ROL_2010-05-28_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:04.480]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:04.480 --> 00:09.240]  Quarters, photographers and TV crews, say BP and Coast Guard officials are restricting
[00:09.240 --> 00:14.440]  and denying members of the media access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas of clean-up
[00:14.440 --> 00:16.880]  efforts and even flyovers.
[00:16.880 --> 00:21.540]  Critics say the ability to document a disaster is key to focusing the nation's attention
[00:21.540 --> 00:24.960]  on it and the resulting clean-up efforts.
[00:24.960 --> 00:29.280]  The House of Representatives voted Thursday to let the Pentagon repeal the ban on gay
[00:29.280 --> 00:35.320]  and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling
[00:35.320 --> 00:38.480]  the law known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
[00:38.480 --> 00:43.400]  The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban, meaning gay men and lesbians
[00:43.400 --> 00:48.320]  could openly serve in the military for the first time.
[00:48.320 --> 00:53.800]  Military exercises conducted by the Israeli army set fire to 17,000 acres of the occupied
[00:53.800 --> 00:57.840]  Syrian Golan Heights, destroying plant life in the region.
[00:57.840 --> 01:04.680]  Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 and annexed it in 1981 in a move
[01:04.680 --> 01:08.280]  not recognized by the international community.
[01:08.280 --> 01:13.280]  In Iraq, the spread of illegal squatter settlements has aid groups fearful of a looming social
[01:13.280 --> 01:14.280]  crisis.
[01:14.280 --> 01:19.720]  Recent reports from two international agencies found that of Iraq's 1.5 million internally
[01:19.720 --> 01:26.160]  displaced people, at least 500,000 have been forced to live in squalid camps without access
[01:26.160 --> 01:28.720]  to health care or public services.
[01:28.720 --> 01:35.160]  The UN High Commission for Refugees, the UNHCR, has recorded a sharp increase in squatters
[01:35.160 --> 01:41.460]  since 2009 and activists are demanding the US and UN tackle the problem before it gets
[01:41.460 --> 01:42.920]  out of control.
[01:42.920 --> 01:48.480]  Daniel Andra, UNHCR's Iraq representative said, quote, we have also found that many
[01:48.480 --> 01:53.200]  refugees who returned recently from other countries have ended up in camps.
[01:53.200 --> 01:58.400]  Andra says, quote, the squatter camps are the biggest humanitarian problem facing Iraq.
[01:58.400 --> 02:06.200]  Britain's $6.5 billion national identity card scheme is to be scrapped within 100 days.
[02:06.200 --> 02:11.080]  Abolishing ID cards will be the first piece of legislation introduced by the new government.
[02:11.080 --> 02:15.480]  The publication of the identity documents bill Friday marks the end of an eight-year
[02:15.480 --> 02:21.400]  struggle over compulsory ID cards since they were first floated by the then Home Secretary
[02:21.400 --> 02:24.400]  David Blunkett in the aftermath of 9-11.
[02:24.400 --> 02:28.840]  More than 5 million combined passports and identity cards were due to be issued when
[02:28.840 --> 02:31.080]  the scheme was to have started next year.
[02:31.080 --> 02:36.000]  The difficulty facing officials will be how to disentangle the ID card scheme from the
[02:36.000 --> 02:38.320]  system for issuing passports.
[02:38.320 --> 02:41.640]  The government's decision was welcomed by privacy campaigners.
[02:41.640 --> 02:47.360]  Phil Booth, the national coordinator of the No2ID group, says, quote, that the very first
[02:47.360 --> 02:52.640]  bill to be presented by the coalition government will repeal the Identity Cards Act is a sign
[02:52.640 --> 02:54.360]  that the tide has turned.
[02:54.360 --> 02:58.720]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[02:58.720 --> 03:08.720]  You are listening to the Rural Law Radio Network at RuralLawRadio.com, live free speech talk
[03:08.720 --> 03:09.720]  radio at its best.
[03:09.720 --> 03:30.720]  Bad boy, what you want, what you're going, what you're going to do, when the sun don't
[03:30.720 --> 03:33.720]  come for you?
[03:33.720 --> 03:49.720]  Bad boy, bad boy, what you're going to do, what you're going to do, what you're going
[03:49.720 --> 03:58.120]  to do, what you're going to do, when they come for you, when you were eight and a half.
[03:58.120 --> 04:02.120]  What are you going to do when we come for you?
[04:02.120 --> 04:12.920]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, and tonight, for the
[04:12.920 --> 04:17.960]  first part of our show, we have a very good friend, Dr. Bill Viest.
[04:17.960 --> 04:21.320]  He's got two PhDs in psychology.
[04:21.320 --> 04:23.000]  He knows a great deal about economics.
[04:23.000 --> 04:27.800]  A lot of times we have him on the show to discuss financial and economic matters, but
[04:27.800 --> 04:33.160]  tonight we're going to talk about psychology issues and psychiatric issues.
[04:33.160 --> 04:42.280]  This is a follow-up from Monday night's show where we had a caller call in to report a
[04:42.280 --> 04:48.960]  kidnapping in progress concerning his wife being kidnapped by the police due to some
[04:48.960 --> 04:51.800]  type of warrant issued by a hospital.
[04:51.800 --> 04:57.840]  Turns out that it had something to do with a hospital issuing a pickup or something to
[04:57.840 --> 04:59.520]  that effect.
[04:59.520 --> 05:05.360]  This brings up a very crucial and important issue in law today concerning these forced
[05:05.360 --> 05:10.640]  psychiatric and psychological exams.
[05:10.640 --> 05:17.560]  In general, Dr. Viest has always told us, don't take them, just refuse, do not take
[05:17.560 --> 05:19.000]  them at all.
[05:19.000 --> 05:26.320]  However, in some circumstances, there are situations where a judge orders it, and if
[05:26.320 --> 05:29.000]  you don't do it, then you're held in contempt.
[05:29.000 --> 05:34.120]  Of course, we all know that that is a very dangerous situation because a judge could
[05:34.120 --> 05:39.680]  potentially just keep you in jail however long he or she wants, as long as you're in
[05:39.680 --> 05:40.760]  contempt.
[05:40.760 --> 05:46.760]  We have Dr. Viest on with us tonight to discuss the nature of these exams, just what they're
[05:46.760 --> 05:53.280]  all about, and how you could deal with the situation if you happen to be placed in this
[05:53.280 --> 05:54.280]  situation.
[05:54.280 --> 05:56.160]  Dr. Viest, thank you for joining us tonight.
[05:56.160 --> 05:57.160]  Thank you for having me.
[05:57.160 --> 05:58.160]  It's nice to be here again.
[05:58.160 --> 06:04.520]  Now, I wanted to ask you, if you could just go over your credentials and just the nature
[06:04.520 --> 06:05.520]  of your practice.
[06:05.520 --> 06:10.680]  You don't have to get into specific details that would violate any kind of confidentiality,
[06:10.680 --> 06:16.320]  but mainly I also wanted you to talk about the nature of these exams and how it's not
[06:16.320 --> 06:22.920]  just a matter of a score, but how there are other qualifying and quantifying factors that
[06:22.920 --> 06:27.560]  would render an exam like this invalid and these kinds of things.
[06:27.560 --> 06:33.680]  If you could please let us know these things and start off telling us your background.
[06:33.680 --> 06:34.680]  Okay.
[06:34.680 --> 06:42.680]  Well, actually, I'm a clinical psychologist, and I have a PhD in psychology, and I'm licensed
[06:42.680 --> 06:47.880]  in the three different states to practice psychology, and one of my doctorates is in
[06:47.880 --> 06:54.120]  clinical hypnotherapy, so I have two different doctorate degrees, but they're related, but
[06:54.120 --> 06:56.520]  not the same field.
[06:56.520 --> 07:01.880]  I started out in my... Actually, being a psychologist is actually my second career.
[07:01.880 --> 07:08.640]  I was in business for years and years and went back in the 90s and got my doctoral degrees,
[07:08.640 --> 07:14.760]  and then I started practicing in the late 90s, and I started out in really working in
[07:14.760 --> 07:20.280]  forensic psychology, because after I got my doctorate in psychology, I spent two years
[07:20.280 --> 07:24.940]  getting certified in neuropsychology, where we learned a lot about the brain functioning
[07:24.940 --> 07:31.280]  and the nervous system functioning, and my mentor was a forensic psychologist, so I worked
[07:31.280 --> 07:38.220]  with her on a couple of criminal cases and a couple of civil cases, and I haven't really
[07:38.220 --> 07:40.520]  been doing that for the last eight years.
[07:40.520 --> 07:48.840]  My practice went in another direction, but I probably, early in my career, gave about
[07:48.840 --> 07:54.320]  maybe 150 complete psychological test batteries, which is a large number.
[07:54.320 --> 07:58.880]  Most psychologists, maybe in their entire careers, if they're not forensic psychologists,
[07:58.880 --> 08:04.520]  might only give a handful of full psych test batteries, so 150 is a pretty substantial
[08:04.520 --> 08:11.640]  number, so I am familiar with these psychological test batteries.
[08:11.640 --> 08:18.520]  The one thing that has concerned me in this is that psychological test batteries can be
[08:18.520 --> 08:25.080]  very good in a lot of circumstances, but they're supposed to be used when people ask to take
[08:25.080 --> 08:26.080]  them.
[08:26.080 --> 08:32.040]  For example, if somebody is having a problem functioning in their life, maybe for some
[08:32.040 --> 08:39.880]  reason they're not having stable relationships, or they're losing jobs, or they have a lot
[08:39.880 --> 08:44.560]  of depression or anxiety, and they want to change something about themselves, and they
[08:44.560 --> 08:50.640]  go to a psychologist, then the psychologist may want to give them a psychological test
[08:50.640 --> 08:55.840]  battery to understand a little bit more about how that person is functioning.
[08:55.840 --> 09:04.120]  In that type of a case, the patient is more than willing to give full effort in performing
[09:04.120 --> 09:09.760]  on these psychological test batteries because that individual wants to get accurate results
[09:09.760 --> 09:13.640]  because he's the one asking for help, or she's the one asking for help.
[09:13.640 --> 09:18.040]  It's like if you go to the dentist, and you sit in the chair, and the dentist says, open
[09:18.040 --> 09:21.800]  your mouth, you open your mouth because you went there to get your teeth fixed.
[09:21.800 --> 09:23.640]  You wouldn't sit there and keep your mouth closed.
[09:23.640 --> 09:29.960]  Well, when the court orders somebody to take a psychological test, it's akin to forcing
[09:29.960 --> 09:33.280]  somebody to go to the dentist and making them open their mouth, whether they have a problem
[09:33.280 --> 09:38.000]  with their teeth or not, or want their mouth looked at.
[09:38.000 --> 09:44.920]  They've used these psychological test batteries, it appears to me, to gain some kind of control
[09:44.920 --> 09:55.720]  over what they would term maybe a recalcitrant defendant who's not cooperating with the system.
[09:55.720 --> 10:02.360]  But normally, there's two rationales for forcing someone against their will if they haven't
[10:02.360 --> 10:05.960]  committed a crime or they haven't been convicted of a crime.
[10:05.960 --> 10:10.920]  You can force them against their will, and one is if somebody is deemed to be a danger
[10:10.920 --> 10:16.480]  to self or others, and that's not as subjective as people think.
[10:16.480 --> 10:21.440]  In order to qualify somebody as a danger to self or others, you have to have some pretty
[10:21.440 --> 10:28.000]  strong evidence that they've made a threat against an identifiable target, and it was
[10:28.000 --> 10:32.560]  a specific threat where they named the person, and they have the means to carry it out.
[10:32.560 --> 10:38.600]  There has to be a number of criteria in there to establish that someone really is a danger
[10:38.600 --> 10:46.320]  to someone else, and it's not just mouthing off or just making some general threat.
[10:46.320 --> 10:51.600]  And the same with a danger to self, just because somebody says, oh, sometimes I'd like to kill
[10:51.600 --> 10:58.160]  myself or I feel like killing myself, that's not necessarily enough to say somebody's a
[10:58.160 --> 10:59.160]  danger to self.
[10:59.160 --> 11:05.520]  There usually has to be some pattern of having maybe tried it in the past, some situation
[11:05.520 --> 11:09.500]  where you know they're really depressed or they've had a number of major losses.
[11:09.500 --> 11:12.560]  They actually have the means to carry it out.
[11:12.560 --> 11:17.960]  I don't remember all the criteria, but there are specific criteria to even be able to say
[11:17.960 --> 11:19.720]  that somebody is a danger to self or others.
[11:19.720 --> 11:24.560]  You can't just make it up and say it and then commit somebody to a psychiatric facility.
[11:24.560 --> 11:30.080]  Well, the other circumstance, other than being a danger to self or others, where the court
[11:30.080 --> 11:37.640]  tries to take control of somebody is they'll try to make somebody prove that they're competent
[11:37.640 --> 11:42.340]  to assist in their own defense or to understand the charges against them.
[11:42.340 --> 11:48.440]  And see, to me, this is a ploy because in this society, we're supposed to be presumed
[11:48.440 --> 11:51.960]  competent unless somebody can prove that we're incompetent.
[11:51.960 --> 11:58.660]  So the court turns that around and tries to make the defendant prove his competence.
[11:58.660 --> 12:00.340]  And competence is presumed.
[12:00.340 --> 12:03.520]  Everybody out there in society is presumed to be competent unless somebody can prove
[12:03.520 --> 12:04.520]  they're not.
[12:04.520 --> 12:11.200]  Now, if the court demands that you take a psychological evaluation or psychiatric evaluation,
[12:11.200 --> 12:14.200]  then to me, that's akin to you giving testimony against yourself.
[12:14.200 --> 12:16.280]  That violates the Fifth Amendment.
[12:16.280 --> 12:19.620]  Why should the person have to give evidence against himself?
[12:19.620 --> 12:22.280]  Why should he have to give testimony against himself?
[12:22.280 --> 12:27.820]  So I would think that anybody if the court is forcing someone to take a competency evaluation,
[12:27.820 --> 12:34.280]  that person could ask the judge or the prosecutor or the psychologist or psychiatrist, is anything
[12:34.280 --> 12:37.320]  could anything I say be used against me in a court of law?
[12:37.320 --> 12:40.880]  Could my performance on this test be used against me in any way?
[12:40.880 --> 12:44.920]  And if the answer is yes, then you can just assert your Fifth Amendment right to not give
[12:44.920 --> 12:47.000]  testimony against yourself.
[12:47.000 --> 12:52.840]  Anyway, I've got other things I can talk about, but I'll probably stop here in case I've elicited
[12:52.840 --> 12:56.040]  some questions in your all's minds or the caller's minds.
[12:56.040 --> 13:03.120]  Now, one issue that I was considering that we discussed the other night concerning the
[13:03.120 --> 13:09.640]  court demanding these types of exams, and you said, well, why isn't the court demanding
[13:09.640 --> 13:17.640]  that so-and-so take a heart exam or take a, you know, why not any other type of medical
[13:17.640 --> 13:18.640]  exam?
[13:18.640 --> 13:24.400]  Has there been some kind of behavior pattern or some kind of symptoms that would show that
[13:24.400 --> 13:29.760]  a so-and-so would need a heart exam or a psychiatric exam or whatever?
[13:29.760 --> 13:36.040]  And so I thought that was very interesting that, you know, what basis would the court
[13:36.040 --> 13:40.580]  be using to try to force an exam like this?
[13:40.580 --> 13:42.680]  And like you said, it was a ploy.
[13:42.680 --> 13:43.680]  It's just a ploy.
[13:43.680 --> 13:44.680]  Right.
[13:44.680 --> 13:49.040]  It is a ploy because, you know, they're not saying I want you to take an exam to see how
[13:49.040 --> 13:51.960]  your liver is functioning or your kidneys or your heart.
[13:51.960 --> 13:56.360]  Well, why should you take a psychological exam for them to see how your brain is functioning?
[13:56.360 --> 14:04.720]  You know, unless there's some evidence, and just because somebody is accused of a crime
[14:04.720 --> 14:10.400]  and they haven't been found guilty yet, that's not evidence that they're incompetent to understand
[14:10.400 --> 14:12.000]  the charges against them.
[14:12.000 --> 14:17.560]  Now, there are other ways to maybe try to infer confidence.
[14:17.560 --> 14:22.360]  For example, if somebody is behaving in a way where it's obvious they can't understand
[14:22.360 --> 14:27.120]  the charges against them, they're drooling on themselves and falling over in court and
[14:27.120 --> 14:33.120]  having seizures and, you know, just behaving in a way that it's obvious they can't assist
[14:33.120 --> 14:35.600]  in their own defense, that's one thing.
[14:35.600 --> 14:40.680]  But just because someone is not being cooperative, you know, and maybe they're doing it in a
[14:40.680 --> 14:45.120]  very gentlemanly way, you know, but they're just not cooperating with the normal court
[14:45.120 --> 14:46.120]  procedure.
[14:46.120 --> 14:51.560]  Sometimes they're not saying, yes, I'm guilty, or, you know, I'm saying, pleading not guilty
[14:51.560 --> 14:59.240]  or guilty or whatever, or, you know, the court has its way of its certain procedures.
[14:59.240 --> 15:03.560]  And just because someone doesn't cooperate with all those procedures doesn't necessarily
[15:03.560 --> 15:06.000]  mean it doesn't mean at all that they're incompetent.
[15:06.000 --> 15:10.160]  And so what I don't understand is why do you have to give evidence against yourself?
[15:10.160 --> 15:16.520]  Or even potentially? Yeah, and I don't think that one has to.
[15:16.520 --> 15:17.520]  I mean, that goes back to...
[15:17.520 --> 15:18.520]  But the court makes it.
[15:18.520 --> 15:24.160]  See, the judges will tell you, if you don't take the exam, I'm going to hold you in contempt.
[15:24.160 --> 15:26.400]  So let's say you take the exam.
[15:26.400 --> 15:29.360]  Well, let's say you don't take the exam.
[15:29.360 --> 15:30.360]  Now you're in contempt.
[15:30.360 --> 15:35.120]  Now you're in jail, maybe for a longer period of time than if you had been convicted of
[15:35.120 --> 15:36.120]  the crime.
[15:36.120 --> 15:41.000]  Because, so, it's almost like forcing you to take it, but then the problem with forcing
[15:41.000 --> 15:45.640]  someone to take it is they're only valid if somebody gives full effort.
[15:45.640 --> 15:50.760]  It's like if the judge says, I'm ordering you to go out and run a 100-yard dash as fast
[15:50.760 --> 15:51.760]  as you can.
[15:51.760 --> 15:55.500]  Well, if you go out there and run it and it takes you 20 seconds to run it, how does he
[15:55.500 --> 15:58.280]  know if you gave your best effort or not?
[15:58.280 --> 15:59.560]  You did what he told you.
[15:59.560 --> 16:05.260]  We went out and ran the 100, but maybe you could run the 115 seconds, Todd, or 14 seconds,
[16:05.260 --> 16:07.960]  but you went out there and faked it and only ran it in 20 seconds.
[16:07.960 --> 16:14.640]  Well, to me, you still did what he said, but the problem was you ran the 100.
[16:14.640 --> 16:19.120]  But the problem is you didn't give your best performance, so the score is not valid.
[16:19.120 --> 16:23.280]  Well, the same thing happens in a psychological test.
[16:23.280 --> 16:29.460]  In order to determine competence, one of the tests in the psychological test battery is
[16:29.460 --> 16:31.200]  an IQ test.
[16:31.200 --> 16:36.440]  And an intelligence test, usually the gold standard is the Wechsler, and they can take
[16:36.440 --> 16:39.320]  two and a half hours to administer, two to two and a half hours.
[16:39.320 --> 16:43.120]  I hear the music, so I'll stop on the other side and finish on the other side of this
[16:43.120 --> 16:44.120]  break.
[16:44.120 --> 16:45.120]  All right.
[16:45.120 --> 16:46.120]  We'll be right back with Dr. Bill Vease.
[16:46.120 --> 16:51.480]  And I want to get into other aspects of these psychological and psychiatric exams other
[16:51.480 --> 16:57.760]  than just the scoring of the performance, issues that would render them invalid.
[16:57.760 --> 17:03.080]  We'll be right back.
[17:03.080 --> 17:07.520]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin
[17:07.520 --> 17:10.120]  supplies in the Austin metro area.
[17:10.120 --> 17:12.160]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:12.160 --> 17:16.200]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[17:16.200 --> 17:17.200]  and metals purchases.
[17:17.200 --> 17:22.880]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[17:22.880 --> 17:24.760]  metals, and scrap gold.
[17:24.760 --> 17:28.360]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:28.360 --> 17:30.960]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[17:30.960 --> 17:36.760]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open Monday through Friday,
[17:36.760 --> 17:40.920]  10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[17:40.920 --> 17:48.320]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[17:48.320 --> 17:49.320]  with any questions.
[17:49.320 --> 17:54.880]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM, that's Capital
[17:54.880 --> 18:20.360]  Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[18:20.360 --> 18:44.340]  Alright.
[18:44.340 --> 19:08.460]  Okay, we are back. We are here with Dr. Bill Veidt and we are discussing the nature of
[19:08.460 --> 19:14.260]  these psychological and psychiatric exams. And Bill, you're about to explain the different
[19:14.260 --> 19:23.780]  types of response sets. Right. So when you take a psychological exam, there's only four
[19:23.780 --> 19:29.740]  different types of response sets that can come out of that exam. And three of the four
[19:29.740 --> 19:36.820]  render the results invalid. There's only one valid response set. So the only valid response
[19:36.820 --> 19:44.140]  set is if somebody gives full effort and answers questions honestly. Because a lot of the questions,
[19:44.140 --> 19:48.460]  you know, there's a specific question and you either, you may answer it true-false depending
[19:48.460 --> 19:55.020]  like if it's an MMPI. There's 565 true-false questions on there. And then some other types
[19:55.020 --> 19:59.700]  of questions are called projective tests where you're not sure how you're supposed to respond,
[19:59.700 --> 20:04.940]  but you're, you know, and that's part of the test. Like if you take a Rorschach or a drawing
[20:04.940 --> 20:10.340]  test or something, but, you know, the psychologist knows when they score it what the results
[20:10.340 --> 20:15.460]  indicate. So a lot of the things on there, the person taking the test doesn't understand
[20:15.460 --> 20:21.380]  even how he's supposed to respond or not respond. But for example, on an IQ test, you certainly
[20:21.380 --> 20:28.020]  know what the questions are. If one of the math questions is, you know, what's, you know,
[20:28.020 --> 20:34.620]  eight plus nine, you know what that's trying to get at, you know. And so some of them are
[20:34.620 --> 20:42.140]  obvious and some of them are not obvious that the types of questions that are elicited on
[20:42.140 --> 20:48.780]  a test. But anyway, but a valid response set is one where somebody gives full effort and
[20:48.780 --> 20:54.940]  tries to respond honestly in every situation. Now there's three other response sets that
[20:54.940 --> 21:00.480]  can be delivered that all render the test invalid. There's one response set where the
[21:00.480 --> 21:06.260]  person is trying to look good, better than he is. And that would be considered under
[21:06.260 --> 21:11.940]  reporting problems and pathology. And that would be, let's say, in a situation where
[21:11.940 --> 21:17.300]  let's say both parents are fighting for custody of the kids and each parent would like to
[21:17.300 --> 21:23.020]  get custody. So if they're taking the psychological exam, they're going to try to look as good
[21:23.020 --> 21:28.660]  as possible. So even whether they do it intentionally or even unintentionally in trying to look good
[21:28.660 --> 21:36.540]  on the test, they're not going to answer everything totally honestly. Any time there's ambiguity
[21:36.540 --> 21:41.020]  in a question, they're going to try to figure out what's the thing that's going to present
[21:41.020 --> 21:49.300]  me in the best light. So if they do that enough, the test is going to, you know, every test
[21:49.300 --> 21:54.260]  that's given has what's called validity indicators where you can determine whether that specific
[21:54.260 --> 22:01.260]  test was valid or not. And so if you come out to be invalid on enough of the test because
[22:01.260 --> 22:05.500]  you've under reported your problems or understated in trying to present yourself in too good
[22:05.500 --> 22:10.500]  a light, then no matter what the results of the test show, you have to conclude that the
[22:10.500 --> 22:15.540]  test is invalid. So you can't even use the results. But some psychologists don't do that.
[22:15.540 --> 22:20.940]  They just, I've seen where they just look at the scores and they interpret the scores.
[22:20.940 --> 22:25.580]  And they don't. And, you know, part of giving a test battery, it's as much art as it is
[22:25.580 --> 22:32.300]  science. And you have to watch the behavior of the client. You have to see. And you have
[22:32.300 --> 22:37.900]  to determine, you have to really know how to score and evaluate these validity indicators
[22:37.900 --> 22:42.860]  so you can determine whether the test is valid or not and just not total up the scores by
[22:42.860 --> 22:48.220]  rote and then look in the chart and say, well, a score here in this range gives you, you
[22:48.220 --> 22:54.100]  know, means this and a score in this range means that. So, okay, so one invalid response
[22:54.100 --> 22:58.660]  set is where you're trying to look too good. The other invalid response set is where you're
[22:58.660 --> 23:02.820]  trying to look bad. And that's what's called malingering. And that's where you're over
[23:02.820 --> 23:08.140]  reporting your problems or pathology. And this might happen in a case where somebody's
[23:08.140 --> 23:12.740]  been in an accident, a car accident. They're suing the insurance company. And maybe they've
[23:12.740 --> 23:17.180]  had some broken rib or a broken arm or something, but they're also alleging they have permanent
[23:17.180 --> 23:25.380]  brain damage, which would make the damages in there, the award, maybe $5 million instead
[23:25.380 --> 23:32.380]  of $250,000. So they're trying to look bad. Or maybe they're being drafted into the army
[23:32.380 --> 23:39.260]  and they want to look like they're not functioning well enough. So they're trying to look bad.
[23:39.260 --> 23:44.380]  They're malingering their problems mentally and or physically to try to look bad. So there's
[23:44.380 --> 23:48.420]  a lot of different reasons when somebody's taken a psych exam why they might want to
[23:48.420 --> 23:54.500]  look good or look bad. But either one of those response sets is invalid. Okay, the other
[23:54.500 --> 23:59.900]  invalid response set is what's called a random response set. Now, a random response set might
[23:59.900 --> 24:06.260]  occur intentionally if somebody goes in there and just tries to sabotage the exam. And they
[24:06.260 --> 24:11.580]  know what the truthful answer is or the response that's required if they were given their best
[24:11.580 --> 24:17.380]  effort and they give a different one on purpose, just because it's like, F you, I don't care
[24:17.380 --> 24:22.260]  what the results show. I'm not cooperating. Okay. Or the other type of random response
[24:22.260 --> 24:28.100]  that might be an unintentional one. Let's say somebody goes into the test situation
[24:28.100 --> 24:32.780]  and the morning they went in there, their favorite cat or dog that they've had for 20
[24:32.780 --> 24:37.300]  years, they woke up and it was dead. And so they're and they've got financial problems
[24:37.300 --> 24:40.380]  and they're going in there and that maybe they didn't sleep the night before and they've
[24:40.380 --> 24:46.020]  got all these problems. They've got all this anxiety and they just can't maintain attention
[24:46.020 --> 24:51.660]  and concentration. So on a lot of the problems that come up in the, in the psychological
[24:51.660 --> 24:56.940]  exam during the IQ testing or other ones, they can't give their best effort because
[24:56.940 --> 25:01.660]  they can't concentrate. Okay. So there they may come out unintentionally with a random
[25:01.660 --> 25:09.140]  response set because they just couldn't continue to pay attention or concentrate. So, so there's
[25:09.140 --> 25:14.900]  of the four different kinds of response sets, only one is valid. So there's a lot of times
[25:14.900 --> 25:19.380]  when people go in there and take these tests and the response and the, and the response,
[25:19.380 --> 25:25.800]  the test is invalid. But the problem is if the, if the person scoring and interpreting
[25:25.800 --> 25:30.760]  the test doesn't understand that or doesn't realize it, they'll write up, they'll write
[25:30.760 --> 25:34.900]  up the results and maybe the person will come out with having all kinds of mental problems
[25:34.900 --> 25:38.380]  and then the court will use that against them or, or they'll diagnose them with a mental
[25:38.380 --> 25:44.620]  disorder that they shouldn't, wouldn't otherwise have because performance is specific to that
[25:44.620 --> 25:49.860]  moment in time. That's why in some games, a basketball player might get up and he might
[25:49.860 --> 25:53.940]  make 10 out of 10 foul shots during that game. And the next game, he might get up there and
[25:53.940 --> 25:59.040]  make three out of 10 because performance is variable. Okay. And it's the same thing when
[25:59.040 --> 26:04.060]  you're taking a psychological exam, it's a performance exam. You have to perform. And
[26:04.060 --> 26:10.020]  so there's reasons to get variability even in your, in your responses. And so the person
[26:10.020 --> 26:14.500]  giving the exam, if they know what they're doing, they know how to write up all these
[26:14.500 --> 26:20.060]  different variables in the report. And they know when a test, you know, or even as of
[26:20.060 --> 26:24.420]  questionable validity, questionable validity, I've given tests where I've said that, you
[26:24.420 --> 26:28.900]  know, the results show this, the scores show this, but I don't believe that this is an
[26:28.900 --> 26:34.020]  accurate measure of this person's performance. And I might say the person appeared sleepy
[26:34.020 --> 26:37.780]  at times and his eyes were closed during the exam, you know, and so I don't think he could
[26:37.780 --> 26:42.420]  give his best effort and that I might recommend that he come back and take the exam another
[26:42.420 --> 26:46.980]  time. And that might even be when the person wanted to take the exam. So in a situation
[26:46.980 --> 26:50.860]  like in court, when you're ordered to take it and you don't want to take it, there's
[26:50.860 --> 26:56.540]  all kinds of reasons for a person not to perform their best. And even if they do perform their
[26:56.540 --> 27:02.540]  best, there's all kinds of reasons where it could come out with data that would hurt you
[27:02.540 --> 27:06.900]  and couldn't help you. So when a court orders you to take a test because they're questioning
[27:06.900 --> 27:13.220]  your competency, I don't see how it can help you. It can only hurt you because you should
[27:13.220 --> 27:18.820]  already be presumed competent. So even if you perform wonderfully on the test, you're
[27:18.820 --> 27:22.460]  no better off. You were presumed competent before and now you have proved that you're
[27:22.460 --> 27:29.380]  competent. But by contrast, if something goes wrong during that test, either from your position
[27:29.380 --> 27:34.140]  or the tester's position, it could certainly hurt you. The results could hurt you. So it
[27:34.140 --> 27:39.740]  can't help you, but it could potentially hurt you. That's why I don't agree with a situation
[27:39.740 --> 27:44.740]  where a person is ordered to take it. These tests can certainly be helpful if somebody
[27:44.740 --> 27:48.700]  wants to take them because they're having a problem functioning in their lives and they
[27:48.700 --> 27:53.060]  want to have this person help figure out what the problem is. And so then they go in and
[27:53.060 --> 27:57.940]  take the test and the test adds to all the other data that you would look at in figuring
[27:57.940 --> 28:07.420]  out how a person is functioning. So it appears to me from the tests that I've seen ordered
[28:07.420 --> 28:14.060]  or the people I've talked to who have had the tests ordered, if the times they order
[28:14.060 --> 28:28.700]  the tests are surprisingly consistent and that's any time you fail to be compliant.
[28:28.700 --> 28:33.140]  If you object to what the court's doing, you raise issues with what the court's doing.
[28:33.140 --> 28:41.620]  It makes no difference how eloquently you raise those issues. The first seeming avenue
[28:41.620 --> 28:47.580]  of defense to gain control over you if the threats and the saber rattling doesn't get
[28:47.580 --> 28:53.620]  it done is they throw you in jail and they hold you for pretty much as long as they want
[28:53.620 --> 29:01.020]  to for psychological evaluation, which obviously is worthless.
[29:01.020 --> 29:07.420]  It could be worthless, yes. But see, the problem is to catch 22 for the defendant. If they
[29:07.420 --> 29:13.380]  don't take the exam, then the judge holds them in contempt and puts them away for who
[29:13.380 --> 29:19.940]  knows how long until the person is broken mentally and then caged in and takes the exam.
[29:19.940 --> 29:26.100]  If they do take it and something goes wrong or the person giving it has an agenda to declare
[29:26.100 --> 29:33.700]  you incompetent, then they can put you in a mental hospital or psychiatric ward until
[29:33.700 --> 29:40.860]  you become competent. Their definition of you becoming competent is when you're totally
[29:40.860 --> 29:45.620]  compliant and caged into everything they want you to do and give in. They may keep you in
[29:45.620 --> 29:50.300]  a mental ward longer than you would be in prison if you were found guilty. It's a way
[29:50.300 --> 29:54.340]  of getting control over you and making you become totally malleable and compliant to
[29:54.340 --> 29:55.340]  their wishes.
[29:55.340 --> 30:02.340]  All right, we'll be right back.
[30:25.340 --> 30:32.340]  All right, we'll be right back.
[30:55.340 --> 31:02.340]  All right, we'll be back.
[31:25.340 --> 31:32.340]  All right, we'll be back.
[31:55.340 --> 32:14.500]  All right, we're back. We're talking with Dr. Bill Veith, a very good friend of ours
[32:14.500 --> 32:21.460]  concerning these four psychological and psychiatric exams. Yeah, we're going to get into the
[32:21.460 --> 32:28.740]  legal issues in just a moment, but first, Dr. Veith, I wanted you to discuss if you
[32:28.740 --> 32:35.500]  have an example of one of these tests in a legal setting where the test was challenged
[32:35.500 --> 32:40.620]  and overturned, where a previous test was challenged and overturned. The results, I
[32:40.620 --> 32:41.620]  mean.
[32:41.620 --> 32:48.180]  Yes, well, it wasn't overturned. What it was was the situation I worked on, it was a civil
[32:48.180 --> 32:59.340]  matter, a civil case. The facts of the case were that a guy had been riding on a motorcycle
[32:59.340 --> 33:07.100]  and he was hit by a truck. There was no contesting as to who was at fault. The truck was at fault,
[33:07.100 --> 33:13.260]  and the gentleman that was hit flew off his motorcycle and he had a separated shoulder
[33:13.260 --> 33:19.980]  and broken ribs. He had a number of physical problems, scrapes on his head. He was claiming
[33:19.980 --> 33:25.620]  and he and his attorney were claiming that he had brain damage. Brain damage is permanent
[33:25.620 --> 33:32.140]  because you can't grow new brain cells. If brain damage occurs, your body, your brain
[33:32.140 --> 33:37.700]  can make new connections with axons and dendrites. The white matter within the brain can make
[33:37.700 --> 33:44.380]  new connections, maybe, and communicate with other parts of the brain, but you can't grow
[33:44.380 --> 33:53.780]  new neurons, the gray matter. If it's gone, it's gone. Brain damage, you can really repair
[33:53.780 --> 33:57.860]  yourself from a broken rib or a separated shoulder to some extent, but you can't from
[33:57.860 --> 34:02.140]  brain damage. A lot of times the effects are permanent. Even if the effects don't show
[34:02.140 --> 34:06.940]  up now, they may show up later as you get older. You may start suffering seizures or
[34:06.940 --> 34:14.300]  have early onset dementia or things like that even 20 years later. An award in a lawsuit
[34:14.300 --> 34:19.460]  would be far, far, far greater if somebody had brain damage than if they just had other
[34:19.460 --> 34:25.700]  types of injuries. In the case I worked on, the gentleman did have a number of bodily
[34:25.700 --> 34:32.140]  injuries and he and his attorney were saying that they had brain damage. They went and
[34:32.140 --> 34:38.700]  the defendant insurance company, the guy that was driving the truck and his insurance company
[34:38.700 --> 34:49.860]  asked that guy to go take a neurological exam, a psychoneurological exam. The guy did. He
[34:49.860 --> 34:54.580]  went in and they had all these results from all the testing. I think it was they were
[34:54.580 --> 34:59.980]  negotiating for a couple of years before the case was getting ready to be settled out of
[34:59.980 --> 35:05.940]  court. The insurance company was ready to settle the case and pay over $5 million. I
[35:05.940 --> 35:10.700]  think it was about $5.5 million to the guy that was clearing brain damage. Then at some
[35:10.700 --> 35:17.660]  point they decided to get what's called a second opinion or second testing. What they
[35:17.660 --> 35:22.820]  hired us and what we did is we didn't test the guy again because now it's two years
[35:22.820 --> 35:28.380]  later. What we did was we went back and reviewed the results of all the testing he had. We've
[35:28.380 --> 35:34.380]  got all of the original data and we looked at it. Every test that he took, how it was
[35:34.380 --> 35:39.980]  scored, how the scores were interpreted, what was written about it. We found a number of
[35:39.980 --> 35:46.300]  errors in the original testing. In one case, the guy that the neuropsychologist that did
[35:46.300 --> 35:52.540]  the testing used some norms that were out of date. About every five to 10 years they
[35:52.540 --> 35:57.660]  re-norm all of these tests, these psychological tests and they get a new representative sample
[35:57.660 --> 36:06.740]  and they re-norm them and maybe throw out some of the bad questions and just change
[36:06.740 --> 36:12.260]  it up a little bit and re-validate the exam. He used some scoring norms that were for an
[36:12.260 --> 36:19.500]  old test even though he was using the new battery. That test came out to be invalid
[36:19.500 --> 36:25.140]  and then in a couple cases he actually scored it improperly. He just added some of the numbers
[36:25.140 --> 36:31.280]  wrong. It may have put him into mild cases of brain damage where if you add it right
[36:31.280 --> 36:39.660]  that range of scores would be in the unimpaired range. We found enough problems with the original
[36:39.660 --> 36:48.220]  tester's results that we wrote up an entire report and we concluded that he did not have
[36:48.220 --> 36:53.220]  brain damage and that he did have the broken rib and the broken and the separated shoulder
[36:53.220 --> 36:57.220]  and all the other things that were claimed but no brain damage. So we wrote up a refuting
[36:57.220 --> 37:03.500]  report and that became part of the settlement and they wound up settling with that guy for
[37:03.500 --> 37:10.100]  like maybe $250,000 and we literally saved the insurance company over $5 million by challenging
[37:10.100 --> 37:14.340]  the results. Now that wasn't a case where it was overturned in court. That was a case
[37:14.340 --> 37:21.300]  where the settlement became a different amount before and it never went to a jury trial.
[37:21.300 --> 37:28.900]  But the original test results were successfully refuted.
[37:28.900 --> 37:37.900]  Yes, they were refuted, yes. And so a lot of their original test results were invalid.
[37:37.900 --> 37:48.020]  I had a question about the forced exam. It would seem to me that a forced exam would
[37:48.020 --> 37:57.060]  be invalid by definition because rather or not the person voluntarily participated or
[37:57.060 --> 38:05.900]  gave full effort, the presumption must be since the exam was forced, it must be that
[38:05.900 --> 38:17.460]  he did not voluntarily cooperate and therefore would not give full cooperation for the exam.
[38:17.460 --> 38:22.660]  So I would think that on its face it would have to be considered skewed.
[38:22.660 --> 38:29.700]  Well, not necessarily, not unless the person claimed that he didn't give full effort. You
[38:29.700 --> 38:38.740]  know, it's like the IRS forces us into voluntary compliance. I mean, they force us to comply.
[38:38.740 --> 38:45.220]  So that doesn't mean when we give them the data that it's invalid. If we decide to comply
[38:45.220 --> 38:50.140]  because whether we were forced to or not, then they could still use those results for
[38:50.140 --> 38:57.860]  us or against us. So the court may force somebody to do it and that particular person may comply.
[38:57.860 --> 39:03.980]  And if he's got a good tester, a person whose psychologist has given the test and it turns
[39:03.980 --> 39:10.300]  out his results are valid and he doesn't show any pathology, you know, in a sense that didn't
[39:10.300 --> 39:15.820]  hurt him and he may say, yes, I did. And yes, I did give full effort. And yes, the results
[39:15.820 --> 39:20.900]  should be valid. But see, the problem is it can't help you. You're already presumed to
[39:20.900 --> 39:25.780]  be competent. It can hurt you if the tests are either invalid or it looks like you're
[39:25.780 --> 39:32.500]  not cooperating or you do show up with pathology. And if you show up fine in the rare instance
[39:32.500 --> 39:38.460]  where you show up fine, it didn't help you. So, you know, I can't see why you have to
[39:38.460 --> 39:42.780]  participate in something that can only hurt you and can't help you. And when you have
[39:42.780 --> 39:47.620]  to do it by force or a threat of being put in jail.
[39:47.620 --> 39:53.140]  So how valuable is a Daubert's hearing?
[39:53.140 --> 39:57.900]  What is that again? You know, it's been a year since I have studied the Daubert.
[39:57.900 --> 40:06.220]  A Daubert hearing is a hearing for the purpose of testing the credentials of an expert witness.
[40:06.220 --> 40:13.100]  In your opinion, the people you have seen giving these tests, how well do you think
[40:13.100 --> 40:17.700]  they could stand up to a vigorous examination on their...
[40:17.700 --> 40:22.820]  Okay, well, a lot of these people that know the tests I'm talking about had no idea when
[40:22.820 --> 40:27.860]  they gave the test that it was going to wind up in court. A lot of times, you know, like
[40:27.860 --> 40:36.340]  I've given a number of tests where it was ordered by like Child Protective Services
[40:36.340 --> 40:40.020]  ordered the parent to take a test or something, the person took it, and it never really wound
[40:40.020 --> 40:46.620]  up in court. So a lot of times, and then sometimes a psychologist may have given a person a test
[40:46.620 --> 40:51.900]  because the person asked for it. And then maybe years later, you know, at some point
[40:51.900 --> 40:57.500]  the mother and father get a divorce. And now one of the parents wants to try to use the
[40:57.500 --> 41:01.820]  results of that test against the other one so that they order those results shown in
[41:01.820 --> 41:06.300]  court. So a lot of times when the person, when the psychologist or psychiatrist are
[41:06.300 --> 41:11.740]  giving the test, they have no idea it's going to wind up a court case. So, but I have seen
[41:11.740 --> 41:16.620]  a number of what I think, you know, when I did my two years postdoctoral certification
[41:16.620 --> 41:23.980]  in neuropsychology, we spent a lot of time looking at psychological and neuropsychological
[41:23.980 --> 41:30.460]  tests that were given. And in each case, our mentor changed the name of the person taking
[41:30.460 --> 41:35.820]  the test and changed the name of the person giving the test. So nobody was identifiable,
[41:35.820 --> 41:41.220]  but we could examine the data. And when we just concluded after, you know, breaking down
[41:41.220 --> 41:46.220]  and analyzing a lot of these, a lot of them are done very poorly, you know. But I mean,
[41:46.220 --> 41:51.180]  you could probably say that's true in any profession, you know. I'm sure some architects
[41:51.180 --> 41:55.340]  and engineers do better work than others. Some probably do bad work. You know, it doesn't
[41:55.340 --> 41:59.700]  matter, it doesn't matter what you're having done. Same with attorneys. Some attorneys
[41:59.700 --> 42:03.140]  you may get very quality work and some attorneys you might not get them to pay attention at
[42:03.140 --> 42:08.460]  all. Same with CPAs. So, you know, that's probably no different in the field of psychology
[42:08.460 --> 42:11.540]  or psychiatry than it is in any other field. Some people are very good at what they do
[42:11.540 --> 42:15.140]  and some people are average and some people are not very good.
[42:15.140 --> 42:25.660]  I'm thinking in terms of a person accused of a crime and attempting to exert their rights
[42:25.660 --> 42:31.740]  and standing up to the courts and the courts use the threat of a psychological exam as
[42:31.740 --> 42:41.140]  a way to get control. In this case, it would seem a good idea for the individual to want
[42:41.140 --> 42:47.980]  to test the credentials of the psychologist who would give the exam. And in this case,
[42:47.980 --> 42:53.740]  the psychologist could be pretty sure this one's going to go to court or be tested.
[42:53.740 --> 42:57.140]  Yeah, I think that's, I don't think there's a problem with testing the credentials. I
[42:57.140 --> 43:03.700]  would think that most people that, professionals that engage in this type of work have the
[43:03.700 --> 43:09.100]  credentials. You know, they're all, they're licensed by the state. They've probably done
[43:09.100 --> 43:13.420]  some of these tests before. I mean, you know, you have, in other words, you can't even do
[43:13.420 --> 43:17.420]  a lot of this work unless you have the credentials. You won't even get licensed to do it. Like
[43:17.420 --> 43:25.340]  even now, even giving a competency exam, there has to be special credentials, special licensing
[43:25.340 --> 43:31.980]  now to just do a competency eval that there wasn't even 10 years ago. So a lot of psychologists,
[43:31.980 --> 43:37.460]  if they don't give competency evals all the time, they can't even do one, even if they
[43:37.460 --> 43:41.500]  wanted to. So I don't think the, I mean, you can always test the credentials, but I don't
[43:41.500 --> 43:43.740]  think that's where you're going to nail them.
[43:43.740 --> 43:51.180]  Well, I was thinking of how the psychologist would consider the risk of this particular
[43:51.180 --> 43:58.180]  hearing if he gets blown out of the water. We're about to go to break, Will. I'd like
[43:58.180 --> 44:01.180]  to talk about that.
[44:01.180 --> 44:06.180]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[44:06.180 --> 44:10.940]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[44:10.940 --> 44:16.540]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[44:16.540 --> 44:21.860]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[44:21.860 --> 44:26.620]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters and
[44:26.620 --> 44:31.020]  phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial
[44:31.020 --> 44:37.100]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the
[44:37.100 --> 44:41.860]  solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[44:41.860 --> 44:47.580]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[44:47.580 --> 44:58.100]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[44:58.100 --> 45:05.100]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[45:28.100 --> 45:35.100]  How to win in court against debt collectors.
[45:58.100 --> 46:05.100]  The first time crawling, then I'm walking, then I start strutting. Just so glad to make
[46:05.100 --> 46:10.100]  my living pushing buttons.
[46:20.100 --> 46:27.100]  It's that time to play Monopoly. We all wanted to win the game. We gave some guy and most
[46:27.100 --> 46:33.100]  money supplied. We must have not been thinking with brains. After some time, the worth of
[46:33.100 --> 46:37.100]  my time got me down to them. There's nothing I might have been to do.
[46:37.100 --> 46:43.100]  Okay, we are back. We're talking with Dr. Bill Veath concerning issues surrounding these
[46:43.100 --> 46:50.100]  four psychological and psychiatric exams. It sounds to me like the best thing to do
[46:50.100 --> 46:58.100]  is to just not take it. Just do not take it, but we've brought up the issues. If you don't
[46:58.100 --> 47:04.100]  take it and the court has ordered you to, then now you can be held in contempt. What
[47:04.100 --> 47:12.100]  are the situations where they can just declare you incompetent and you're locked away in
[47:12.100 --> 47:19.100]  the psych ward until the court decides that you are competent? Can this happen before
[47:19.100 --> 47:25.100]  you've ever even taken an exam or can that only happen after you've taken an exam?
[47:25.100 --> 47:33.100]  What are the legal ramifications here? I guess further after you answer that question, Bill,
[47:33.100 --> 47:39.100]  I'd like to ask the guys if they know what any court precedent is concerning people who
[47:39.100 --> 47:43.100]  just not going to take the test, even if the court orders. Do they just sit in jail for
[47:43.100 --> 47:49.100]  the rest of their life or what? Bill, if you would address some of these issues regarding
[47:49.100 --> 47:53.100]  when somebody could be declared incompetent and how long they could be locked away and
[47:53.100 --> 47:54.100]  these kinds of things.
[47:54.100 --> 48:02.100]  Okay. First of all, the concept of competency and incompetency is not a medical concept
[48:02.100 --> 48:07.100]  or term. It's not a psychological concept or term and it's not a psychiatric concept
[48:07.100 --> 48:15.100]  or term. It is a legal concept. Everybody is presumed to be competent unless and until
[48:15.100 --> 48:23.100]  a court of law has declared them incompetent and that's only after a fair trial. My point
[48:23.100 --> 48:29.100]  is, if the whole issue is about the court trying to declare you incompetent, why do
[48:29.100 --> 48:34.100]  you have to give evidence to the court? Why do you have to be forced to take a psychological
[48:34.100 --> 48:39.100]  exam and give evidence that the court is going to then use against you potentially? So let
[48:39.100 --> 48:43.100]  them have the trial and show that you're incompetent without you giving them the evidence
[48:43.100 --> 48:50.100]  or participating in it. Isn't that what court trials are all about? That's what the Fifth
[48:50.100 --> 48:53.100]  Amendment is all about. You don't have to give testimony against yourself. You don't
[48:53.100 --> 48:58.100]  have to provide evidence. If somebody is bringing charges against you, let them get the evidence
[48:58.100 --> 49:03.100]  without your getting them from you. And it's the same thing with a competency trial. A
[49:03.100 --> 49:09.100]  competency is a separate trial unto itself because it is a legal determination. You're
[49:09.100 --> 49:15.100]  adjudicated incompetent and unless and until you're adjudicated incompetent, you are presumed
[49:15.100 --> 49:22.100]  to be competent in a supposedly free country. So the first thing is, that's why I'm saying
[49:22.100 --> 49:27.100]  a competency about for the court cannot help you. You're already presumed competent. It
[49:27.100 --> 49:33.100]  can only hurt you by your giving evidence against yourself. Now the other thing is if
[49:33.100 --> 49:39.100]  the judge, you know, rules that you have to participate in one of these, I wouldn't just
[49:39.100 --> 49:45.100]  refuse to take it. I would get on record, can anything I say or any part of my performance
[49:45.100 --> 49:51.100]  be used against me in any way, including to prove that I'm incompetent? Can it be used
[49:51.100 --> 49:56.100]  against me in any way? Well, if they say yes, then you invoke your Fifth Amendment right
[49:56.100 --> 50:03.100]  now to give testimony against yourself. Okay? So how, you know, and then Ben, now you've
[50:03.100 --> 50:09.100]  got something that's appealable. Now, you know, I would say if you want to try me to
[50:09.100 --> 50:13.100]  be incompetent, go ahead and try me. That's a whole separate trial. Now that has nothing
[50:13.100 --> 50:19.100]  to do with the charges against you that brought you into court to begin with. That is a separate,
[50:19.100 --> 50:26.100]  independent, distinct trial as to whether or not you're competent. Now, if a doctor
[50:26.100 --> 50:31.100]  says you're incompetent, if a psychologist or psychiatrist says you're incompetent, that's
[50:31.100 --> 50:37.100]  just an opinion. Even the psychologist or psychiatrist who gives the competency eval,
[50:37.100 --> 50:41.100]  when they write up their report and they conclude that you're incompetent, that's still just
[50:41.100 --> 50:46.100]  an opinion. You are not incompetent until you have been adjudicated incompetent by the
[50:46.100 --> 50:51.100]  court of law and you get to present your evidence and the other side gets to produce their
[50:51.100 --> 50:56.100]  evidence. And then after a trial on competency, then you're either adjudicated competent
[50:56.100 --> 51:02.100]  or incompetent after, and you know, and that would mean that if you asked for a jury trial,
[51:02.100 --> 51:06.100]  the jury would have to conclude that you're incompetent, not the judge. You see what I'm
[51:06.100 --> 51:12.100]  saying? So I wouldn't just refuse to take it because that might look as behavior, you
[51:12.100 --> 51:17.100]  know, as uncooperative behavior. You know, they might conclude that you're, you know,
[51:17.100 --> 51:23.100]  that's part of your incompetency. I would ask, can anything I say or do or any part
[51:23.100 --> 51:27.100]  of my performance be used against me? And they have to say yes because it certainly
[51:27.100 --> 51:36.100]  can be. If you turn out to, if you wind up taking the exam and the psychologist makes
[51:36.100 --> 51:41.100]  his conclusion that you're incompetent, even though it's just an opinion, that's evident
[51:41.100 --> 51:48.100]  that can be used against you to determine your competency in the, in the competency trial.
[51:48.100 --> 51:53.100]  So, so now if you don't, if you refuse to take it, now you've got something appealable.
[51:53.100 --> 51:58.100]  You're refusing to take it because it's violates your fifth amendment right. Okay. Now if
[51:58.100 --> 52:03.100]  the judge puts you in jail away for contempt, I think then you challenge the whole thing
[52:03.100 --> 52:06.100]  for the contempt thing. Where's his evidence? Where's there any evidence that you're in
[52:06.100 --> 52:10.100]  contempt? You're just refusing to give testimony against yourself. You see what I'm saying?
[52:10.100 --> 52:21.100]  I certainly like the approach. Yes. I'm trying to find a, an effective way for a person who
[52:21.100 --> 52:33.100]  is resisting the improper practices of a court to do this and not wind up in jail for six
[52:33.100 --> 52:39.100]  months in the process. Well, that's pretty hard because these judges don't care about
[52:39.100 --> 52:44.100]  your fifth amendment rights. You know, we know what these courts are like now. I don't
[52:44.100 --> 52:48.100]  know if that's possible. A judge just does what he does and the bailiffs and the system
[52:48.100 --> 52:54.100]  just goes along with it. That's part of the whole problem. But you know, it still seems
[52:54.100 --> 52:59.100]  like I would, I would prefer, you know, I'm not, I wouldn't go in there saying I'm not
[52:59.100 --> 53:04.100]  cooperating or I'm resisting your order judge. I would do it strictly on can ever, can anything
[53:04.100 --> 53:10.100]  be used against me? And then I'm refusing on that ground, not the ground that I'm not
[53:10.100 --> 53:18.100]  cooperating with the court. I guess we need to do some research. I would want to be able
[53:18.100 --> 53:25.100]  to trap the judge. And that's why I mentioned- Good luck. Yeah. Earlier at Daubert's hearing,
[53:25.100 --> 53:35.100]  because could you, if you had a psychologist on the stand or, or if you were on the stand,
[53:35.100 --> 53:45.100]  could you testify that your results were accurate? Well, yeah. I mean, I think, I think, I think
[53:45.100 --> 53:52.100]  they can, they can testify that in their opinion, they appear to be valid, that it appears that
[53:52.100 --> 53:56.100]  the person gave his best effort. That would all be written in the report, you know, by
[53:56.100 --> 54:00.100]  the time he got to that point, he'd already have a report that you could challenge his
[54:00.100 --> 54:05.100]  conclusions and everything he wrote in his report. So, you know, you'd have, you'd have
[54:05.100 --> 54:09.100]  the, you'd have not just him on the witness stand, but you'd have his report to read.
[54:09.100 --> 54:14.100]  But let's say he concludes, yes, this person, in my opinion, gave their best effort and
[54:14.100 --> 54:18.100]  the results are valid. Okay, now that's just an interpretation. You're not going to trap
[54:18.100 --> 54:24.100]  him because even if some other psychologist went in there and said, you know, they weren't
[54:24.100 --> 54:28.100]  there at the time of the testing, so they couldn't observe whether the person was falling
[54:28.100 --> 54:32.100]  asleep or how the person was behaving during the test. So it would be hard for somebody
[54:32.100 --> 54:39.100]  to come in and, and if the actual data looked valid, it would be hard for somebody to come
[54:39.100 --> 54:44.100]  in there and say that it's not valid if the guy that gave the test is saying that it is,
[54:44.100 --> 54:49.100]  unless, unless he just totally screwed up on, on scoring it and interpreting the scores.
[54:49.100 --> 54:59.100]  So if, if I had a evaluator on the stand and ask him if I gave your results to another
[54:59.100 --> 55:05.100]  tester, would they be able to come up with the same conclusions you did?
[55:05.100 --> 55:10.100]  Well, I would never answer what another guy would do. I would say, how do I know?
[55:10.100 --> 55:15.100]  He might not be, he may not be, he may not even be confident to evaluate it. No, I wouldn't,
[55:15.100 --> 55:17.100]  I wouldn't try to answer what somebody else could do.
[55:17.100 --> 55:23.100]  Is, is this a science or is it an art?
[55:23.100 --> 55:29.100]  It's both. It's subject to interpretation, just like the law. You know, when you, when,
[55:29.100 --> 55:34.100]  when things are written down, they can be interpreted. I mean, look how many, look how
[55:34.100 --> 55:40.100]  many people interpret things in the IRS tax code different ways. Look how many laws are
[55:40.100 --> 55:45.100]  written that they can be interpreted. That's why they have the Supreme Court to interpret,
[55:45.100 --> 55:49.100]  you know, the whole court system is there to interpret the law.
[55:49.100 --> 55:55.100]  And one thing that concerns me about this Daubers hearing issue is that the person will
[55:55.100 --> 56:02.100]  have already submitted to the exam by this point. I mean, I would rather, if you're going
[56:02.100 --> 56:09.100]  to challenge the credentials of the tester, do it beforehand. But even, even in that regard,
[56:09.100 --> 56:15.100]  that just still seems like you're just buying time. You're just putting something off,
[56:15.100 --> 56:21.100]  the inevitable, because they'll just keep coming up with more testers until they come
[56:21.100 --> 56:26.100]  up with one that is legitimate or that the court deems legitimate to try to force the
[56:26.100 --> 56:33.100]  person to take the exam. And so I kind of rather, Bill's approach to challenge it on
[56:33.100 --> 56:39.100]  Fifth Amendment issues. I mean, the whole point is that, is that it's, it's completely
[56:39.100 --> 56:44.100]  preposterous on its face for the court to force somebody to take one of these exams
[56:44.100 --> 56:49.100]  for exactly what Bill is saying. It's a violation of Fifth Amendment. If anything you say or
[56:49.100 --> 56:55.100]  do in, in one of these exams can be used against you, well then it's, it's forget it still,
[56:55.100 --> 56:56.100]  Fifth Amendment.
[56:56.100 --> 57:02.100]  Right. And Randy, the problem with trying to challenge the examiner on, on a court is
[57:02.100 --> 57:07.100]  think about the Supreme Court. Look how many decisions come out five to four. Okay. That
[57:07.100 --> 57:11.100]  doesn't mean that one of them did something wrong. That just means five people are interpreting
[57:11.100 --> 57:15.100]  it one way and four people are interpreting it another way. Well, it, the same could be
[57:15.100 --> 57:20.100]  happen, you know, in a psychological test. I mean, unless there are gross errors where
[57:20.100 --> 57:24.100]  the person just can't add and he scores it up wrong or he doesn't know how to interpret
[57:24.100 --> 57:28.100]  or score a Rorschach or he doesn't know how to administer it or he doesn't, you know,
[57:28.100 --> 57:33.100]  doesn't know what he's doing and interpreting the data. But, but aside from that, usually
[57:33.100 --> 57:38.100]  forensic psychologists know all that. So a lot of things come down to interpretation,
[57:38.100 --> 57:43.100]  you know, maybe the person was sleepy, a little bit sleepy during the exam and a couple of
[57:43.100 --> 57:46.100]  times I caught him with his eyes closed and his head nodding off, but I think he still
[57:46.100 --> 57:51.100]  gave a good effort and I still think the results are valid. Well, you know, somebody else might
[57:51.100 --> 57:55.100]  say, no, I don't think it was, I think he nodded off enough times that it's not valid.
[57:55.100 --> 58:00.100]  You know, so I don't think you can catch him on that. You know, if you didn't have two
[58:00.100 --> 58:07.100]  people watching the, watching the exam being administered and scoring the results and analyzing
[58:07.100 --> 58:14.100]  the results. And even if somebody who was uncooperative just gave a random answer set,
[58:14.100 --> 58:20.100]  even that could be interpreted differently by different testers or different analysts.
[58:20.100 --> 58:27.100]  And so it's pretty obvious the best thing to do is to not take it based on the grounds
[58:27.100 --> 58:34.100]  that anything you say can and will be held against you in these psychiatric and psychological
[58:34.100 --> 58:40.100]  exams. But like you're saying, Bill, you ask the question first, can anything I say during
[58:40.100 --> 58:44.100]  one of these exams or can the results be used against me? And then you've got fifth amendment.
[58:44.100 --> 58:50.100]  Right. Okay. We are going to break and when we get back on the other side, we'll be taking
[58:50.100 --> 59:01.100]  your calls. This is the rule of law. We will be right back.
[59:01.100 --> 59:06.100]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so
[59:06.100 --> 59:11.100]  easy and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with. Oh, well, I guess you haven't
[59:11.100 --> 59:16.100]  heard of Brave New Books then. Brave New Books? Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and
[59:16.100 --> 59:21.100]  DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They
[59:21.100 --> 59:26.100]  even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps. There's no way a place like
[59:26.100 --> 59:31.100]  that exists. Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just
[59:31.100 --> 59:37.100]  south of UT. By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. Actually, they now offer
[59:37.100 --> 59:43.100]  a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind
[59:43.100 --> 59:50.100]  the bookstore. It does exist, but when are they open? Monday through Saturday, 11 AM
[59:50.100 --> 59:57.100]  to 9 PM and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their
[59:57.100 --> 01:00:03.100]  events page at bravenewbookstore.com. This news brief brought to you by the International
[01:00:03.100 --> 01:00:09.100]  News Max. Iranian naval forces have detected a U.S. nuclear armed and powered submarine
[01:00:09.100 --> 01:00:14.100]  in the Persian Gulf, triggering safety concerns in one of the world's most important energy
[01:00:14.100 --> 01:00:20.100]  routes. Experts say the presence of a nuclear submarine in a narrow waterway poses a risk
[01:00:20.100 --> 01:00:26.100]  of an ecologically disastrous accident and nuclear pollution. Mexican President Felipe
[01:00:26.100 --> 01:00:32.100]  Calderon says Mexico does not object to U.S. plans to station 1,200 National Guard along
[01:00:32.100 --> 01:00:38.100]  the border so long as the soldiers do not arrest Mexicans trying to get into the U.S.
[01:00:38.100 --> 01:00:43.100]  Congressional investigators said Wednesday BP engineers tried to activate the huge piece
[01:00:43.100 --> 01:00:49.100]  of underwater safety equipment to plug the massive spill that failed because diagrams
[01:00:49.100 --> 01:00:56.100]  of the blow-up preventer had been so altered they were unrecognizable. South Korean analysts
[01:00:56.100 --> 01:01:01.100]  are questioning how a submarine of a fifth rate power was able to penetrate a U.S. South
[01:01:01.100 --> 01:01:07.100]  Korean naval exercise and sink a ship that was designed for anti-submarine warfare. Articles
[01:01:07.100 --> 01:01:13.100]  appearing in the South Korean and Japanese media suggest the naval exercise was, in fact,
[01:01:13.100 --> 01:01:19.100]  intended to provoke the North to attack. According to this analysis, the resulting public outcry
[01:01:19.100 --> 01:01:23.100]  in the South would bolster support for the conservative South Korean government that
[01:01:23.100 --> 01:01:29.100]  is opposed to reconciliation efforts. Japanese journalist Tanaka Sakai called the ship's
[01:01:29.100 --> 01:01:36.100]  sinking, quote, an enigma, adding the Cheonan was a patrol boat whose mission was to survey
[01:01:36.100 --> 01:01:42.100]  the enemy submarines, torpedoes, and aircraft. Sakai wrote, if North Korean submarines and
[01:01:42.100 --> 01:01:46.100]  torpedoes were approaching, the Cheonan should have been able to sense it quickly and take
[01:01:46.100 --> 01:01:52.100]  measures to counterattack or evade. It is hard to imagine that the Cheonan sonar forces
[01:01:52.100 --> 01:01:58.100]  were not on alert. Amnesty International said in its annual report Thursday the U.S.
[01:01:58.100 --> 01:02:04.100]  and members of the EU had obstructed international justice by using their positions on the UN
[01:02:04.100 --> 01:02:10.100]  Security Council to shield Israel from accountability for war crimes allegedly committed during
[01:02:10.100 --> 01:02:16.100]  last year's Gaza war. The rights group also accused Israel of continually violating human
[01:02:16.100 --> 01:02:22.100]  rights in the Gaza Strip. It cited Israel's ongoing economic blockade as violating international
[01:02:22.100 --> 01:02:29.100]  law, leaving Gaza residents without adequate food or water supplies. In its report, Amnesty
[01:02:29.100 --> 01:02:35.100]  praised a UN report released last year by South African Justice Richard Goldstone for
[01:02:35.100 --> 01:02:41.100]  highlighting Israeli violations during the Gaza war. Goldstone found both Israel and
[01:02:41.100 --> 01:02:47.100]  Hamas guilty of war crimes during the conflict. Amnesty said, quote, Israel used Palestinian
[01:02:47.100 --> 01:02:53.100]  civilians as human shields and indiscriminately fired white phosphorus over densely populated
[01:02:53.100 --> 01:03:21.100]  residential areas.
[01:03:21.100 --> 01:03:31.100]  According to the will of the Almighty, I read his book and it says he cares not for the
[01:03:31.100 --> 01:03:45.100]  unsightly. These warmongers come by that term rightly. I won't pay for the war with my
[01:03:45.100 --> 01:03:52.100]  body. Ain't going to pay for the car with my money. I won't pay for the fun with my
[01:03:52.100 --> 01:03:58.100]  body. Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy. Ain't going to pay for the oil with my
[01:03:58.100 --> 01:03:59.100]  body.
[01:03:59.100 --> 01:04:05.100]  Okay, we are back and Dr. Baith, you were just about to address the issue of the tests
[01:04:05.100 --> 01:04:08.100]  and concerning validity of scores and such.
[01:04:08.100 --> 01:04:17.100]  Okay, yeah, you know, the thing is, even when given these tests, like a full site test battery
[01:04:17.100 --> 01:04:23.100]  might have about 12 or 13 or 14 different tests in it and it could take, you know, as
[01:04:23.100 --> 01:04:30.100]  long as three, four, five hours to administer. Okay, so almost everybody that takes these
[01:04:30.100 --> 01:04:35.100]  is going to come up and elevate some sort of a pathological scale somewhere, whether
[01:04:35.100 --> 01:04:41.100]  it's going to show the person to have obsessive compulsive tendencies or maybe show somebody
[01:04:41.100 --> 01:04:48.100]  to be depressed or highly anxious or maybe somebody will elevate the suspiciousness scale
[01:04:48.100 --> 01:04:52.100]  where if that elevates high enough, you know, they could be deemed paranoid, but a little
[01:04:52.100 --> 01:04:57.100]  bit below paranoid, they're overly suspicious or things. So, you know, there's so many
[01:04:57.100 --> 01:05:02.100]  different things that can be looked at that almost anybody is going to elevate something.
[01:05:02.100 --> 01:05:09.100]  So, the key is just because you elevate these pathological scales does not mean that you're
[01:05:09.100 --> 01:05:15.100]  have mental pathology or a mental disorder because a lot of psychologists forget to ask
[01:05:15.100 --> 01:05:21.100]  the second part after they've collected all this data and looked at all of the scores,
[01:05:21.100 --> 01:05:28.100]  the next question is how is this person functioning in society? And if the answer is, you know,
[01:05:28.100 --> 01:05:33.100]  you could elevate every single scale and on the scores look very pathological, but if
[01:05:33.100 --> 01:05:38.100]  you're functioning fine, let's say you've got long-term stable relationships, you've
[01:05:38.100 --> 01:05:42.100]  got a job, you don't go from job to job, you've never been in trouble with the law
[01:05:42.100 --> 01:05:48.100]  before, there's nothing in your background or behavior or conduct to indicate that you
[01:05:48.100 --> 01:05:53.100]  have a problem. Well, even if your scores look horrible, even if they look horrible,
[01:05:53.100 --> 01:05:57.100]  you can't give somebody a mental disorder, you can't conclude that they have pathology
[01:05:57.100 --> 01:06:02.100]  because they're functioning fine and a lot of psychologists forget that part, they just
[01:06:02.100 --> 01:06:06.100]  interpret these scores and then if the scores elevate a lot of these pathological scales,
[01:06:06.100 --> 01:06:10.100]  they write it up and say, oh, this person has a lot of depression and anxiety and they're,
[01:06:10.100 --> 01:06:14.100]  you know, they're this and they're that and you can come up with all kinds of things based
[01:06:14.100 --> 01:06:19.100]  on scores, but that's not the critical question. The critical question is there's two parts
[01:06:19.100 --> 01:06:25.100]  to it. If you're functioning adaptively and if you don't have any mental distress, you
[01:06:25.100 --> 01:06:29.100]  know, you're not bothered by the way you're functioning, then you don't have a mental
[01:06:29.100 --> 01:06:34.100]  disorder no matter how you score on these exams, you know? So, you know, most people,
[01:06:34.100 --> 01:06:40.100]  when they go to a psychologist and want to submit to these psychological exams, it's
[01:06:40.100 --> 01:06:46.100]  because they're either not functioning adaptively in society or they've got subjective distress,
[01:06:46.100 --> 01:06:50.100]  they're bothered by something, maybe I worry all the time, I'm depressed all the time,
[01:06:50.100 --> 01:06:55.100]  I'm this all the time, I'm that and I want to get rid of this stuff, can you help me?
[01:06:55.100 --> 01:06:59.100]  You know, it's like, and so then when they go to the psychologist, they're going to
[01:06:59.100 --> 01:07:04.100]  give their best effort because the psychologist is there to, you know, figure out how they're
[01:07:04.100 --> 01:07:09.100]  functioning and help them. But see, that whole situation is different when you're ordered
[01:07:09.100 --> 01:07:14.100]  to take the exam.
[01:07:14.100 --> 01:07:22.100]  Absolutely, because how can you be forced to comply? I mean, by very definition of the
[01:07:22.100 --> 01:07:24.100]  word, it's voluntary.
[01:07:24.100 --> 01:07:29.100]  Exactly. That's like forcing somebody to run a 100-yard dash in under 10 seconds, you
[01:07:29.100 --> 01:07:34.100]  know? Maybe they're capable of it, maybe they're not, but you won't know because if they go
[01:07:34.100 --> 01:07:38.100]  in there and run it in 10.3 or 10.4, you don't know if they gave their best effort. They
[01:07:38.100 --> 01:07:41.100]  might look like they gave their best effort, how do you know?
[01:07:41.100 --> 01:07:50.100]  As a tester, do you have a set of validators that you would use on a person who was forced
[01:07:50.100 --> 01:07:56.100]  to take the test as opposed to someone who would ask for the test and was acting?
[01:07:56.100 --> 01:08:03.100]  Well, the validators are the same in either case. Every psychological test has a validity
[01:08:03.100 --> 01:08:12.100]  index where from the data on that test, you can evaluate the validity of the scores that
[01:08:12.100 --> 01:08:20.100]  you obtained. And they're very good, they're very subtle, so they're done in a way that
[01:08:20.100 --> 01:08:24.100]  people can't figure them out because if people can figure it out, they throw those types
[01:08:24.100 --> 01:08:31.100]  of validators out and they don't use them. So that's a big part of when they norm these
[01:08:31.100 --> 01:08:36.100]  tests and when they devise these tests is to figure out how they can devise validity
[01:08:36.100 --> 01:08:41.100]  indicators from the data from the test itself that's not obvious. Because if it's obvious,
[01:08:41.100 --> 01:08:46.100]  then it won't work. It's not a validity indicator. So they only get the ones that people don't
[01:08:46.100 --> 01:08:51.100]  know that they're obvious, you know? And it's a set of scores and you get a, you know, you're
[01:08:51.100 --> 01:08:57.100]  on a scale and if you reach a certain point, it becomes invalid because the validity scale
[01:08:57.100 --> 01:09:02.100]  shows that, you know, that test is probably invalid. You try to overreport pathology or
[01:09:02.100 --> 01:09:05.100]  you try to underreport, or you try to present yourself with too good a light or too bad
[01:09:05.100 --> 01:09:10.100]  a light. So yes, every single test has validity indicators in it.
[01:09:10.100 --> 01:09:17.100]  So if we had a psychologist that regularly worked for the court and we had reason to
[01:09:17.100 --> 01:09:23.100]  believe that it was in his best interest to give the court the kind of evaluation they
[01:09:23.100 --> 01:09:30.100]  wanted so he would get hired more often, we have tools for testing his, whether or not
[01:09:30.100 --> 01:09:34.100]  the tester skewed the results as opposed to the testee.
[01:09:34.100 --> 01:09:39.100]  Well, the tester wouldn't have skewed the results. He might have not interpreted them
[01:09:39.100 --> 01:09:47.100]  the same way somebody else would have because, again, if I'm just interpreting test scores,
[01:09:47.100 --> 01:09:54.100]  okay, let's say you go in to take the exam and you're obviously not cooperating, so you're
[01:09:54.100 --> 01:09:58.100]  given a random set. You're answering some correctly, the easy ones and the hard ones.
[01:09:58.100 --> 01:10:01.100]  You're just flippantly throwing out another response, okay?
[01:10:01.100 --> 01:10:07.100]  Now, the guy given the test is the only one that's seeing that behavior. Everybody else
[01:10:07.100 --> 01:10:13.100]  can see the scores. So now, that person might come out with the same type of score that
[01:10:13.100 --> 01:10:17.100]  a schizophrenic came out with who was really trying. He's given random answers and they
[01:10:17.100 --> 01:10:23.100]  come out with the same daggone score, and so if you're not in there observing the behavior
[01:10:23.100 --> 01:10:26.100]  of whether the guy's answering flippantly or he's really trying, you could say that
[01:10:26.100 --> 01:10:31.100]  guy's got, you know, a disordered thinking. He may be schizophrenic or he may be this
[01:10:31.100 --> 01:10:35.100]  or he may have that. You know, you could come out with all kinds of conclusions, but if
[01:10:35.100 --> 01:10:39.100]  you're in there watching it, the conclusion would be he was flippantly answering. He
[01:10:39.100 --> 01:10:42.100]  didn't give his best effort, so it's an invalid test.
[01:10:42.100 --> 01:10:48.100]  So the same scores could be valid for the schizophrenic who was trying and invalid for
[01:10:48.100 --> 01:10:51.100]  the guy that was sabotaging his own test.
[01:10:51.100 --> 01:11:00.100]  So is there an index built in to qualify the scores as you go along?
[01:11:00.100 --> 01:11:10.100]  No, that's the arc of the test giver. That's where a tester with an agenda can screw you
[01:11:10.100 --> 01:11:16.100]  because if he doesn't talk about, if he doesn't conclude it's invalid because he was given
[01:11:16.100 --> 01:11:21.100]  flippant answers and he writes in his report, I scored it, he was trying hard, and he's
[01:11:21.100 --> 01:11:27.100]  nuts. He's got confused thinking. He's got very weak contact with reality. Now you're
[01:11:27.100 --> 01:11:31.100]  screwed. You see what I'm saying? That's why I wouldn't want to, that's another reason
[01:11:31.100 --> 01:11:34.100]  why I don't want to be forced to take the exam because I don't know what the agenda
[01:11:34.100 --> 01:11:36.100]  is of the test giver.
[01:11:36.100 --> 01:11:40.100]  Yeah, and this brings up another important question going back to trying to test the
[01:11:40.100 --> 01:11:46.100]  tester and use that as some sort of evidence to throw out the test or throw out the whole
[01:11:46.100 --> 01:11:55.100]  thing is that unless the victim is going to submit to the forced test, how are you going
[01:11:55.100 --> 01:12:02.100]  to test the tester without and show some kind of pattern or history of skewed interpretations
[01:12:02.100 --> 01:12:09.100]  without subpoenaing multiple results and interpretations of previous tests and now you're
[01:12:09.100 --> 01:12:15.100]  going to get into privacy issues and people's medical records and I don't see how you can
[01:12:15.100 --> 01:12:22.100]  subpoena all the interpretations of previous tests of a tester because of HIPAA and stuff
[01:12:22.100 --> 01:12:23.100]  like that.
[01:12:23.100 --> 01:12:31.100]  You don't have a problem with that because you can examine his testimony as to the competence
[01:12:31.100 --> 01:12:38.100]  of those people that he regularly evaluates and get a statistical mean. If he comes in
[01:12:38.100 --> 01:12:44.100]  with 96% of all of the people he evaluates as an incompetent, that's a good indicator.
[01:12:44.100 --> 01:12:48.100]  Yeah, that would certainly be good evidence against him. The other thing you could do
[01:12:48.100 --> 01:12:54.100]  if you decided to submit to the test is ask for it to be videotaped and your attorney,
[01:12:54.100 --> 01:13:02.100]  as well as the court, have an opportunity or have a copy of that videotape. Now if you're
[01:13:02.100 --> 01:13:06.100]  answering flippantly, at least there's some evidence that you were sitting there and you
[01:13:06.100 --> 01:13:11.100]  were biting your fingernails or chewing or sucking on a lollipop or doing something.
[01:13:11.100 --> 01:13:16.100]  You can show that you didn't even care. You didn't answer them good, but of course then
[01:13:16.100 --> 01:13:20.100]  the judge may say, well, you didn't comply. Now I'm really charging you with contempt.
[01:13:20.100 --> 01:13:22.100]  That could work against you too.
[01:13:22.100 --> 01:13:27.100]  And one thing that really concerns me about this whole thing of challenging the tester
[01:13:27.100 --> 01:13:33.100]  anyway is based on that premise, they'll just come up with somebody legitimate or they'll
[01:13:33.100 --> 01:13:39.100]  say, well, then you pick your own. And then the victim is still placed in the position
[01:13:39.100 --> 01:13:45.100]  of having to come up with some kind of reason for not taking the test because the whole
[01:13:45.100 --> 01:13:52.100]  point is you don't want to take the test. And if we just keep challenging the credentials
[01:13:52.100 --> 01:13:59.100]  of the tester or the challenging just the whole premise of the test itself, eventually
[01:13:59.100 --> 01:14:03.100]  I just don't see how that's going to work because the whole point is they'll come up
[01:14:03.100 --> 01:14:08.100]  with a test that is proven to be valid. They'll come up with a tester that does have proper
[01:14:08.100 --> 01:14:09.100]  credentials.
[01:14:09.100 --> 01:14:15.100]  I think that because it could possibly not serve you, you shouldn't do it.
[01:14:15.100 --> 01:14:20.100]  No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that to get to the heart of the matter, we
[01:14:20.100 --> 01:14:29.100]  have to find a way to actually legally, lawfully not take the test and not just give excuses
[01:14:29.100 --> 01:14:33.100]  or try to challenge or attack the tester because in my book that just seems like you're just
[01:14:33.100 --> 01:14:38.100]  trying to buy yourself time. And yeah, you may be able to buy yourself time, but going
[01:14:38.100 --> 01:14:44.100]  back to what Bill said earlier, this is a Fifth Amendment issue straight up. Straight
[01:14:44.100 --> 01:14:47.100]  up this is Fifth Amendment issue.
[01:14:47.100 --> 01:14:52.100]  Let me be clear. Nothing I'm offering am I offering as exclusive at all else.
[01:14:52.100 --> 01:14:53.100]  Oh, I realize that.
[01:14:53.100 --> 01:14:59.100]  But if the judge blows off your Fifth Amendment argument, where are you? What now?
[01:14:59.100 --> 01:15:04.100]  Well, then you have to decide whether you just want to refuse to take the test and be
[01:15:04.100 --> 01:15:12.100]  held in contempt or go take it and try and hope that you got a tester that has some ethics
[01:15:12.100 --> 01:15:13.100]  involved.
[01:15:13.100 --> 01:15:20.100]  What is the case law concerning if a defendant asks the judge, if I submit to something or
[01:15:20.100 --> 01:15:26.100]  other or if I answer these questions, can the answers be held against me?
[01:15:26.100 --> 01:15:31.100]  Or even can my performance or my behavior be used against me in the testing situation
[01:15:31.100 --> 01:15:32.100]  of anything?
[01:15:32.100 --> 01:15:38.100]  I mean, just not even regarding a psychological or psychiatric exam, but isn't there like
[01:15:38.100 --> 01:15:47.100]  a whole heap of case law concerning answering questions of any sort by anybody in an official
[01:15:47.100 --> 01:15:54.100]  sense under penalty of perjury or used as evidence in court that if somebody says something
[01:15:54.100 --> 01:15:58.100]  that the answers could be used against them, I mean, isn't there like 200 years of case
[01:15:58.100 --> 01:16:00.100]  law on this sort of thing?
[01:16:00.100 --> 01:16:03.100]  Isn't this what Fifth Amendment is all about?
[01:16:03.100 --> 01:16:09.100]  Not exactly. It goes to self-incrimination and in a psychological evaluation, you're
[01:16:09.100 --> 01:16:12.100]  not being charged criminally, so it doesn't go to...
[01:16:12.100 --> 01:16:19.100]  No, but if evidence can be used against you that could declare you incompetent, why do
[01:16:19.100 --> 01:16:23.100]  you have to participate in the gathering of that evidence?
[01:16:23.100 --> 01:16:30.100]  Well, this is the problem in the case law. You can be forced to testify to evidence that
[01:16:30.100 --> 01:16:38.100]  can get you sued, but you can't be prosecuted for it. Or you can be forced to give evidence
[01:16:38.100 --> 01:16:43.100]  that can't be used to prosecute you, and this is not a prosecution.
[01:16:43.100 --> 01:16:47.100]  Yes, but it relates to a prosecution because if you're declared incompetent, then that
[01:16:47.100 --> 01:16:50.100]  could be potentially used against you in a criminal case.
[01:16:50.100 --> 01:16:53.100]  Or if you're declared incompetent, you have given up all your freedom.
[01:16:53.100 --> 01:16:54.100]  Yeah, there you go.
[01:16:54.100 --> 01:16:55.100]  You're no longer free.
[01:16:55.100 --> 01:17:24.100]  Yeah, that too. We'll be right back.
[01:17:25.100 --> 01:17:40.100]  We're open Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[01:17:40.100 --> 01:17:48.100]  You're welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[01:17:48.100 --> 01:17:49.100]  with any questions.
[01:17:49.100 --> 01:17:54.820]  As for Chad, and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio, or 90.1 FM, that's Capital
[01:17:54.820 --> 01:17:59.820]  Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:17:59.820 --> 01:18:13.980]  Ain't gonna blame me, don't blame me.
[01:18:13.980 --> 01:18:18.740]  Okay we are back, we've got some callers on the line, we're going to go to our calls
[01:18:18.740 --> 01:18:19.740]  in just a moment.
[01:18:19.740 --> 01:18:27.100]  Bill, you wanted to talk about this incompetency issue and how that is a very bad thing, if
[01:18:27.100 --> 01:18:29.020]  the court declares you incompetent basically.
[01:18:29.020 --> 01:18:35.260]  Well, okay, well you know the concept of competency, like I said, is a judicial adjudication, not
[01:18:35.260 --> 01:18:39.100]  a medical term, or really even a psychological term.
[01:18:39.100 --> 01:18:42.900]  And so if you're declared incompetent, you have lost all of your freedoms and all of
[01:18:42.900 --> 01:18:43.900]  your rights.
[01:18:43.900 --> 01:18:47.140]  Now you're going to have to have somebody that is your guardian, somebody's going to
[01:18:47.140 --> 01:18:48.360]  make decisions for you.
[01:18:48.360 --> 01:18:52.060]  You might as well be a one year old child if you're declared incompetent.
[01:18:52.060 --> 01:18:57.180]  So now you, you know that's horrible, I would rather serve my prison time than be declared
[01:18:57.180 --> 01:19:00.020]  incompetent and lose all of my freedoms and rights.
[01:19:00.020 --> 01:19:06.300]  But the other thing is, competency in itself is even a complicated issue, because competency
[01:19:06.300 --> 01:19:10.900]  is not a global matter, it's a fluid matter.
[01:19:10.900 --> 01:19:16.940]  For example, if somebody drinks too much, they might be incompetent for a few hours.
[01:19:16.940 --> 01:19:20.300]  But as soon as they become, you know, as soon as they're not drunk anymore, they're competent
[01:19:20.300 --> 01:19:21.300]  again.
[01:19:21.300 --> 01:19:24.820]  Or somebody takes food poisoning, and maybe they get sick and they're delirious.
[01:19:24.820 --> 01:19:28.860]  Well, during the time they're delirious, they are incompetent, okay?
[01:19:28.860 --> 01:19:32.060]  So competency is a fluid matter.
[01:19:32.060 --> 01:19:36.820]  Even I've seen people that are, you know, that I see in nursing home facilities that
[01:19:36.820 --> 01:19:38.700]  have dementia.
[01:19:38.700 --> 01:19:43.180]  And there are days when they're pretty darn competent, you know, they're pretty, you know,
[01:19:43.180 --> 01:19:46.780]  their thinking is pretty clear, their memory is pretty clear, and then there are days when
[01:19:46.780 --> 01:19:49.220]  they're almost out of it, you know?
[01:19:49.220 --> 01:19:51.540]  So even their competency is fluid.
[01:19:51.540 --> 01:19:53.900]  Some days they're a lot more competent than others.
[01:19:53.900 --> 01:19:58.720]  And competency is another thing, competent to do what?
[01:19:58.720 --> 01:20:04.140]  Some people may not be competent to drive, okay, because they can't see very well or
[01:20:04.140 --> 01:20:10.220]  they, you know, their reactions are too slow or whatever, but they may be competent to
[01:20:10.220 --> 01:20:11.780]  do a lot of other things.
[01:20:11.780 --> 01:20:17.300]  So to just say somebody is incompetent, you have to delineate incompetent to do what?
[01:20:17.300 --> 01:20:26.780]  Yes, I keep thinking of Scrooge explaining his visions as an undigested potato.
[01:20:26.780 --> 01:20:31.780]  Well, I'm not sure I get that connection.
[01:20:31.780 --> 01:20:39.380]  That a minor malady can cause temporary hallucinations and then the potato digests and you're back
[01:20:39.380 --> 01:20:40.380]  to normal.
[01:20:40.380 --> 01:20:41.380]  Right, absolutely.
[01:20:41.380 --> 01:20:45.900]  Well, I mean, some residents there, you know, that I see in nursing homes, they're competent
[01:20:45.900 --> 01:20:49.460]  to do a whole lot of things, but there are a few things they're not competent to do.
[01:20:49.460 --> 01:20:55.740]  So maybe, you know, they have, they're incompetent to handle their own bank account now and because
[01:20:55.740 --> 01:20:59.020]  they don't want to, you know, write checks for different amounts and what they really
[01:20:59.020 --> 01:21:03.740]  owe, or they may be incompetent to drive, but they can pretty much do everything else.
[01:21:03.740 --> 01:21:09.020]  So, you know, even when you, if you declare somebody globally incompetent, what that's
[01:21:09.020 --> 01:21:12.460]  doing is taking away all their freedom, you know, you're saying you can't do this, you
[01:21:12.460 --> 01:21:15.460]  can't do that, and they may be very competent to do some of those things.
[01:21:15.460 --> 01:21:21.460]  So what the court says is we think you're not, you may not be competent to understand
[01:21:21.460 --> 01:21:27.420]  the charges against you and the implications and to assist in your own defense.
[01:21:27.420 --> 01:21:28.500]  That's where they try to get you.
[01:21:28.500 --> 01:21:33.140]  They try to make it look like you're taking the exam for your own good.
[01:21:33.140 --> 01:21:37.340]  But if you're competent to assist in your defense and understand the charges, how in
[01:21:37.340 --> 01:21:40.180]  hell can they make you take a psych exam?
[01:21:40.180 --> 01:21:46.380]  Because isn't that why they claim you need the psych exam to see if you're competent
[01:21:46.380 --> 01:21:48.260]  to help yourself in your defense?
[01:21:48.260 --> 01:21:49.940]  That's as I understand it.
[01:21:49.940 --> 01:21:50.940]  Okay.
[01:21:50.940 --> 01:21:53.580]  So where's the evidence that I'm not?
[01:21:53.580 --> 01:21:57.020]  And that was the question that, where you were going, that's exactly the question I
[01:21:57.020 --> 01:21:58.020]  wanted to ask.
[01:21:58.020 --> 01:22:00.980]  That's what we were talking about earlier, where, you know, where's the evidence that
[01:22:00.980 --> 01:22:05.140]  you have a heart condition or liver damage or something, how can they order you to take
[01:22:05.140 --> 01:22:10.980]  a psych test just the same as how could they order you to take a heart exam?
[01:22:10.980 --> 01:22:12.100]  Where's the evidence?
[01:22:12.100 --> 01:22:20.100]  So when the psychologist is doing the competency exam, the only thing as far as the court's
[01:22:20.100 --> 01:22:28.860]  concerned that he can be checking for is your ability to understand the charges and participate
[01:22:28.860 --> 01:22:29.860]  in your defense.
[01:22:29.860 --> 01:22:30.860]  Exactly.
[01:22:30.860 --> 01:22:31.860]  That's the way it should be.
[01:22:31.860 --> 01:22:39.220]  Well, wait a minute, where is the justification or where is the authority for the court to
[01:22:39.220 --> 01:22:43.700]  even make that determination?
[01:22:43.700 --> 01:22:48.260]  Well what they're doing is they're inferring that you're incompetent because maybe you
[01:22:48.260 --> 01:22:53.300]  won't take an attorney, maybe you won't plead either guilty or not guilty, you won't sign
[01:22:53.300 --> 01:22:58.740]  this paper or do this or that or, you know, your uncooperative behavior with the court
[01:22:58.740 --> 01:23:03.500]  is what makes them infer that you're incompetent and that's what causes them to then order
[01:23:03.500 --> 01:23:04.500]  the exam.
[01:23:04.500 --> 01:23:05.500]  Right.
[01:23:05.500 --> 01:23:10.300]  Well I want to see what the case law is on that because just because somebody is not
[01:23:10.300 --> 01:23:14.660]  cooperating with the court is no evidence that they are incompetent.
[01:23:14.660 --> 01:23:15.660]  That's right.
[01:23:15.660 --> 01:23:20.020]  There's no evidence that they can't assist in their own defense or that they can't understand
[01:23:20.020 --> 01:23:23.540]  the nature of the charges against them and the implications of that.
[01:23:23.540 --> 01:23:30.100]  I mean it goes back to where is the authority of the court to even order a psychological
[01:23:30.100 --> 01:23:33.780]  exam to make those determinations at all.
[01:23:33.780 --> 01:23:37.980]  I mean I understand, Randy, what you're saying of well the only kinds of questions they can
[01:23:37.980 --> 01:23:43.620]  ask is just to determine if you're competent enough to, you know, defend yourself without
[01:23:43.620 --> 01:23:47.860]  an attorney or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but, you know, I don't even agree with that
[01:23:47.860 --> 01:23:48.860]  premise.
[01:23:48.860 --> 01:23:54.020]  You shouldn't even be asking the question at all unless there is legitimate evidence
[01:23:54.020 --> 01:24:01.460]  to show some behavioral pattern in your life that shows that you're completely incompetent,
[01:24:01.460 --> 01:24:03.500]  Bill, like what you were saying earlier.
[01:24:03.500 --> 01:24:04.500]  Right.
[01:24:04.500 --> 01:24:06.740]  That's where I wanted to get to.
[01:24:06.740 --> 01:24:13.580]  What the narrow focus that the court can have, what kind of things can the court pay attention
[01:24:13.580 --> 01:24:23.140]  to concerning competence in order to determine whether you can understand the charges and
[01:24:23.140 --> 01:24:24.140]  defend yourself.
[01:24:24.140 --> 01:24:31.020]  Well, but the other thing is, Randy, is competency, again, let's remember, is a separate, distinct
[01:24:31.020 --> 01:24:32.020]  trial.
[01:24:32.020 --> 01:24:35.100]  It's not part of what you're charged with.
[01:24:35.100 --> 01:24:38.860]  If they want to prove competency, then let them prove it, otherwise you're presumed to
[01:24:38.860 --> 01:24:39.860]  be competent.
[01:24:39.860 --> 01:24:43.300]  If they want to prove that you're incompetent, let them prove it without you giving the evidence.
[01:24:43.300 --> 01:24:44.300]  Absolutely.
[01:24:44.300 --> 01:24:50.500]  Well, the thing I was wanting to avoid is them addressing competence in any area of
[01:24:50.500 --> 01:24:56.300]  my life other than my ability to understand the charges and defend myself in court.
[01:24:56.300 --> 01:25:03.420]  No, they need to not address competency at all unless you have shown incompetency in
[01:25:03.420 --> 01:25:05.580]  other areas of your life.
[01:25:05.580 --> 01:25:12.900]  I don't agree that the court gets to make a determination of whether or not you are competent
[01:25:12.900 --> 01:25:15.500]  to understand the charges or not.
[01:25:15.500 --> 01:25:21.540]  You're presumed competent unless they can prove you're not, and in order to even raise
[01:25:21.540 --> 01:25:26.860]  the question, I think that there should be legitimate probable cause evidence that you
[01:25:26.860 --> 01:25:33.380]  are incompetent as far as behavioral patterns in other areas of your life in order for them
[01:25:33.380 --> 01:25:36.060]  to even ask that question.
[01:25:36.060 --> 01:25:37.620]  You're opening a can of worms.
[01:25:37.620 --> 01:25:38.620]  No, I'm not.
[01:25:38.620 --> 01:25:42.940]  So, you want the court to be able to look at your entire life, and if they don't like
[01:25:42.940 --> 01:25:45.220]  something you're doing, now they can come in.
[01:25:45.220 --> 01:25:46.220]  No.
[01:25:46.220 --> 01:25:47.220]  I'm saying...
[01:25:47.220 --> 01:25:48.220]  That's not what I'm saying.
[01:25:48.220 --> 01:25:55.100]  The only issue the court would have a right to look at is your ability to understand the
[01:25:55.100 --> 01:25:58.180]  charges and assist in your defense.
[01:25:58.180 --> 01:26:01.620]  Any other area of incompetence you may have is irrelevant.
[01:26:01.620 --> 01:26:03.460]  No, you don't understand what I'm saying.
[01:26:03.460 --> 01:26:07.180]  They don't even get to ask the question at all.
[01:26:07.180 --> 01:26:12.940]  Any which way you slice it, they don't get to ask the question at all unless you have
[01:26:12.940 --> 01:26:17.540]  shown that there is... unless there is evidence already that you're incompetent.
[01:26:17.540 --> 01:26:18.540]  Well, I think...
[01:26:18.540 --> 01:26:25.500]  See, what I would think is if your behavior leaves people with the inference that you
[01:26:25.500 --> 01:26:31.900]  may not be competent, then let's say you go into court and you drool, and it's obvious
[01:26:31.900 --> 01:26:36.220]  you can't pay attention, they ask you a question, you don't even know what they're asking, your
[01:26:36.220 --> 01:26:40.500]  own attorney asks you a question, you have no idea, you're really schizophrenic, well,
[01:26:40.500 --> 01:26:44.860]  that person is demonstrating incompetence to assist in his trial, why does he need to
[01:26:44.860 --> 01:26:46.380]  even take a psych exam?
[01:26:46.380 --> 01:26:49.620]  His behavior indicates that he's not even competent.
[01:26:49.620 --> 01:26:55.140]  But so somebody who can talk with their attorney and they understand things, but they're just
[01:26:55.140 --> 01:26:59.340]  not cooperating with the court process, I don't think they should be made to take a
[01:26:59.340 --> 01:27:02.820]  psych exam and give evidence against themselves to prove they're incompetent.
[01:27:02.820 --> 01:27:03.820]  Exactly.
[01:27:03.820 --> 01:27:04.820]  That was my point.
[01:27:04.820 --> 01:27:05.820]  That's right.
[01:27:05.820 --> 01:27:13.420]  That's what the court legitimately pay attention to and consider as evidence of competency.
[01:27:13.420 --> 01:27:20.460]  Disagreeing with the court, I would say, was not only competent, but smart.
[01:27:20.460 --> 01:27:24.820]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, the court shouldn't be looking for evidence
[01:27:24.820 --> 01:27:32.540]  of competency, they should... only if someone demonstrates evidence of incompetency should
[01:27:32.540 --> 01:27:34.820]  there even be a question.
[01:27:34.820 --> 01:27:40.180]  What I'm getting at is what can they consider as evidence of incompetency?
[01:27:40.180 --> 01:27:45.940]  If I can't walk, then I'm obviously incompetent in that regard, but that doesn't go to my
[01:27:45.940 --> 01:27:50.180]  ability to understand and help myself.
[01:27:50.180 --> 01:27:55.980]  Maybe what you need to do is ask what the court looks at in even examining the area
[01:27:55.980 --> 01:27:59.740]  of competency or incompetency, what is the criteria, specific criteria?
[01:27:59.740 --> 01:28:00.740]  Exactly.
[01:28:00.740 --> 01:28:04.900]  What is the accusation of potential incompetency that is?
[01:28:04.900 --> 01:28:08.260]  Right, if the court's going to ask for a psych exam, on what basis?
[01:28:08.260 --> 01:28:10.620]  Is there specific criteria?
[01:28:10.620 --> 01:28:15.420]  Because if there's specific criteria, then maybe you can avoid doing those things, you
[01:28:15.420 --> 01:28:16.420]  know?
[01:28:16.420 --> 01:28:19.860]  But if the criteria is just the judge just wants you to do it because you're not cooperating,
[01:28:19.860 --> 01:28:21.380]  I'd like to see if that's written down.
[01:28:21.380 --> 01:28:26.860]  So maybe that's the technical area to go to, Randy, is what is the criteria for a judge
[01:28:26.860 --> 01:28:29.300]  asking about the incompetency issue?
[01:28:29.300 --> 01:28:30.300]  Exactly.
[01:28:30.300 --> 01:28:38.180]  And then if I'm forced to sit before the psychologist, I'm not going to want him asking me any questions
[01:28:38.180 --> 01:28:41.220]  about anything that doesn't go to those issues.
[01:28:41.220 --> 01:28:46.980]  Well, but one of the problems with that is you don't always know what the psych exam
[01:28:46.980 --> 01:28:47.980]  is getting at.
[01:28:47.980 --> 01:28:52.180]  It may not, again, these psych exams are not obvious.
[01:28:52.180 --> 01:28:55.260]  They don't have face value as to what they're getting at.
[01:28:55.260 --> 01:28:56.260]  And that's by design.
[01:28:56.260 --> 01:29:02.540]  Yeah, I understand the individual may not know, but his attorney will.
[01:29:02.540 --> 01:29:08.780]  So if the psychologist has came in and made determinations of competency that don't go
[01:29:08.780 --> 01:29:13.540]  to the issue before the court and comes in and says this person's not competent, well,
[01:29:13.540 --> 01:29:18.180]  in what specific regard is the person not competent?
[01:29:18.180 --> 01:29:24.180]  Is he not competent in the limited focus in which the court can pay attention to?
[01:29:24.180 --> 01:29:27.340]  Well, I think the whole issue is that you just can't trust at all.
[01:29:27.340 --> 01:29:32.620]  You can't trust these tests, especially when the court is going to pick their own tester
[01:29:32.620 --> 01:29:34.100]  and these kinds of things.
[01:29:34.100 --> 01:29:40.460]  I think really more the issue that we need to go to is where is it on the books?
[01:29:40.460 --> 01:29:47.860]  What criteria can the court use for even making the accusation in the first place?
[01:29:47.860 --> 01:29:48.860]  What do they look for?
[01:29:48.860 --> 01:29:51.620]  Is it just not being cooperative with the court?
[01:29:51.620 --> 01:29:54.220]  Because I'm sorry, that's just not enough.
[01:29:54.220 --> 01:30:01.060]  All right, we'll be back on the other side, and we're going to start taking our calls.
[01:30:01.060 --> 01:30:05.700]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:30:05.700 --> 01:30:09.860]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:30:09.860 --> 01:30:14.140]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[01:30:14.140 --> 01:30:15.500]  can win too.
[01:30:15.500 --> 01:30:19.980]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:30:19.980 --> 01:30:25.740]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[01:30:25.740 --> 01:30:30.380]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[01:30:30.380 --> 01:30:34.580]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:30:34.580 --> 01:30:39.700]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:30:39.700 --> 01:30:41.620]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:30:41.620 --> 01:30:47.380]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:30:47.380 --> 01:30:50.300]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:30:50.300 --> 01:30:59.420]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[01:30:59.420 --> 01:31:22.420]  collectors now.
[01:31:22.420 --> 01:31:24.620]  All right, we're about to start taking your calls.
[01:31:24.620 --> 01:31:32.380]  All right, Bill, you were talking with us on the break concerning these evaluations
[01:31:32.380 --> 01:31:40.620]  and how in general the question of competency is not even addressed by these testers.
[01:31:40.620 --> 01:31:41.620]  It should not be.
[01:31:41.620 --> 01:31:44.060]  Unfortunately, they do.
[01:31:44.060 --> 01:31:52.220]  When I took a forensic seminar at one point and the main point of the whole seminar was
[01:31:52.220 --> 01:31:57.900]  as psychologists and psychiatrists, we should not even be addressing the question of competency
[01:31:57.900 --> 01:32:03.180]  or incompetency in our reports or our conclusions, that that's the ultimate question.
[01:32:03.180 --> 01:32:09.380]  He laid out five questions that are going to be asked and answered, and the first four
[01:32:09.380 --> 01:32:14.340]  we can address, which mainly describe how the person is functioning, different levels
[01:32:14.340 --> 01:32:15.340]  of his functioning.
[01:32:15.340 --> 01:32:21.900]  We just describe the behavior, the test results, the thinking patterns, the emotional state
[01:32:21.900 --> 01:32:26.620]  of the person, the mental status, the ultimate question of competency we don't even answer
[01:32:26.620 --> 01:32:31.140]  because that's not a psychological question or a psychiatric question, that's a legal
[01:32:31.140 --> 01:32:32.140]  question.
[01:32:32.140 --> 01:32:36.660]  We let the court determine that, and our reports are only supposed to describe how the person
[01:32:36.660 --> 01:32:37.660]  is functioning.
[01:32:37.660 --> 01:32:38.660]  Interesting.
[01:32:38.660 --> 01:32:43.180]  I'd like to know what those criteria are.
[01:32:43.180 --> 01:32:50.920]  Let me tell you, the ones I've seen, the psychologists, they give the opinion of competency or incompetency,
[01:32:50.920 --> 01:32:57.140]  and I've even seen in the settings where I work where doctors come in, just primary physicians,
[01:32:57.140 --> 01:33:06.020]  and the staff, maybe one of the residents is not functioning very well or they're being
[01:33:06.020 --> 01:33:12.860]  a little bit non-compliant, and so they want somebody to put down in the chart that they're
[01:33:12.860 --> 01:33:17.780]  incompetent so they can get somebody else to make decisions for them, and they may ask
[01:33:17.780 --> 01:33:21.860]  me, will you say this person's incompetent, and I said, no, I wouldn't put that, but I've
[01:33:21.860 --> 01:33:26.300]  seen doctors come in and write that the person's incompetent, and again, that's not a medical
[01:33:26.300 --> 01:33:31.360]  determination, that's a legal determination after a full-blown trial, and both sides get
[01:33:31.360 --> 01:33:37.620]  to present their case, and a judge or jury adjudicates it.
[01:33:37.620 --> 01:33:43.700]  In my reports, I've never even addressed whether somebody is competent or not.
[01:33:43.700 --> 01:33:45.940]  I just put here how they function.
[01:33:45.940 --> 01:33:50.460]  That's a real good legal point to help people keep their balance when they're dealing with
[01:33:50.460 --> 01:33:51.460]  these issues.
[01:33:51.460 --> 01:33:52.460]  Right.
[01:33:52.460 --> 01:33:56.380]  Yeah, and I like the point about how it's a full-blown separate trial.
[01:33:56.380 --> 01:33:57.380]  Right.
[01:33:57.380 --> 01:34:00.380]  Distinct from whatever your charge is in this case.
[01:34:00.380 --> 01:34:04.580]  They can't just run you through some kind of a psych exam and then say, oh, by the way,
[01:34:04.580 --> 01:34:09.780]  you're incompetent, and then just move on with the criminal case.
[01:34:09.780 --> 01:34:10.780]  Right.
[01:34:10.780 --> 01:34:11.780]  Okay.
[01:34:11.780 --> 01:34:12.780]  You ready for some calls, Bill?
[01:34:12.780 --> 01:34:13.780]  Sure.
[01:34:13.780 --> 01:34:15.580]  Okay, we're going to go to Mike in Connecticut.
[01:34:15.580 --> 01:34:21.300]  He called in on Monday, Mike, thanks for calling in, so what's going on?
[01:34:21.300 --> 01:34:22.300]  Okay.
[01:34:22.300 --> 01:34:24.300]  Can you hear me okay?
[01:34:24.300 --> 01:34:25.300]  Yes.
[01:34:25.300 --> 01:34:26.300]  Okay.
[01:34:26.300 --> 01:34:36.460]  Apparently, they have a police station on the campus of the hospital, and it was the
[01:34:36.460 --> 01:34:47.780]  police that, the hospital police that applied for a warrant, because my wife got an altercation
[01:34:47.780 --> 01:34:54.740]  with a staff member up there, and this was like a year and a half ago, and apparently
[01:34:54.740 --> 01:35:03.860]  there's some kind of outstanding warrant for that, but he didn't show us the warrant, and
[01:35:03.860 --> 01:35:11.060]  my wife, she requested the warrant over and over again, and I even double-checked, and
[01:35:11.060 --> 01:35:15.620]  I called them, and I said, you have a warrant with the judge's signature on it, and they
[01:35:15.620 --> 01:35:21.900]  said, yes, we wouldn't do it any other way, but when my wife was released on bond, and
[01:35:21.900 --> 01:35:26.900]  she was asking for the warrant, the police officer who transported her said, we don't
[01:35:26.900 --> 01:35:33.220]  do that, we don't do it like that up there, you're not going to get a warrant.
[01:35:33.220 --> 01:35:41.060]  And I'm trying, you know, I was trying to file some, she was trying to file some motions
[01:35:41.060 --> 01:35:47.660]  in the case, the court dates on Tuesday, and there's no case number yet, and the clerk's
[01:35:47.660 --> 01:35:52.740]  office told me that they have until, you know, they might actually file, return the warrant
[01:35:52.740 --> 01:36:00.180]  to the clerk's office on the day of the court date, for arraignment.
[01:36:00.180 --> 01:36:04.900]  You need to look at the law there in Connecticut.
[01:36:04.900 --> 01:36:11.940]  In Texas, there's a statute on the books that says, the magistrate who issues the warrant
[01:36:11.940 --> 01:36:20.620]  must make the warrant available for public inspection immediately after execution, and
[01:36:20.620 --> 01:36:21.620] ...
[01:36:21.620 --> 01:36:28.380]  There's something similar that has to be returned to the clerk's file, but I'm not sure about
[01:36:28.380 --> 01:36:30.660]  a statute, I have to look that up.
[01:36:30.660 --> 01:36:36.140]  I talked to Dan, so we're working together, he's a really good guy, yeah.
[01:36:36.140 --> 01:36:39.940]  Yes, he is.
[01:36:39.940 --> 01:36:46.660]  I heard you guys talking about competency, and I just want to say, in the competency evaluation,
[01:36:46.660 --> 01:36:54.500]  my wife took, well, one of them anyway, I had her record the whole thing, and they gave
[01:36:54.500 --> 01:37:00.820]  you somewhat of an advisement of rights right before, and they said that they can't continue
[01:37:00.820 --> 01:37:09.860]  with the evaluation, unless she signs that they read her the rights, and basically says
[01:37:09.860 --> 01:37:17.460]  that anything she says is not confidential, and they'll be sharing information with the
[01:37:17.460 --> 01:37:24.100]  court, so I don't know if that will implicate the Fifth Amendment or not.
[01:37:24.100 --> 01:37:29.580]  Well, by sharing it with the court, it's a nice way of saying it could be used against
[01:37:29.580 --> 01:37:32.580]  you, because it could be if they're going to share it with the court and it's not confidential.
[01:37:32.580 --> 01:37:33.580]  That's how I like it.
[01:37:33.580 --> 01:37:38.140]  So, if you sign that waiver, you have signed away your Fifth Amendment right.
[01:37:38.140 --> 01:37:45.500]  They also ask you to sign something that allows them to look up your psychiatric history.
[01:37:45.500 --> 01:37:53.380]  Okay, so you can always agree to waive your rights, but that's why the point is of this
[01:37:53.380 --> 01:37:57.100]  discussion tonight is, maybe you don't want to do those things.
[01:37:57.100 --> 01:38:04.500]  Well, see, the last time she went, they put her away, she basically said, I'm not talking
[01:38:04.500 --> 01:38:05.500]  to you.
[01:38:05.500 --> 01:38:06.500]  Well, you're all corrupt.
[01:38:06.500 --> 01:38:07.500]  The judge is corrupt.
[01:38:07.500 --> 01:38:08.500]  You guys are corrupt.
[01:38:08.500 --> 01:38:11.500]  You lied about me the last evaluation.
[01:38:11.500 --> 01:38:18.500]  I'm not even talking to you, and that was all she said, and the social worker testified
[01:38:18.500 --> 01:38:24.060]  on the stand that it was unanimous that she was incompetent, because she thought that
[01:38:24.060 --> 01:38:29.020]  the court system and the judge and everyone is corrupt, and to him that was delusional
[01:38:29.020 --> 01:38:30.020]  thinking.
[01:38:30.020 --> 01:38:35.700]  Well, see, again, that's why it's better to stick to what your rights are and not even
[01:38:35.700 --> 01:38:39.260]  make those kinds of statements, because even if she believes those and even if they're
[01:38:39.260 --> 01:38:45.160]  true, which they may be, that's the kind of stuff that can be used against you.
[01:38:45.160 --> 01:38:47.860]  That's why you just say, you keep asking the question.
[01:38:47.860 --> 01:38:50.500]  Can anything I say be used against me?
[01:38:50.500 --> 01:38:53.500]  Can any evidence I provide for you be used against me?
[01:38:53.500 --> 01:38:56.780]  If the answer is yes, well, then I'm not going to do it.
[01:38:56.780 --> 01:38:57.780]  Yes, and that brings...
[01:38:57.780 --> 01:38:58.780]  He said, do I have a right to remain silent?
[01:38:58.780 --> 01:39:03.780]  And you said, well, I'm not a police officer, and she didn't sign the rights form, anything.
[01:39:03.780 --> 01:39:04.780]  She didn't sign anything that time.
[01:39:04.780 --> 01:39:05.780]  Good for her.
[01:39:05.780 --> 01:39:06.780]  Yeah.
[01:39:06.780 --> 01:39:07.780]  That was my next question.
[01:39:07.780 --> 01:39:08.780]  That was my next question.
[01:39:08.780 --> 01:39:18.140]  Can the court make you sign anything?
[01:39:18.140 --> 01:39:19.140]  No.
[01:39:19.140 --> 01:39:20.140]  I didn't think so.
[01:39:20.140 --> 01:39:25.660]  How can they force you... The whole question is, how can they force you to do anything,
[01:39:25.660 --> 01:39:27.140]  including a competency about?
[01:39:27.140 --> 01:39:31.100]  If they think you're incompetent, let them give the evidence that they have and then
[01:39:31.100 --> 01:39:34.020]  have a competency trial.
[01:39:34.020 --> 01:39:41.860]  That goes clearly to your argument, Bill, is if you have to sign a waiver of a right,
[01:39:41.860 --> 01:39:45.220]  then clearly they cannot do this without your...
[01:39:45.220 --> 01:39:46.220]  Permission.
[01:39:46.220 --> 01:39:48.220] ... cooperation and permission.
[01:39:48.220 --> 01:39:49.220]  Right.
[01:39:49.220 --> 01:39:55.460]  So, if you tell the judge, maybe you tell the judge, sure, I'll cooperate.
[01:39:55.460 --> 01:39:58.500]  Then you get in there and when they ask you to sign these things, then you use that as
[01:39:58.500 --> 01:40:02.700]  the basis for... No, that would violate my Fifth Amendment right then, or that would
[01:40:02.700 --> 01:40:07.780]  violate this right, and then you can ask the question of the psychologist, can anything
[01:40:07.780 --> 01:40:10.540]  I say, might anything I say be used against me?
[01:40:10.540 --> 01:40:15.460]  Is this testing results, is that evidence that could potentially be used in any way
[01:40:15.460 --> 01:40:16.460]  against me?
[01:40:16.460 --> 01:40:22.100]  If he says yes, oh, okay, thank you, and then that's your reason for not taking it.
[01:40:22.100 --> 01:40:27.140]  You're not because you're not cooperating, because again, you want the court to honor
[01:40:27.140 --> 01:40:30.500]  your Fifth Amendment right, not to give evidence or testimony against yourself.
[01:40:30.500 --> 01:40:31.500]  Yes.
[01:40:31.500 --> 01:40:37.300]  There was someone I was working with and they were trying to force an evaluation, and the
[01:40:37.300 --> 01:40:45.660]  judge ordered him to appear at the psychologist's office, and the psychologist gave him these
[01:40:45.660 --> 01:40:51.580]  waivers to sign, and he told him, you know, I'm not here of my own volition, I've been
[01:40:51.580 --> 01:40:56.940]  ordered here, and I'm not signing anything, and the psychologist said, well, then I can't
[01:40:56.940 --> 01:40:57.940]  give you the test.
[01:40:57.940 --> 01:41:04.700]  Right, and see, I wouldn't, knowing how the court works, I wouldn't say I'm not signing
[01:41:04.700 --> 01:41:09.060]  anything, I would just ask questions, and then I would write down the answers to those
[01:41:09.060 --> 01:41:10.060]  questions.
[01:41:10.060 --> 01:41:15.020]  You know, I'd be in there with a pen and paper with my set of questions, and then if I'm
[01:41:15.020 --> 01:41:17.780]  allowed to tape it, I'd tape it too, and I'd write down their answers.
[01:41:17.780 --> 01:41:22.500]  Okay, well, I asked him, can this be used against me, and he said yes, and he wanted
[01:41:22.500 --> 01:41:26.900]  me to sign this form, like a copy of the form he wanted me to sign, and it says here, I'm
[01:41:26.900 --> 01:41:30.620]  waiving this right side, and then you've got all kinds of evidence to protect yourself,
[01:41:30.620 --> 01:41:32.460]  but you did what the judge said.
[01:41:32.460 --> 01:41:35.940]  He ordered you to show up at the psychologist's office, and you did.
[01:41:35.940 --> 01:41:39.340]  And they arrested him for contempt anyway, but he had a recording of it.
[01:41:39.340 --> 01:41:42.940]  Right, but you know, they're going to do that stuff anyway, because it's a police state,
[01:41:42.940 --> 01:41:46.900]  and they're going to do whatever they do, but what you need to do is get as much evidence
[01:41:46.900 --> 01:41:52.020]  as you can to show that you tried to cooperate, or even have that overturned in appeal, or
[01:41:52.020 --> 01:41:57.340]  have, you know, yourself or your attorney ask, you know, if they're, if I'm not presumed
[01:41:57.340 --> 01:42:02.220]  to be competent, or they're saying I'm incompetent, where's my competency trial?
[01:42:02.220 --> 01:42:04.340]  You know, I'm demanding a competency trial.
[01:42:04.340 --> 01:42:07.500]  If they're going to keep me locked up, but I'm not going to give them the evidence to
[01:42:07.500 --> 01:42:11.500]  use against me, let them gather their own evidence, and give me the trial.
[01:42:11.500 --> 01:42:17.900]  That's based on a performance of the evidence, the trial, and the only testimonies from,
[01:42:17.900 --> 01:42:20.380]  you know, whoever did the test.
[01:42:20.380 --> 01:42:25.100]  Let's see, if you don't, if you don't take the test, they don't have any evidence that
[01:42:25.100 --> 01:42:26.100]  you're incompetent.
[01:42:26.100 --> 01:42:31.940]  Here's the question, though, because you're right, the only two issues are, you understand
[01:42:31.940 --> 01:42:35.700]  the charges against you, and can you assist in your own defense?
[01:42:35.700 --> 01:42:36.700]  Right.
[01:42:36.700 --> 01:42:42.060]  But why is there a psychiatric aspect to the actual test of psychiatric history?
[01:42:42.060 --> 01:42:46.380]  What does that have to do with the here and now of competency?
[01:42:46.380 --> 01:42:52.380]  And what happened to what my wife was, she didn't sign for them that permission to go
[01:42:52.380 --> 01:43:00.740]  on her psychiatric path, but they did it anyway, and they made their report, and in their report,
[01:43:00.740 --> 01:43:06.340]  they used stuff from the past content evaluation in this evaluation, because they didn't have
[01:43:06.340 --> 01:43:09.740]  anything new to put in the report.
[01:43:09.740 --> 01:43:15.460]  Well, you know, again, when they use stuff from the past, that's just another piece of
[01:43:15.460 --> 01:43:19.620]  evidence that the jury may or may not give any weight to.
[01:43:19.620 --> 01:43:23.860]  So you can't, you can't tell somebody what evidence they can use and what they can't
[01:43:23.860 --> 01:43:24.860]  use.
[01:43:24.860 --> 01:43:29.300]  If it doesn't have any bearing on it, then the jury should not give any weight to it.
[01:43:29.300 --> 01:43:31.100]  But there's no jury here.
[01:43:31.100 --> 01:43:34.820]  For the judge, but I'm saying in a competency trial, you should be able to ask for a jury
[01:43:34.820 --> 01:43:35.820]  trial.
[01:43:35.820 --> 01:43:38.540]  It's a separate trial in and of itself.
[01:43:38.540 --> 01:43:40.660]  It's not part of what you're charged with.
[01:43:40.660 --> 01:43:41.660]  Right.
[01:43:41.660 --> 01:43:47.820]  All right, Mike, hang on the line if you have more questions.
[01:43:47.820 --> 01:43:48.820]  Yeah.
[01:43:48.820 --> 01:43:49.820]  Okay, great.
[01:43:49.820 --> 01:43:51.940]  All right, we will be right back on the other side.
[01:43:51.940 --> 01:43:53.300]  This is the rule of law.
[01:43:53.300 --> 01:44:07.380]  We're speaking with Dr. Bill Veath.
[01:44:07.380 --> 01:44:26.900]  I want you to
[01:44:26.900 --> 01:44:31.660]  or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:31.660 --> 01:44:36.420]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:36.420 --> 01:44:40.300]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:40.300 --> 01:44:44.140]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins.
[01:44:44.140 --> 01:44:47.580]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now
[01:44:47.580 --> 01:44:49.340]  for long-term storage.
[01:44:49.340 --> 01:44:56.340]  Visit HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:19.340 --> 01:45:32.060]  All right, we are back, we're speaking with Dr. Bill Veath.
[01:45:32.060 --> 01:45:37.660]  And Bill, you were saying on the break that competency, the issue of legal competency is
[01:45:37.660 --> 01:45:44.740]  such a major, major issue because if the court rules that you're incompetent, then you lose
[01:45:44.740 --> 01:45:45.740]  all your rights.
[01:45:45.740 --> 01:45:48.780]  You lose all of your freedom, so I don't know if you lose all your rights, you probably still
[01:45:48.780 --> 01:45:55.420]  have a right to life, but you lose a lot of your rights and you lose all of your freedom.
[01:45:55.420 --> 01:46:02.860]  So competency is a major, major deal and it should not be looked at by either side lightly,
[01:46:02.860 --> 01:46:05.780]  but it is a way that the courts take control of the person.
[01:46:05.780 --> 01:46:13.520]  Yes, and I was thinking as the discussion was going on that if they can't give the competency
[01:46:13.520 --> 01:46:21.700]  exam unless you sign a waiver and the court will hold you in contempt if you don't sign
[01:46:21.700 --> 01:46:27.380]  the waiver, that goes right straight to habeas corpus.
[01:46:27.380 --> 01:46:33.180]  We should be able to fight the competency exam with habeas corpus.
[01:46:33.180 --> 01:46:38.780]  I should say so, besides the fact that I want to see some case law regarding courts ordering
[01:46:38.780 --> 01:46:44.860]  people to sign any piece of paper whatsoever, it doesn't make any sense.
[01:46:44.860 --> 01:46:51.700]  They could make you sign a paper to give up your right to your life too.
[01:46:51.700 --> 01:46:52.980]  They could make you sign anything.
[01:46:52.980 --> 01:46:55.340]  They could give up your right to your liberty.
[01:46:55.340 --> 01:46:59.260]  If they're going to make you sign something that could give up your right to your liberty,
[01:46:59.260 --> 01:47:02.560]  they can make you sign something that will give up your right to your life and your property.
[01:47:02.560 --> 01:47:06.460]  Here just sign this and we can have all your property and your liberty and by the way,
[01:47:06.460 --> 01:47:08.500]  let us take your life too.
[01:47:08.500 --> 01:47:11.100]  Now they can force you to contract.
[01:47:11.100 --> 01:47:12.100]  Right.
[01:47:12.100 --> 01:47:14.500]  That's what they're trying to say.
[01:47:17.500 --> 01:47:19.100]  But ultimately they can't.
[01:47:19.100 --> 01:47:23.300]  Ultimately they can't really lawfully force you to sign anything.
[01:47:23.300 --> 01:47:25.500]  They're going to try to trick you into it.
[01:47:25.500 --> 01:47:31.700]  But you know, the thing that I hate about this that's very discouraging is
[01:47:31.700 --> 01:47:36.700]  it gives the psych test itself a bad feeling to it or a bad name
[01:47:36.700 --> 01:47:41.500]  and these psych evals can be very, very helpful for somebody that wants them.
[01:47:41.500 --> 01:47:45.500]  If somebody identifies their own problem and goes in to get help,
[01:47:45.500 --> 01:47:47.700]  these tests are very, very good.
[01:47:47.700 --> 01:47:49.300]  I mean, they're very good.
[01:47:49.300 --> 01:47:53.300]  And so somebody who needs help, they can help them
[01:47:53.300 --> 01:47:55.900]  because you can figure out how the person functions, what's wrong,
[01:47:55.900 --> 01:47:57.300]  what are their weaknesses.
[01:47:57.300 --> 01:48:05.500]  You can develop a plan, you know, you can develop a plan to help them.
[01:48:05.500 --> 01:48:10.100]  If you can diagnose them properly and they help with the diagnosis.
[01:48:10.100 --> 01:48:12.700]  But when they're ordered and forced to be used,
[01:48:12.700 --> 01:48:16.300]  that goes totally against what they're designed to do.
[01:48:16.300 --> 01:48:20.900]  Yes, and that's a really good point because they're turning a psych evaluation
[01:48:20.900 --> 01:48:23.700]  into a terrorist tool.
[01:48:23.700 --> 01:48:25.700]  That's exactly, that's a good way of putting it.
[01:48:25.700 --> 01:48:30.100]  It's a terrorist tool and a way for them to gain more control over you.
[01:48:30.100 --> 01:48:34.900]  And it makes the field of psychology and psychiatry and the psych exam itself
[01:48:34.900 --> 01:48:37.500]  have a negative connotation and it shouldn't be that way.
[01:48:37.500 --> 01:48:42.700]  They're excellent tests if they're used properly.
[01:48:42.700 --> 01:48:46.500]  So, let's just not tolerate it anymore.
[01:48:46.500 --> 01:48:46.900]  Yeah.
[01:48:46.900 --> 01:48:51.100]  And Mike, give your wife kudos for not signing.
[01:48:51.100 --> 01:48:54.100]  That's an indication that she's absolutely competent.
[01:48:54.100 --> 01:48:55.300]  Absolutely.
[01:48:55.300 --> 01:48:57.300]  I wish she kept her mouth shut.
[01:48:57.300 --> 01:49:00.500]  Yeah, you might advise her not to make statements even if she believes them
[01:49:00.500 --> 01:49:03.300]  and even if they are true, that the court is this and they're corrupt
[01:49:03.300 --> 01:49:04.300]  and they're this and that.
[01:49:04.300 --> 01:49:08.100]  Just stand on, you know, you only have to know of one or two statements.
[01:49:08.100 --> 01:49:09.700]  Can this be used against me?
[01:49:09.700 --> 01:49:11.300]  And if it can't, I'm not doing it.
[01:49:11.300 --> 01:49:13.700]  And just keep saying the same thing a million times.
[01:49:13.700 --> 01:49:18.900]  Yeah, but when your life is hanging, when your life is hanging in the balance,
[01:49:18.900 --> 01:49:20.300]  it's hard not to do it.
[01:49:20.300 --> 01:49:25.700]  I know it's hard, but you have to weigh, is it going to be worse off if you do it?
[01:49:25.700 --> 01:49:30.900]  Now, remember the college professor, when do you talk to the police?
[01:49:30.900 --> 01:49:31.500]  Never.
[01:49:31.500 --> 01:49:34.700]  Never.
[01:49:34.700 --> 01:49:37.100]  All right, Mike, do you have any other questions?
[01:49:37.100 --> 01:49:42.700]  I just want to say the previous one that we recorded, the evaluation,
[01:49:42.700 --> 01:49:48.100]  when she mentioned going to trial, their whole emphasis was,
[01:49:48.100 --> 01:49:50.500]  you know, out of years you're facing in prison.
[01:49:50.500 --> 01:49:55.700]  And, you know, there's innocent people in prison right now.
[01:49:55.700 --> 01:50:01.100]  And the whole thing was swayed towards, you know, you really don't want to go to trial.
[01:50:01.100 --> 01:50:03.700]  There's got to be something wrong with you.
[01:50:03.700 --> 01:50:07.300]  No, it's not like it was fair.
[01:50:07.300 --> 01:50:11.300]  If you decide to go to trial, you must be out of your mind.
[01:50:11.300 --> 01:50:16.500]  Yeah, I mean, that's what the whole thing was geared towards.
[01:50:16.500 --> 01:50:24.500]  You know, they go over possible outcomes and possible different pleas and,
[01:50:24.500 --> 01:50:26.900]  you know, probation and things like that.
[01:50:26.900 --> 01:50:31.700]  But they ask questions like, you know, the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.
[01:50:31.700 --> 01:50:35.900]  I ask a lot of people that, a lot of regular, everyday people don't know the difference.
[01:50:35.900 --> 01:50:40.100]  Are they incompetent because they don't know?
[01:50:40.100 --> 01:50:42.500]  Well, again, that's one of the problems.
[01:50:42.500 --> 01:50:46.500]  When they ask questions and force you to answer them, they're designed to come,
[01:50:46.500 --> 01:50:51.900]  to get evidence against you, to come up with some conclusion that you're incompetent.
[01:50:51.900 --> 01:50:54.900]  So, again, that's why the whole system was put in place.
[01:50:54.900 --> 01:50:58.500]  You shouldn't have to give any testimony or evidence against yourself.
[01:50:58.500 --> 01:50:59.700]  You shouldn't have to answer any questions.
[01:50:59.700 --> 01:51:05.100]  You should be able to be a deaf mute, never answer a question, and still have a fair trial
[01:51:05.100 --> 01:51:10.100]  where they come up with the evidence against you, not get it from you.
[01:51:10.100 --> 01:51:14.900]  You should give her a question to ask whoever's questioning her.
[01:51:14.900 --> 01:51:19.100]  I did. I gave her a written test for every one of them to fill out.
[01:51:19.100 --> 01:51:23.900]  Good. Ask them if they know the difference between a Frank's hearing and a Dalbert's hearing.
[01:51:23.900 --> 01:51:25.100]  If he's an attorney.
[01:51:25.100 --> 01:51:27.300]  It was a simple. It was a simple.
[01:51:27.300 --> 01:51:31.300]  They just had to write down the Bill of Rights, you know, once in ten.
[01:51:31.300 --> 01:51:34.900]  And they refused to do it.
[01:51:34.900 --> 01:51:38.900]  And they asked, are you trying to see if I'm confident enough to give you an evaluation?
[01:51:38.900 --> 01:51:42.100]  And she said, yeah.
[01:51:42.100 --> 01:51:47.100]  See, again, that could be construed as behavioral evidence that you're paranoid.
[01:51:47.100 --> 01:51:52.900]  I mean, again, you have to be very careful with what you're, you know, what you're doing with them.
[01:51:52.900 --> 01:51:57.100]  That's why you have to stand on just a couple of principles and stay with it.
[01:51:57.100 --> 01:52:00.500]  And don't deviate from it, no matter how much they try to frustrate you.
[01:52:00.500 --> 01:52:02.500]  Because the more you question...
[01:52:02.500 --> 01:52:09.500]  But Bill, when you're in the psychiatric unit and you're, you know, because there's three different outcomes.
[01:52:09.500 --> 01:52:14.500]  There's confident, incompetent, and incompetent, but restorable.
[01:52:14.500 --> 01:52:19.500]  And it's that third one they like to use a lot because they can get you in and out of the hospital.
[01:52:19.500 --> 01:52:24.500]  So once you're in the hospital, you really have to pass that test to get out.
[01:52:24.500 --> 01:52:28.500]  Otherwise, they can keep you in there to the duration of your prison time.
[01:52:28.500 --> 01:52:31.500]  Which means you've been presumed incompetent without a trial.
[01:52:31.500 --> 01:52:32.500]  Right.
[01:52:32.500 --> 01:52:33.500]  Okay.
[01:52:33.500 --> 01:52:36.500]  Well, that's what they used to do in Russia when they sent you to Siberia.
[01:52:36.500 --> 01:52:41.500]  Other than put you in prison, they send you to Siberia and put you in a mental hospital for the rest of your life.
[01:52:41.500 --> 01:52:43.500]  You just don't want to get in there in the first place.
[01:52:43.500 --> 01:52:50.500]  My wife, she passed the competency evaluation 20 days after she was deemed incompetent.
[01:52:50.500 --> 01:52:57.500]  She passed it inside the hospital, yet they kept her in there for the duration of the 60-day order.
[01:52:57.500 --> 01:53:02.500]  So she was there for 40 more days while she was competent.
[01:53:02.500 --> 01:53:03.500]  Right.
[01:53:03.500 --> 01:53:05.500]  Well, that's a whole different part.
[01:53:05.500 --> 01:53:10.500]  You know, that's part of the police state legal system we live in.
[01:53:10.500 --> 01:53:14.500]  That's the separation of liberty. You should be able to be released right away.
[01:53:14.500 --> 01:53:20.500]  These are the kinds of things that the public should not put up with, but they're there.
[01:53:20.500 --> 01:53:23.500]  You just don't want to get in there in the first place.
[01:53:23.500 --> 01:53:26.500]  Just don't go in in the first place.
[01:53:26.500 --> 01:53:28.500]  Well, some people find themselves there.
[01:53:28.500 --> 01:53:31.500]  They didn't go in. They found themselves there.
[01:53:31.500 --> 01:53:36.500]  But then they'll say you're a danger to yourself and others, and they'll go for probing.
[01:53:36.500 --> 01:53:40.500]  Well, again, they're going to have to prove it, like Bill says.
[01:53:40.500 --> 01:53:43.500]  They're going to have to have a trial.
[01:53:43.500 --> 01:53:46.500]  Just saying it should not cut it. Where's the evidence?
[01:53:46.500 --> 01:53:49.500]  There has to be a trial.
[01:53:49.500 --> 01:53:53.500]  And you should be able to demand a jury trial.
[01:53:53.500 --> 01:53:54.500]  And then they give evidence.
[01:53:54.500 --> 01:54:00.500]  If they've got no evidence that you're a danger to yourself or others, how can they just – they can't just say it.
[01:54:00.500 --> 01:54:06.500]  I'm not – I'm not going to say they can't. I know they do whatever they want to do. I'm saying legally or lawfully they can't.
[01:54:06.500 --> 01:54:14.500]  Well, if you sign a piece of paper, then basically it's fair game against you.
[01:54:14.500 --> 01:54:20.500]  Well, what happens when you're in there and they medicate, you know, crap at you, and you don't even know what you're signing?
[01:54:20.500 --> 01:54:25.500]  Well, you know, they're not – again, they're not supposed to be able to medicate you either without your permission.
[01:54:25.500 --> 01:54:32.500]  Well, they – you know, my wife refused because she was pregnant, and they tried to probate her to force medicine on her.
[01:54:32.500 --> 01:54:37.500]  And then, you know, luckily the doctor says you can't take medicine. She's pregnant.
[01:54:37.500 --> 01:54:44.500]  It's going to send the baby, and then a couple days later she got the test, and she passed it.
[01:54:44.500 --> 01:54:46.500]  But you have to take it to get out.
[01:54:46.500 --> 01:54:49.500]  So they were trying to medicate her before the test?
[01:54:49.500 --> 01:54:55.500]  Yeah, of course. That way that makes them say, oh, look, she needs medicine. So look what we did.
[01:54:55.500 --> 01:55:03.500]  You know, this is all because of us. She passed the test.
[01:55:03.500 --> 01:55:09.500]  So how would you define a police state? How would you know if you were in one?
[01:55:09.500 --> 01:55:15.500]  You know, the best society for them is one where people don't realize they're in one.
[01:55:15.500 --> 01:55:19.500]  And that seems to be what we live in right now.
[01:55:19.500 --> 01:55:28.500]  I don't think Russia ever contained 50% – ever held 50% of the world's population of inmates.
[01:55:28.500 --> 01:55:29.500]  Right.
[01:55:29.500 --> 01:55:31.500]  The United States does.
[01:55:31.500 --> 01:55:38.500]  Right. The United States has – I've heard has more inmates and more people in prison than all the other countries combined, I've heard.
[01:55:38.500 --> 01:55:46.500]  And now they're about to – now they're gunning for the top psychiatric ward inmate population now.
[01:55:46.500 --> 01:55:50.500]  But that means – that number doesn't even include probation and parole.
[01:55:50.500 --> 01:55:55.500]  There's a lot more people on probation and parole which technically still prison them.
[01:55:55.500 --> 01:55:59.500]  Well, I like Randy's idea. This goes straight to habeas corpus.
[01:55:59.500 --> 01:56:07.500]  And the court can't force you to sign anything anyway. Period. There's just no question about it.
[01:56:07.500 --> 01:56:13.500]  But like you said, the question comes up with, you know, where does it begin?
[01:56:13.500 --> 01:56:15.500]  Where does this test begin?
[01:56:15.500 --> 01:56:24.500]  And with her, it began with her own attorney who was a public defender who didn't want to go to trial for the whole thing.
[01:56:24.500 --> 01:56:33.500]  That's – the whole purpose of the public defender is there to convince the individual to take the plea.
[01:56:33.500 --> 01:56:38.500]  And that's why I tell people, get a public defender.
[01:56:38.500 --> 01:56:45.500]  First thing you tell that public defender, you take one step I don't like, I bar grieve you.
[01:56:45.500 --> 01:56:49.500]  Every step you take, I don't like, I bar grieve you.
[01:56:49.500 --> 01:56:54.500]  You fight – you try to get removed from this case, I bar grieve you.
[01:56:54.500 --> 01:57:04.500]  I told my – when the DPS knocked out one of my teeth and then tried to prosecute me to cover up what they did, they appointed me counsel.
[01:57:04.500 --> 01:57:06.500]  That's the thing I told him first.
[01:57:06.500 --> 01:57:12.500]  And he was terrified because he's the guy on the bottom of the rung.
[01:57:12.500 --> 01:57:16.500]  That public defender is right down at the bottom of the heap.
[01:57:16.500 --> 01:57:20.500]  And you'll put him out of business in a heartbeat, and he knew it.
[01:57:20.500 --> 01:57:29.500]  So he really went to work to help me, and the judge had to protect this attorney against me.
[01:57:29.500 --> 01:57:34.500]  So we can turn the system back on him.
[01:57:34.500 --> 01:57:38.500]  We just got to learn to go after him.
[01:57:38.500 --> 01:57:46.500]  Judicial conduct complaints, bar grievances, those are the best tools that we have.
[01:57:46.500 --> 01:57:58.500]  And once you've hammered your own public defender, he's going to want to be able to practice other than just defending people for the government.
[01:57:58.500 --> 01:58:02.500]  You bar grieve him, he can't get malpractice insurance, and he can't do that.
[01:58:02.500 --> 01:58:07.500]  We start hammering him, maybe eventually we'll start getting some justice.
[01:58:07.500 --> 01:58:09.500]  All right, listen, we're at the top of the hour.
[01:58:09.500 --> 01:58:11.500]  Thanks for calling in, Mike.
[01:58:11.500 --> 01:58:12.500]  All right, thank you, guys.
[01:58:12.500 --> 01:58:18.500]  Okay, we're going to move on to some more calls when we get back on the other side.
[01:58:18.500 --> 01:58:21.500]  Dr. Veath, are you up for a couple more phone calls?
[01:58:21.500 --> 01:58:24.500]  Yes, if you've got callers, I'll stick around and answer their questions.
[01:58:24.500 --> 01:58:25.500]  All right, wonderful.
[01:58:25.500 --> 01:58:27.500]  All right, we will be back on the other side.
[01:58:27.500 --> 01:58:29.500]  This is the rule of law.
[01:58:29.500 --> 01:58:43.500]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, and Dr. Bill Veath.
[01:59:00.500 --> 01:59:09.500]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:59:09.500 --> 01:59:12.500]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:59:12.500 --> 01:59:13.500]  Brave New Books?
[01:59:13.500 --> 01:59:20.500]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:59:20.500 --> 01:59:24.500]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:59:24.500 --> 01:59:26.500]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:59:26.500 --> 01:59:32.500]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:59:32.500 --> 01:59:36.500]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:59:36.500 --> 01:59:43.500]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility, just behind the bookstore.
[01:59:43.500 --> 01:59:47.500]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:59:47.500 --> 01:59:59.500]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays, so get them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.