could be prosecuted as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate the anti-torture statute. ..."

"The draft report is described as very detailed, tracing e-mail messages between the Justice Department lawyers and officials at the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among the questions it is expected to consider is whether the memos were an independent judgment of the limits of the federal anti-torture statute or were deliberately skewed to justify the use of techniques proposed by the C.I.A."

"At issue is whether the lawyers acted ethically and competently in writing a series of Justice Department legal opinions from 2002 to 2007."

This episode is yet another black eye for America's compromised and discredited legal profession. It is indicative of a legal culture of "going along to get along" and of the massive HYPOCRISY that is characteristic of the nation's legal work-product.

The pretense of "holier-than-thou" ethics on the part of prominent members of the profession not only in America's legal dungeon, New Jersey, but also in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere (New York is probably the best place in the U.S. to practice law), is grating on the nerves of observers everywhere. Nations cannot accept the sincerity of America's alleged human rights concerns when this spectacle of legal corruption is ignored. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

Bias in outcomes is the first word associated with American legal decisions, both within the U.S. and globally:

"A Pakistani Muslim who was arrested after the September 11 attacks may not sue John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, and Robert S. Mueller, III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for abuses he says he suffered in a Brooklyn detention center, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday."

Among the things for which this Muslim man may not hold the Attorney General accountable are daily "beatings," various forms of psychological torture that involved insults of Islam, denigrations of the humanity of "little brown persons" -- presumably including the world's 1 BILLION Muslims -- and worse actions.

Ethics grievances brought by a coalition of Left-wing advocacy groups against Bush's torture lawyers -- who are still serving as judges and "prominent members of the bar" -- will probably be dismissed because of "lack of standing" on the part of litigants. Sure enough, they were dismissed.

On the other hand, New Jersey's OAE is rewarded by corrupt and tainted tribunals for soliciting grievances against secretly (and politically) targeted attorneys, like me, then allowed to "cover-up" their own unethical and possibly criminal actions, including theft and various assaults, together with obstructions of justice.

Censorship. Cybercrime. Theft. Slanders behind the back. Breaches of fiduciary relations. Solicitation and manufacturing of grievances, violations of the sanctity of attorney offices, bribery of employees, threats to generate complaints against a lawyer. Are those things unethical, Mr. Rabner? ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")

Lawyers rationalize what is convenient or serves "our" national interest, find ways to circumvent the law as political lawyers, in order to serve personal or career interests, or for cold hard cash. Senator Bob? "We must protect the public!" These crooked lawyers are fond of such laughably absurd statements -- absurd when uttered by them. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "New Jersey's Mafia Culture in Law and Politics.")

International human rights laws, international criminal laws, global forums and mechanisms are regarded, too often, as the playthings of the U.S. government. We are concerned with international law when it serves our political interests. We disregard those same laws when they are inconvenient or obstruct our purposes, sometimes criminal purposes. Much the same is true of legal ethics rules.

We are at center stage in the world in "promoting" principles of the rule of law and due process of law that we set aside, easily, when it is useful to do so. However, we insist that others respect these international legal principles, including prohibitions of torture whose violations are rationalized by America's lawyers with transparently false reasoning. I wonder how many Pakistani children have died today in drone attacks in our secret war in South Asia? Will India be next? China? Cuba? Korea? Syria?

We are, allegedly, against censorship and suppression of speech. However, I am censored and prevented from using images, my book is suppressed every day, publicly, and my requests for the truth concerning the tortures and rapes to which I have been subjected is ignored. ("How Censorship Works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")

Mr. Rabner, each day that the cover-up continues is further defecation by your tribunal's "members" on the Constitution of the United States of America, especially the Bill of Rights. How can you wear those sullied judicial robes, Mr. Rabner? Does the stench of corruption in Trenton not bother you at all? Have you made an "accomodation" with evil, Mr. Rabner? ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")

We see ourselves as "superior" or "set apart" from the rest of the global community because we are the "embodiment" of ethics and legality, yet we condone with a patina of legitimacy provided by sold out lawyers "crimes against humanity" in order to accomplish our objectives, both at home and internationally. We often fail to detect a contradiction in this reality. The global community detects a contradiction. They are correct to do so. Mr. Rabner, is the OAE "ethical"? I do not think so. ("Mr. Putin's Advice to America.")

We have lost credibility with China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Middle East countries and billions of persons around the world who know that we censor and silence critics -- they can see it at my sites every day -- as we torture, rape, steal and call it "legal." The very people responsible for a massive criminal conspiracy against me, unfolding over several decades, feign outrage and shock at my alleged "ethical flaws" even as atrocities and heinous abuses of law are renewed with each day that New Jersey's cover-up and cybercrimes persist. The OAE's stone-walling defense is shameful, Ms. Milgram. Enjoy the lesbian "love-fest." ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!")

I am unable to reach my MSN group which is, allegedly, "closed" along with MSN to be replaced by something called, "Windows Live." Is "Windows Live" really part of "Microsoft.inc" and part of MSN replacing MSN Groups? Is MSN really in Mimi, Florida? What is the true number of visitors to my blogs and books? (Again: "How Censorship Works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")

I am still denied the use of images. I cannot see my own books on-line, if they continue to exist. Why are you frightened of what those images depict if you believe that the U.S. has done nothing wrong?

President Obama should release all photographs of U.S. tortures under First Amendment principles. Over one thousand photographs of heinous abuses and sanctioned atrocities are being withheld from the people, even as the truth about my life is concealed from me.

Why does the voice of one tortured dissident -- curiously ignored by the so-called "free media" -- frighten powerful people in American society?

Prominent members of the bar and judiciary are protected from the consequences of obvious incompetence, at best, or malice and deliberate cruelty, theft, disappearing millions, racism, disdain for the consequences of their actions, together with cover-ups of unethical and criminal actions, for example, by N.J. lawyers and judges as well as Mr. Bush's misnamed "Justice Department." ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" as well as "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")

" ... the report [by Judge Stern concerning New Jersey's Medical School and Hospital] details a broad range of financial irregularities that it said plague the university, including influence peddling, abuse of expense accounts, and sweetheart deals to steer contracts to politically powerful vendors."

The alleged "influence peddling" included prominent N.J. lawyer-politicians, like Senator Bob Menendez and others. When combined with New Jersey's usually protected child porn and prostitution rings, sexual favors as payoffs to officials, the largest influence for the mafia in any state political and legal system -- the very word "ethics" in the context of New Jersey's disgraced Supreme Court and tainted legal system, profession, and academy is disgusting and absurd.

As I recall, the total amount of "questionable billing" by this N.J. hospital was in the neighborhood of $400 MILLION. Ms. LaVecchia's vanishing $300 MILLION in the HIP scam is a trifle by comparison. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")

How do officials escape responsibility? By declaring evidence of criminality on the part of prominent judges and other legal officials "secret" and not subject to review by the public nor, at least, made available to their victims:

"Of the many ways that the Bush administration sought to evade accountability for its violations of the law and the Constitution under the cover of battling terrorism, one of the most appalling was its attempt to use inflated claims of state secrecy to slam shut the doors of the nation's courthouses." ("Obama Says Torture is a Secret.")

New Jersey's OAE and AG have tried to do the same for years, to cover the actions of state torturers and "service" providers, like Diana Lisa Riccioli (still keeping Debbie "happy"?) -- by declaring evidence "secret" and not subject to discovery in violation of both the federal and state constitutions, also statutory as well as case law. This is to describe as "ethical" lying and unethical or criminal conduct by state entities entrusted with enforcing the law. This means you, Anne Milgram, Esq. ("A Letter From the DRB, in New Jersey!" and "Another Letter From the DRB, in New Jersey!")

The bitter farce that is N.J.'s legal ethics process is derived from a twisted, Kafkaesque interpretation of government lawyers' responsibility to "protect the public" -- a public which needs to be protected from these would-be protectors.

Mr. Rabner, do you claim to be unaware of these facts? Again: each day that the cover-up continues is a renewal of the tortures experienced by many victims, not just me, and most especially harmful to the U.S. Constitution. Publish America?

This is a continuing injury that your legal system, Mr. Rabner, is perpetuating against many victims, on a daily basis, in a disgusting effort to find ass cover for a few politically connected offenders in New Jersey. ("New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce.")

A fundamental principle of legal ethics is that judges -- especially Supreme Court justices -- should avoid "the appearance of impropriety." Despite the vanished $300 MILLION from the HIP deal Jaynee LaVecchia has the nerve to remain in office and to judge the ethics of others, others who must be ethically preferable to LaVecchia's duplicitous and mendacious self.

How can you presume to judge others when so many questions remain unanswered concerning the HIP deal and so many victims' medical bills were unpaid? Have you no shame, Ms. LaVecchia? Should you, Ms. LaVecchia, not resign from your judgeship immediately? Do you, Ms. LaVecchia, continue to judge the ethics of others with a straight face? Mr. Rabner, you cannot protect your friends and yourself while complying with ethics rules and the law in this matter. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")

LaVecchia should have resigned from the judgeship that she has now disgraced years ago, before she voted to sanction a Latino colleague -- who will smile and say "thank you," of course, as he has been taught to do -- for giving someone his business card.

Was LaVecchia acting on behalf of unidentified political bosses when she cast that hypocritical vote? Perhaps she was doing a little favor for her "godfather"? Kay Luchese, Bob? Virginia Long? Debbie Poritz?

Is there any word other than "hypocrisy" to describe these events? "Justice" LaVecchia has befouled her office, to the amusement of Mr. Rabner and his cohorts, as well as the reputation of America's judiciary everywhere in the world? Do you speak to me of ethics, Mr. Rabner? Does Mr. Prisco approve of Rabner's "legal ethics"? Are these persons in New Jersey well placed to comment on the lives and ethics of others? Do they still presume to "judge" lawyers' or anyone's relationships and sex lives? 1988-today. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli.")

New Jersey judges and justices are ethically worse than most persons in the legal profession because of hypocrisy and self-love, but mostly because of the presumption in rearranging or prescribing the private lives of others. Further defacements and alterations of these writings must be expected at all times. ("Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.") Give my regards to the "twins," Senator. ("Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes.")

Who do you think you are to meddle in the private lives of others? Who authorized Mr. Tuchin's and Ms. Riccioli's entry into my life in 1988? I certainly did not do such a thing. Under what conditions and for how long were they to have contact with me?

There is no such thing, legally, as "therapy by adhesion." Nor "secret" treatments that involve theft and rape, along with the violation of "fiduciary relations." Where are those reports and records prepared by Tuchin and Riccioli? 1988-today? How many of you had sex with Marilyn Straus? Was Marilyn under hypnosis at the time of those rapes or assaults? Was that "therapy"? How many others in New Jersey are subjected to such secret "therapy"? I want all tapes, video and audio of hypnosis and interrogation sessions. How many inmates are raped in New Jersey? ("Abuse and Exploitation of Women in New Jersey.")

How much did you steal from my office, Diana? How many others were in on the thievery? How many lawyers and others (including family members) did you recruit to assist in your behind-the-back efforts against me, Terry?

You say: "It's for your own good." My Constitutional rights are for my good. I am confident that, for a fee, a so-called "psychoanalyst" like Tuchin will proclaim the Abu Ghraib tortures to be for the "good" of their victims. Are most of your victims African-Americans and Latinos, Terry? Do you see them as "slaves"? How many Palestinians have you tortured, Terry? How does a Jew, of all people, become Dr. Mengele? Try inserting some more "errors," Terry. Mr McGill?

"What seems to tie together these instances of [ethical] failure [by lawyers] is that they did what everyone else was doing. In every instance the plea in defense is vita temporis (everybody is doing it). And in every instance the moral destination of these undistinguished, unchosen professional lives is loss of responsibility and even of the ability to respond. This is the estate which is evil. These were the men [and women] whom Jesus judged -- who seemed to have condemned themselves, rather than to have been condemned. They were unable to respond to God when God chose to seek a response from them, and they were therefore unable to respond to God in more ethereal garb, when He proposed to welcome them to immortality [now]."

Will you come with me, then, for fellowship?

"At any rate, Thomas More, as I wrote about him, became for me a man with an adamantine sense of his own self. He knew where he began and left off, what area of himself he could yield to the encroachments of his enemies, and what to the encroachments of those he loved. It was a substantial area in both cases. Since he was a clever man and a great lawyer he was able to retire from those areas in wonderfully good order, but at length he was asked to retreat from that final area where he located his self. And there this supple, humorous, unassuming and sophisticated person set like metal, was overtaken by an absolutely primitive rigor, and could no more be budged than a cliff."

Mr. Holder, it is much worse than a mistake not to prosecute these lawyers, tacitly excusing torture, or to disregard their professional lapses in order to protect the CIA, Bush and Cheney, or your sadly discredited legal profession in America. The whole world is watching.