Public Perception: Wherein, evidence consistent with my concerns about public ignorance that directly furthers rampant and endemic discrimination against persons affected by mental illness. 

"This guy defends sex predators & then condemns them. Maybe he is a pervert too. I bet we could look up his court records if he gave us his real name. People don't go to the state hospital unless they are court ordered. Nice try "paulo", there are no court records for you...under your pseudonym. U are either a liar or a fake...or both. Why don't you come forward??" (Anonymous Nov. 04, 2013)

"About time people called out this douchebag. He seems to have no problem calling people names & blaming. Sounds like people have been calling him out for months, but paolo just erases it. Get a life dude! You don't sound mentally ill, just angry & bitter." (Anonymous Nov. 02, 2013)

"People don't go to the state hospital for depression. Why were you really there…?"  (Anonymous Nov. 02, 2013)                                                                                                     

The above comments were posted to this blog less than one week ago, and are directed at me, as the author; posted by a person or persons unwilling to identify themselves, as such, in reaction to a recent article (of mine) that supports the fact that Roger James Forney was employed at ASH for a period of at least 2 full years (2010-12 or so), in spite of his having a very serious criminal record, which includes a conviction  in October, 2010, for sexual exploitation of a minor (which he pled guilty to at that time). I originally posted an earlier article about this specific issue in early 2013, following Forney's second arrest on the same charge (see: "Busted! Arizona State Hospital Guard Roger James Forney…..  Business as usual at ASH." Thur. Jan. 24, 2013); and then last week, I reposted the same story because Forney's sentencing hearing is coming up in a couple of months. I am considering attending that hearing, in fact, because I can attest to the fact that this man engaged in very unreasonable abuses of his authority when he was employed by state contract, via the public trust, as a staff member in Arizona's sole long term public mental health facility. This Rat Bastards' exhibitions of misconduct include instances specific to my experiences at ASH, at times when I was 100% abiding by all applicable rules- just not in ways that he Forney  was respective of. I called him out more than once, in other words, for which I was threatened by him and at least one other security guard, a man named Bee-bee. This latter fellow is one of those who walk around  (wherever they are!) proselyting their so called religious faith- in Bee-Bee's case, as a Born Again Christian- while simultaneously engaging in undeniable abuses of his given authority, including physical threats and profanely disgusting verbal insults, all  of  which I and anyone else of decent conscience know to be in graphic defiance of related ethos and morality, as it pertains.

As to Forney, I admit and am not ashamed of the fact that I somewhat cherish the idea of looking the Rat Bastard in the eye. One last time. 

Allow him, as such, to be the first in line.

Also: Back to the commentary posted to the blog a few days ago. I must say, it has been a long time since I last heard (or read) the phrase "douchebag…" However, I do fully support all American's civil rights, including in terms of the 1st amendment, and style points have nothing to do with it. I am also in support and understanding of the fact that the best way to shed light on factors relevant to any range of threats to the public good often arises through granting clear and unfettered voice  of even the most twisted expressions of personal belief. As in, the right of the Klu Klax Klan to openly express their beliefs in public demonstrations, marches, etc., and all such other dissent, no matter how contradictory  to common notions of human rights. Thus, this critic's right to express themselves is something I would fight for under any circumstances, both in terms of preserving all/any American's fundamental rights, as well as in terms of ensuring that any such thinking, beliefs, opinions, etc., not be shrouded in secrecy. Likewise, only through publicly illustrated commentary such as this, will we the American people come to understand our own ongoing shortfalls as a modern society, be it in relation to the discrimination against disenfranchised sub-groups, or not. 

As to the relationship of this blog, and the comments posted by this person, who for some reason has refused to identify themselves (which is also a right, so I cannot really say anything about it), I feel compelled to state the following: 
     1) I have shared all details specific to my specific mental health diagnosis in a number of articles included in this blog, to date, including in terms of my personal history as it applies. I have nothing to hide, nothing that I am ashamed of in the context, and no reason to fabricate anything about myself. My diagnosed mental illness, as follows: major depressive disorder, and associated traits, inc. acute suicidal ideation (in regression).


      2) I have also described the legal dynamics underlying civil commitment as per Arizona statute, both in terms of the process by which I was referred and then admitted to The Arizona State Hospital, as well as in the context of any patient's deserved rights specific to public services in the context. As follows:  

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 36-540 (A): "If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to self... is persistently or acutely disabled or is gravely disabled and in need of treatment, and is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 36-501(6). "Danger to self" means:  (a) Behavior which, as a result of a mental disorder, constitutes a danger of inflicting serious physical harm upon oneself, including attempted suicide or  the serious threat thereof, if the threat is such that, when considered in the light of its context and in light of the individual's previous acts, it is substantially supportive of an expectation that the threat will be carried out. (b) Behavior which, as a result of a mental disorder, will, without hospitalization, result in serious physical harm or serious illness to the person, except that this definition shall not include behavior which establishes only the condition of gravely disabled."

As spelled out in the applicable law (above), being committed to a public mental health facility in the state of Arizona does not hinge on criminal behavior, and most certainly not in support of the belief that mental illness in itself is tantamount to criminal behavior. More importantly, mental illness in itself has nothing to do with morality, or any other like non-medical state of mind or emotion. And referring to a "court order" (by which I was in fact referred to ASH), as this critic has, does not mean that the relevant records are included in publicly shared criminal records (which are only publicly shared when and if a person has been arrested and/or convicted of a crime, in fact, a policy which arises  in the context of public welfare and safety); for again, to be affected by mental illness is not criminal, in itself. Underlying/superseding federal law prevails, as illustrated in civilly construed patient privacy laws (patients- of any kind, anywhere- are not criminals). I find this critic's inability to grasp the fact that there are any number of patients at ASH who were admitted as per the above statute(s) 100% on point with the attitudes that many senior staff exhibited when I was patient at ASH. Ignorance and related professional ineptitude to the nth degree. The fact is, intent to commit suicide is not criminal in itself, and laws pertaining to this topic are based on safety, in all senses (not crime); and even when the notion of potential potential harm to others underlies an individual's admittance to ASH (vs. harm to self), this is not the same thing as physically or otherwise criminally harming others in the context of unlawful behavior. 

I contend that this critic's willingness to ignore such dynamics is shocking, but not surprising. Indeed, for some people, ignorance is bliss, and in terms of American culture in any range of contexts, represents a wide range of  contemporary issues, including but far from limited to mental health issues. It is ironic, indeed, that the fundamental basis of our society's legal structure protects such matters, but that's the way it is. On the other hand, if such thinking serves to further stigma and related discriminations that do today affect persons affected by serious mental illness across the board (including in the context of inept state agencies and related mismanagement that detriments public welfare/good), than there is every reason to bring it all to the table, for all to see. Herein, again, the 1st Amendment protects someone just like me, as I endeavor in exposing what I have deemed to be clearly unacceptable, state facilitated wrongdoing, via my willingness and given ability to speak, write, and so on. For only via such open and unfettered discourse can we as a society realize our deepest needs, in all senses.

IN CLOSING: At least this person(s) isn't alone (much like current members of the KKK, etc.). A small handful of similarly themed comments have been posted to the blog in recent weeks. I somewhat suspect an organized attack, of sorts, very possibly fashioned by persons who recognize pending and unavoidable oversight and accountability. "Blaming" has nothing to do with demanding that persons engaged in clearly unlawful health care practices be stopped, and I have plenty of justification in terms of my work, as it stands. It is not even about me, anymore (and I am not sure it ever was), it is about the needs of ASH's seriously mentally ill patients, in direct relation to these issues as they apply across the nation. It is common knowledge that public mental health care facilities have long fallen short in terms of established law, policy, and ethics; and that the stigma and related discriminations against mentally ill Americans is endemic, seemingly unshakeable, and essentially part of our history as a culture. But the fear of such individuals is real, for indeed, change is in the wind (oversight, etc.), and I am not going anywhere in terms of my participation in the process at this time. It's but a matter of time. I can also attest to the fact that out in here in the real world, where this blog exists, such shortsighted thinking reflects a minority (the vast majority of all comments to the blog have been positive). This graphically contradicts the substandard mental-mental health conditions and practices at The Arizona State Hospital, of course, where the well intentioned and clearly competent care providers are the minority, and senior ranking staff who are wiling to ignore fundamental medical ethics do so as a matter of standard practice.    

paoloreed@gmail.com