Criminal mental health lawyer, poker player, and mentally disabled
Hi all,
For those of you not familiar with my poker blog here, 1/3 Grinding and Bankroll, I started as a drunk tourist player the regs salivated over, playing sporadically for fun. Then life hit me with a baseball bat across the face and I was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but not before I had gotten my law license and started practicing criminal and post-conviction law. Poker gave me a way to pass the time and not give up on life, and eventually the hobby turned into a job and I went pro or semi-pro for several years. I did very well, playing in the biggest games in my room up to 100/200 occasionally but much more often the big live PLO5 games.
I just started my most recent full time law job as a mental health lawyer defending people like me, those with psychiatric disabilities, and I am starting another cool chapter in my life. Now that my poker volume has decreased by a lot again I thought it was a good time for this thread.
Ask away!
DT
From what I’ve read (a few times) over the years regarding mental health court, the patients have little to no rights and it’s more akin to a kangaroo court.
Essentially, judges side with doctors/the hospital quite often.
Would you say this is an accurate assessment DT?
Giving those who have little to no rights a “fair” or “more fair” hearing in mental health court seems like a noble pursuit and something you should definitely be proud of.
That's bullshit. By the time people get to the point of involuntary commitment, they have severe mental health issues and severe history of violence. The state isn't locking up peaceful, innocent people.
Here's what people missing: Ordinary, peaceful mentally ill people aren't being locked up. Involuntary commitment requires proof of *imminent violence* to oneself or others.
DumbosTrunk is actively helping violent, mentally ill people avoid treatment, and he has the balls to call himself a "mental health advocate."
Not all the time, Megawhale.
I was involutariliy held for 7 weeks in a hell-place psych ward in 2021.
A judge ruled I was a danger to society as well.
A psycholgist claimed my "flat voice" indicated a behavioral problem as well.
What happened?
I didn't sleep for 5 days, ended up at the casino, and screamed at a few police officers who got in my way.
I raised my voice, and was declared a threat to the world.
How would you feel if the client wanted to be free against the doctors wishes and you also know he’s a threat to society and then he ends up raping and murdering some good, innocent people who are productive in society? Trying not to cross the line here but I’m genuinely curious about the ethical dilemmas of a lawyer and this is an ask me anything thread
If he was such a threat all my best advocacy would not get him out of the hospital. Same goes for obviously suicidal clients. When the facts aren’t there to support an argument for release the client is usually not getting out. Where I can have more of an impact is in borderline and weaker cases the hospital
brings to court anyway.
From what I’ve read (a few times) over the years regarding mental health court, the patients have little to no rights and it’s more akin to a kangaroo court.
Essentially, judges side with doctors/the hospital quite often.
Would you say this is an accurate assessment DT?
Giving those who have little to no rights a “fair” or “more fair” hearing in mental health court seems like a noble pursuit and something you should definitely be proud of.
I would disagree in my jurisdiction anyway. And that’s principally because our office advocates for the clients’ stated interests. But yes often the judges do side with the hospital where the evidence supports it. Sometimes the client’s actions while in the hospital don’t leave us with much to work with argument wise.
Thank you, I feel like I bring dignity to my clients in a very difficult time in their lives. They still have rights even as patients in psychiatric hospitals (which are, by the way, very unpleasant places to be kept against your will).
DumbosTrunk would consider this a "victory" because he allowed a violent, mentally ill person to pursue "liberty." He doesn't give a damn about the "liberty" of the woman he rapes.
Not true. The truly violent are not on my docket anyway and sometimes end up in criminal court. They are mostly in state hospital. I deal with private for-profit hospitals right now.
Not all the time, Megawhale.
I was involutariliy held for 7 weeks in a hell-place psych ward in 2021.
A judge ruled I was a danger to society as well.
A psycholgist claimed my "flat voice" indicated a behavioral problem as well.
What happened?
I didn't sleep for 5 days, ended up at the casino, and screamed at a few police officers who got in my way.
I raised my voice, and was declared a threat to the world.
damn bro I feel you. been locked up twice and its something I don't many people (maybe some i hate the most).
hope you are ok now.
Not all the time, Megawhale.
I was involutariliy held for 7 weeks in a hell-place psych ward in 2021.
A judge ruled I was a danger to society as well.
A psycholgist claimed my "flat voice" indicated a behavioral problem as well.
What happened?
I didn't sleep for 5 days, ended up at the casino, and screamed at a few police officers who got in my way.
I raised my voice, and was declared a threat to the world.
You’re correct, most states do NOT require a showing of imminent violence for someone to be held involuntarily. The standard is “danger to self or others.” What is dangerous to some is not to others and the lines are very blurred in practice. We get a lot of cases like yours where the alleged danger is weak at best.
Not true. The truly violent are not on my docket anyway and sometimes end up in criminal court. They are mostly in state hospital. I deal with private for-profit hospitals right now.
Also even people who commit violence while not in their right minds deserve a fair hearing. Many end up taking medication, getting better, and no longer pose a risk to society and should have an opportunity to be released.
