Thanks for the info!
Quoting from it.... "lawyers representing psychiatric respondents interpose little, if any,
defense and are not discovering and presenting to judges the evidence of the harm to their
clients. In addition to lawyer indifference, most appointed lawyers do not have funding to
obtain expert testimony even when they might want to do a good job for their clients..."
"...In trying to address this problem, PsychRights has agreed to make available certified copies of
written testimony (affidavits) of Robert Whitaker
and Grace E. Jackson, MD., PsychRights filed
in a couple of forced drugging cases, and has developed a generic set of pleadings wrapped
around this testimony...Ideally, this testimony will be used by
attorneys representing people facing forced drugging petitions and, in order to facilitate
adaptation of the generic pleadings to include state law and people's specific circumstances..."
I printed it out and I'm going to give it to our lawyer to look at just so he has a heads-up about some of this info ahead of time in case he isn't yet aware of it, and if I ever need his help again on this matter.
From my experience with it, it all seems to come down to a game of chicken with them. To see who backs down first. Kind of like the animals on that Nature tv show, where the animals try to make themselves appear bigger, scarier, and hope that the other animal just backs down. They don't seem to really want to fight for real and one usually just backs down before it comes to a real fight. That's what seemed to happen in my case. They backed down before it ever came to the court hearing. My lawyer was slamming them with subpoenas for all their records about me, and they did not like having to deal with it, and just dropped it.