Of Comments. "Anonymous."

Paolo Jack Reed.
2019.

“This is serious. Look, this is not just a news story, this is serious. Those individuals in our state hospital, they deserve to have a proper safe environment. Secrecy does invite corruption. This is why these records have to be disclosed.” 

      Former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, 2015. 

Are you listening, Bowen?

INTRODUCTION

PJ Reed The Arizona State Hospital and Patient Abuse has always and still today welcomes all forms of feedback. We've no intent or need, quite frankly, to mislead or otherwise keep the public out of the loop in terms of what we know about the operation at Arizona State Hospital (ASH). The sole objective of this publication remains as follows: To specifically address issues that we believe to be harmful to the welfare and care needs of the ASH patient community. We also are willing to contribute what we can on behalf of those ASH staff who are, in fact, dedicated to this same basic mission. Thank you. PJ Reed.

That said, it has been quite awhile since we have received anything in the way of arguably harsh criticism specific to our exposing corruption at Arizona State Hospital. Such criticism pretty well only came our way in the first 6-8 months of publication, circa April-December, 2012, or so. And even then, we recognized that the tone of such criticism was in no way oriented towards supporting ASH patients, was always, rather, directed towards diminishing the factually accurate information included in our general content. 

Sadly, and beyond the fractured syntax provided, these (two) comments were not too well detailed, as most any such rant typically tends to go. So be it. 

Comment #1.

The common law hasn't existed in Arizona since 1959. That year the Arizona State legislature specifically abolished it and replaced it with the Arizona Revised Statutes. From then until now, court ordered patients are under the Arizona Patient Bill of Rights, which is part of 
the Revised Statutes. That's the document you should be looking at, not the Common Law. 

DISCUSSI0N

Arizona Administrative Law, (Title 9. Health Services Chapter 21. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System- Behavioral Health Services for Persons with Serious Mental Illness) is only one body of law specific to the actual operation of Arizona State Hospital (ASH). All persons working at ASH under the auspices of ADHS are required to abide by the standards of law contained therein, albeit, most specifically in terms of administrative practices there. At the same time, however, Title 9 of AAC also applies actual care practices and conditions at ASH, this with direct regard for the conduct of ASH's medical staff across the board.    

"Common law", means bears direct residual effect on the eventually established terms and provisions of A.A.C., (as well as the as well as on standards of federal law). As such, the staff of this publication rely on all aspects of legal standards existent today, as are applicable to the issues most at stake at ASH; while Arizona's Revised Statutes in themselves only have a limited degree of authority over the operational care practices and conditions in any state managed health care facility in the Arizona at this time (2019). 

As a state managed facility, e.g., ASH is subject to a range of federal law, including but not limited to the US Constitution itself. Such federal law has more overall authority in terms of the rights of ASH's patient-clientele then Arizona state law does, this on the basis of all ASH patients being disabled as per federal and state law. And as will be discussed later in this essay, one bright line example of such superseding federal law is provided by the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.     

None of this is rocket science. Bottom line. 

Comment #2

I looked up her accident in the local Tucson newspaper. Her accident  was actually a suicide attempt. According to the New Times, the  reason she doesn't get an electric wheelchair is because she can use  aritficial (sic) legs and could get out of the wheelchair and walk  any time she wants. They doesn't want to enable her to be disabled.  Also, she probably doesn't even live there anymore. Get your facts straight before you go around accusing others.

DISCUSSION  

It is apparent, while still a bit vague, that in the latter of these two communications, the writer is referring to my personal friend, Audrey Peterson. Presuming so, what we provided in the essay-articles we have produced specific to Audrey Peterson to date has included what this writer is relying on, in effect, to challenge our expressed concerns in content. Reflective of the likelihood that the writer did not even thoroughly read the full content of whatever of our material they looked at. Nonetheless, and on that note.....

Yes, I am well aware that Audrey attempted suicide in Tucson in 2004. Audrey herself described all details about that event to me when we first met at ASH, including the bare bones fact that it she was, in fact, attempting sui-cide (Latin: "self", "death"). I, too, had attempted suicide prior to my admission to ASH, only one direct reason for how and why I was drawn towards Audrey's state of mind and emotion as patient-peer at the time. 

I believe it was 2004, anyway (I am not going to dig into my notes right now), but I do literally recall learning of this event when it was actually reported in Tucson news, as I lived there at the time. 

As to relying upon Phoenix's "alternative" news press, Phoenix New Times, as means to determine actual fact: These such such press sources are anything but useful in terms of well researched news. I should know, I used to work for two, The Rocket [Seattle] and The Pitch (Kansas City) in early 1990s, specifically reviewing musical events. No one employee of these two well recognized weeklies would ever claim to be the best qualifier in terms of critical news, simply on the basis of having far less in terms of resources that actual AP/UPI news sources possess. As such, these type papers are dedicated not to disseminating critical news in manner consistent with qualified news sources and journalistic ethics, but rather, to entertaining their very local reader base. 

Again, it does not take rocket scientist, to grasp this reality.   

More importantly, then, I would ask that nobody other then Audrey herself speak as to the truth in this matter. I can and do attest to Audrey's story as I know it, because I spent thirteen months in her company when I was hospitalized at ASH, where we become good friends.

But, presuming the staff of New Times drew any such information from actual interviews, etc., the only person or persons who I believe would have declared that they don't "want to enable her to be disabled" are persons working at ASH. Such as Audrey's primary care psychiatrist at ASH circa 2011-2012, when I was there. Dr. Rubi Ramos-Rojas, that is, a Filipino educated medical doctor (almost hate to say it, but the Philippine nation is hardly a bastion of democracy or human  rights),  who I attest via my own experiences as being 100% responsible for a range of wrongdoing at ASH over the years. This wrongdoing most definitely includes her destroying materials directed to her on Audrey's behalf, a patent violation of medical ethics and Audrey's express rights as as a disabled American.

So far as established law, then, the plain fact remains that Audrey, as a disabled person, is protected by federal law, as spelled out in the provisions of the Americans With Disability Act of 1990. ([42 U.S.C. Public Health and Social Welfare.) Therein, no person or entity- including the doctors at ASH- has the right to override Audrey's rights and protections as a disabled person, both mentally and physically. Such ASH staff may be of the opinion that Audrey has no right to an electric wheelchair, but that flies in the face of the federal laws that apply to Audrey's standing as a disabled person.

Roger Forney
ASH security guard, 2010-2013.
Hired to work there.
Despite his criminal record.
As a sexual predator of children. 

IN CLOSING 

Thanks, oh commenter! Rock on! 

As stated at the outset, it has been years since anyone has opted to outright criticize the work of the staff of PJ Reed The Arizona State Hospital and Patient Abuse. This is fine, of course, but it is also noticeable as all hell that only at the outset of this publication's first six months or so, that anyone was of mind to take such a position. Indeed, and beyond simple critique, we have record of actual threats contained in such early-on commentary, most likely posted by persons who were encouraged to do so by ASH's corrupted administrators. 

Arizona State Hospital. A state managed health care facility that basically anyone of reasonable awareness knows has been subject to federal oversight and accountability on no less then four occasions since 1993. Directly on the basis all aspects of my allegations in the content of this blog.

And as always- even then- I do encourage anyone with legitimate experience about the goings on at ASH to share evidence to the effect that the care practices and conditions at ASH are better then usual (and then they were when I was there). This most necessarily includes factual evidence that the allegations presented in this blog are untrue or otherwise illegitimate. I would love to learn of actual  improvements at ASH, I really would. My sole concern has to do with my former patient-peers at ASH, and anyone else who in more recent years has been committed to treatment there, and my sole objective has been to contribute to improvement, and not conflict, per se'.  

Upon taking this route back in the day, no one of the writers behind those earliest negative comments ever came back with any such evidence. They did, in very real effect, fade away with out any further action. Following which, the 2015 scandal. Etc. Etc. 

Chicken shits, this is how I at times feel about such ungrounded comments, posted anonymously by persons arguably afraid of the truth, that the truth should become common knowledge, readily available on the world wide web, and so on. All to preserve status quo, for, as then Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley put it almost four years ago: 

"Secrecy does invite corruption.”

Of course, and as the record has so glaringly shown over the years, my credibility was more then confirmed circa 2013-2015, and during that period of time when seven individuals with direct association to the operation at ASH circa 2010-2015 were summarily fired on the basis of their corrupted ways. All seven of these persons had been identified in allegations included in this blog by that time. 

ABC Ch15's Dave Biscobing, in fact, came to me in 2013 through this blog, his verbatim first statement being, "You are obviously acting in heartfelt concern for the patients at ASH." Following which he drew from evidence found herein as means to initiate his own investigation of ASH. And on the story still goes.   

At the same time, and solely on the basis of me having no desire to hold an unnecessary grudge, I am more then happy to acknowledge my awareness that there are individuals working at ASH who do, in fact, serve in good faith. Good Staff, as I have more then once referred to, who I know try their hardest to get on with their work to the best of their ability, in defiance of the abject shortfalls at ASH, most of which occur due to administrative ineptitude, and associated management level staff there.

Some such Good Staff have in fact reached out this blog over the years, acting as direct sources about ongoing wrongdoing at ASH, always out of direct concern about the care needs and rights of the ASH patient community. Former as well as current staff, it should be noted (including some who were there when I was there), several of whom still reman in contact, even today. 

Maybe this most recent commentary was provided by such a person. Maybe not. And on it goes, until it's done.

paoloreed@gmail.com