* Frode Moe, Talitha Moe, Millers Inc, Douglas Henney, Arno Crous, Clive Johnstone, Ann Johnstone
* 21 Feb: Frode Re: Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings.
» 21 Feb: Lara Re: Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v FT Moe, LJ v CH Johnstone, EoP v Dignitas / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMA | EoP Axis MilNec Evac: EoP Axis: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Psych, EoP v WiP Religion / EoP v WiP Neg.
From: Frode Moe <email@example.com>
Date: 2018-02-21 08:47
Subject: Re: Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings.
To: EoP MILED Clerk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To Lara Johnstone
CC Clive Johnstone , George Magistrate’s Court by the Clerk of the Court: Zarita Van Eyk
MENTAL DISORDER, SUICIDE THREAT AND COURT PROCEEDINGS
I have several times written to you Lara that the court is not the right institution to decide whether you have a mental disease or not.The court will need support from a psychiatrist to make such a decision/verdict. That is why I have several times recommended you to see a psychiatrist without any positive response from your side. The best will be that the court without a court-case send/bring you to a selected psychiatrist.
If you, in spite of what I just wrote, take me to court again, I must inform you and the court that I will leave SA 1st of May for 3-4 months and will be back in George in September 2018. So the court-case should be finished before the first of May or start after the 15th of September.
This time the court-case will eventually be in a more serious setting as a suicidal threat will make an impact on the court-case.
By law the judicial- and health-institutions are given the authority and responsibility to preserve life and prevent death among their people in the country , including suicide when it is possible.
If a mental disease is related to threat of suicide, both the judicial-and health-institutions have a responsibility and duty to interfere, often in close cooperation with each other.
In order to prevent unnecessary illness and death , the authorities should bring the “patient” to psychiatric diagnostic evaluation for further steps for the best of the patient .
In the email from EoP MILED Clerk sent the 15th of Dec 2017 to Frode Moe and many more , Lara Johnstone gave names of 12 people that, concerning you, Lara , had made overt or public mental disorder allegations. At least 3 of these 12 have made their statements based on professional medical knowledge.
In addition you mentioned in your court proceedings 18.th of Feb 2018 that your parents “secretly believe you have a mental disorder”.
SO A SUMMARY
A court-case against Frode Moe to find a diagnosis for yourself is definitely not the right way to go.
Only a specialist in psychiatry or a psychiatric hospital should make the right diagnosis and decide what is the best way further for you.
In your attached email to Frode Moe the 18. of Feb 2018 you describe paperwork with “request for help with Lara’s assisted suicide”.
This information should be sufficient for the Court to use their right to interfere.
40 year of experience as a medical general practitioner in Norway.
From: EoP MILED Clerk <email@example.com>
Date: 2018-02-21 17:31
Subject: Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings.
To: Frode Moe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Talitha Moe <email@example.com>, “Talitha Moe Counsel: Millers Inc: Douglas Henney” <Douglas@phinc.co.za>, Arno Crous <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Clive Johnstone <email@example.com>, Ann Johnstone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO: Frode Moe (email@example.com)
CC: Talitha Moe (firstname.lastname@example.org); Talitha Moe Counsel: Millers Inc: Douglas Henney (Douglas@phinc.co.za); Arno Crous (email@example.com); Clive Johnstone (firstname.lastname@example.org); Ann Johnstone (email@example.com)
Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings.
I received your 21 Feb 2018 email; in response to my 18 Feb 2018 email – Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings – which was CC’d to Mag Torlage and Essel via Clerk of Court, but has not yet been filed with the Clerk, as an update to 16 Feb: Mag D Torlage: Re: Update re 5408-15: LJ v CH Johnstone: Re 06 Oct 2016 letter.
You did not answer my questions to you; regarding whether you intend to represent yourself or not.
If you are willing to confirm in writing that you shall represent yourself Pro Se – like my father did in LJ v Clive Johnstone civil court proceedings – then I can file the documentation within the next two weeks, so that we can get the Magistrate to make an enquiry into the evidentiary accuracy of your ‘mental disorder’ allegations.
If you intend to hire attorneys to represent you: Are you willing to instruct your attorneys to refrain from attempts to getting the matter thrown out on legal technical issues; and to focus on helping the Magistrate to make an impartial enquiry into the evidentiary accuracy of your mental disorder allegations?
If you are not willing to instruct your attorneys to refrain from attempts to getting the matter thrown out on legal technical issues; and to focus on helping the Magistrate to make an impartial enquiry into the evidentiary accuracy of your mental disorder allegations; then I shall need to include in the application an In Forma Pauperis Request for Assistance of Standby Advisory Counsel to respond to your attorneys attempts to getting the matter thrown out on legal technical issues.
Response to Frode Moe Mental Disorder Allegations:
Frode Moe: I have several times written to you Lara that the court is not the right institution to decide whether you have a mental disease or not.The court will need support from a psychiatrist to make such a decision/verdict.
Lara Johnstone: I have repeatedly informed you that perhaps that is how it works in Norway; however that is not how it works in South Africa. The final legal decision regarding any individuals alleged ‘mental disorder’ in South Africa lies with a Magistrate or Judge, not a psychologist. In South Africa, any psychologist who alleges that an individual has a mental disorder, is required to testify under oath, and under cross examination to their ‘expert diagnosis’ and if the Magistrate or Judge does not think there is beyond reasonable doubt evidence in support of such ‘mental disorder’ diagnosis, then the Judge will make a legal finding of ‘mental health’.
Frode Moe: That is why I have several times recommended you to see a psychiatrist without any positive response from your side.
Lara: I suggest you go back and read my previous responses, which you either don’t remember, or are intentionally ignoring or misrepresenting. If or when you provide me with your legal ‘mental disorder’ definition, and evidence in support of your legal definition. I can make an impartial enquiry into your mental disorder definition; and evidence in support of it, by asking you questions to make sure that I accurately understand your definition and evidence in support of it. Once I clearly understand exactly what your mental disorder legal definition is, and your evidence in support of it, then – if its reasonable – I can take it to one or more psychologist’s and get their opinions on its reasonableness. If a psychologist considers your allegation reasonable, then such a psychologist can testify to such finding, under cross examination, before a Magistrate. In South Africa, the final decision about whether any individual – layperson, psychologist or psychiatrists – ‘mental disorder’ allegation is reasonable and lawful, is a Magistrate or Judge.
You continue to refuse to provide me your legal definition and your subjective evidence in support of such legal definition. So what must I say to a sincere psychologist?:
Psychologist: Why are you here?
Lara: Frode Moe says I have a mental disorder and must see a psychologist. I have asked him to provide me his legal definition for mental disorder and evidence in support of it, but he refuses to do so, and says I must see a psychologist.
Psychologist: If his mental disorder allegation is sincere, why won’t he provide you with his mental disorder legal definition and evidence in support of it?
Lara: If his mental disorder allegation is sincere, I have no idea why he won’t provide me with his mental disorder legal definition and evidence in support of it. That is – I imagine – what a sincere ethical person would do.
Psychologist: Do you think his mental disorder allegation could be malicious?
Lara: Perhaps, I don’t know I can’t read his mind. Perhaps he never had a legal definition for a mental disorder to begin with. Perhaps he was simply angrily ranting; and once he was confronted to provide a legal definition; he was too embarrassed to apologize and admit he had been angry; and never meant his allegation; and so instead of withdrawing his allegation and apologizing, he just proceeded to double down on his allegation. I don’t know.
Frode Moe: If you, in spite of what I just wrote, take me to court again, I must inform you and the court that I will leave SA 1st of May for 3-4 months and will be back in George in September 2018. So the court-case should be finished before the first of May or start after the 15th of September.
Lara: I shall file the documents within the next few weeks. If the matter is not resolved before 1st of May; then it can be postponed until you get back from Norway in September 2018.
Frode Moe: This time the court-case will eventually be in a more serious setting as a suicidal threat will make an impact on the court-case.
Lara: I do not interpret Clive and Ann’s ‘assisted suicide’ consent letters as threats. I interpret Clive and Ann’s assisted suicide consent letters as their willingness to consent to me making the legal arrangements with whomever is willing to help me to legally depart this planet by assisted suicide. Magistrate Torlage and Karen Marshall have verbally confirmed the legality of Clive and Ann helping me to make my legal assisted suicide arrangements. Swiss legal assisted suicide organization Dignitas – dignitas.ch – Information brochure [PDF]; has certain requirements to be approved for assisted suicide, which I am in the process of resolving.
Frode Moe: By law the judicial- and health-institutions are given the authority and responsibility to preserve life and prevent death among their people in the country , including suicide when it is possible.
Lara: Assisted suicide is legal in some countries and illegal in other countries; just like different countries with different cultural views about what is or is not a ‘mental disorder’. Travelling to a country where assisted suicide is legal – such as Switzerland – is legal, as far as I am aware.
Frode Moe: If a mental disease is related to threat of suicide, both the judicial-and health-institutions have a responsibility and duty to interfere, often in close cooperation with each other. In order to prevent unnecessary illness and death , the authorities should bring the “patient” to psychiatric diagnostic evaluation for further steps for the best of the patient.
Lara: I am unaware of any individual in South Africa’s judicial and/or health institutions who sincerely consider me to have a ‘mental disorder’.
Frode Moe: In the email from EoP MILED Clerk sent the 15th of Dec 2017 to Frode Moe and many more, Lara Johnstone gave names of 12 people that, concerning you, Lara, had made overt or public mental disorder allegations. At least 3 of these 12 have made their statements based on professional medical knowledge.
Lara: I imagine you are referring to my 09 December 2017 response to former Judge Jason Brent’s response thanking me for my response to his articles; and asking for my telephone number to continue his conversation with me; wherein I as a matter of transparency honour – so that he could make a fully informed opinion about whether he needed to protect his reputation from association with me, from malicious smear mongers – informed him of unresolved mental disorder allegations against me – 09 Dec: EoP Re: Judge Brent: Evidentiary Enquiry of Coercive EoP Global One Child intl Law or Whom Should Military Kill Genghis Khan Green Reforestation?; a copy of which was provided to Magistrate Torlage and Essel on 11 Dec: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe, 5048-15: LJ v CH Johnstone; CAS 572-02; 1340-07: State v L Johnstone: Unresolved Mental Disorder Allegations – which states among others, the following regarding those unresolved mental disorder allegations:
As a result of among others: various individuals financial sabotage ‘mental disorder’ allegations – as noted in among others: State v LJ, LJ v FTM, LJ v B Blanton – against me; I have very limited resources. If it were not for my parents help; I would be homeless.
Individuals who allegedly made covert and/or publicly made overt mental disorder allegations, whom have repeatedly been asked to withdraw their allegations and apologize in writing; or provide evidence for their allegations, including their ‘mental disorder’ legal definition and evidence in support of such legal definition: George Herald: Alida de Beer, Legal Aid: Anton Marx, NPA: Pros’s Redelinghuys, JJ Marx & R de Kock; Psych: Giselle Rausch; DA: Patricia de Lille, Frode and Talitha Moe, Brad Blanton, Graeme Johnstone, Andre Johnstone, Lotta Gustaffson; Jana Cummins.
– Summary of CAS 572/02 events available in 31 Dec: CAS 572-02: Pros Kortje, G Herald, G Airport, Dr. Rausch: CAS 572-02: Re Irregular & Illegal Actions of NPA et al in George Case CAS 572-02: BB: Affidavit of Lara Johnstone: Evidence in support of Lara’s Reply Affidavit statement alleging that the State’s 22 July 2002 J138A Transfer Warrant, authorizing Lara’s referral to Lentegeur, filed in CAS 572-01: State v Lara Johnstone: 18 June 2002 Political and Military Necessity Iatrogenic origins of AIDS bomb threat to the P.W. Botha Airport trial; was irregular and illegal [PDF].
Legal and Psychologists professionals include: Lawyers: Anton Marx, Mueller Redelinghuys, JJ Marx, Rodney de Kock; Psychologists: Bernice Eglyn Boon, Giselle Rausch; Brad Blanton, Lotta Gustaffson.
Dr Giselle Rausch provided expert witness testimony before before Magistrate Buhr, as to her professional interpretations of the necessity defence recommendation of Dr Gouzyn, sanity conclusions of Dr Mason; and the mental disorder allegations made by Anton Marx, Mueller Redelinghuys, JJ Marx, Rodney de Kock, Bernice Eglyn Boon; Ms Erasmus; which she concluded were insufficient for a ‘mental disorder’ conclusion; but sufficient for a ‘personality disorder’ finding; so she recommended Magistrate Buhr to make a legal finding of ‘personality disorder’. Magistrate Buhr’s final ruling included no legal finding regarding any personality disorder; indicating that he probably found Dr. Giselle Rausch’s evidence to be insufficient for such a legal finding conclusion. If you want a transcript copy of Dr Rausch’s court expert witness testimony I can find it for you and provide you a copy.
Brad Blanton and Lotta Gustaffson made their alleged mental disorder allegations behind my back, not to my face. Brad denied having made the allegations when I confronted him. Lotta neither denied nor confirmed the allegations, when I confronted her.
Frode Moe: In addition you mentioned in your court proceedings 18.th of Feb 2018 that your parents “secretly believe you have a mental disorder”.
Lara: In the 18 Feb – 18 Feb: Frode Moe: Upd Re: 2578-14: LJ v FT Moe Court Proceedings – correspondence; I stated my interpretation of Clive and Ann’s statement:
“It would be legally unethical for Lara to submit Clive and Ann’s – We consent to Lara’s Assisted Suicide’; while we secretly believe Lara has a mental disorder – written statements to (a) The Russian Government; and/or (b) Dignitas in Switzerland; to request their help with Lara’s assisted suicide.
If Clive and Ann’s layperson mental disorder allegations are not ‘angry letting off steam’ but sincere conclusions; then the only way to help them to find out whether their conclusions are accurate or inaccurate; is by submitting all the evidence in support and against such ‘mental disorder’ conclusion to a Magistrate for them to enquire into.
If Clive and Ann’s layperson mental disorder allegations are partially based on the allegations made by self described medical expert Frode Moe, then if or when Frode Moe is willing to submit all his evidence in support of his ‘mental disorder’ allegation conclusion to a Magistrate for them to enquire into; then such Magistrate’s ruling upon the evidence submitted; may be useful for Clive and Ann to consider.
My interpretations of Clive and Ann’s assisted suicide consent statements are not a statement of fact; as noted in subsequent two ‘if ….’ paragraphs. An interpretation is NOT a statement of fact. An interpretation could be 0.01% or 99.99 accurate or inaccurate. An interpretation is a statement of ‘this is what I hear you are saying; am I accurately hearing what you are saying?’. If the person confirms your interpretation ‘yes your interpretation of what I was saying is accurate; that is in fact what I was saying’; then that interpretation is an accurate interpretation of the particular person’s original statement or actions. If they do not dispute your interpretation, then your interpretation may be accurate or not; depending on whether they were sincerely listening to your response or, and/or consider you worthy of their attention for a sincere response, or not.
I don’t know if my interpretation of Clive and Ann’s opinions about my mental health are accurate or not.
Frode Moe: 40 year of experience as a medical general practitioner in Norway.
Lara: In your 40 year of experience as a medical general practitioner in Norway; how many times did you (a) speak up about corrupt or unethical – for example lack of fully informed consent or impartial legal due process – practices in Norwegian medical general practitioner and/or psychiatric industry; (b) remain silent, and/or actively support unethical – for example lack of fully informed consent or impartial legal due process – practices in Norwegian medical general practitioner and/or psychiatric industry?
For example: What is you medical general practitioner expert opinion about FAMPO: Folke-Aksjonen Mot Psykiaternes Overgrep, which means ‘People’s action against the psychiatrician’s abuse’; regarding the corruption of Norwegian psychiatry; ‘Psychiatry in Norway [PDF archive.is/dhcb7] statement about Norwegian psychiatrists preference for making malicious ‘mental disorder’ allegations in order to coercively institutionalizing individuals who expose legal, political or academic corruption?
Psychiatry in Norway.
Norway is the European country with the highest amount of people being coercively hospitalised, relative to the population numbers. An analysis made by SINTEF (research organisation) in the year 1996, it showed up that at about 45 per cent of all hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatric clinics, are coercive. In other European countries the same numbers are between 5 to 15 percent.
The Norwegian numbers were, however, only an estimate. This is due to the fact that many hospitals do not even report coercive hospitalisations at all. Therefore, no good statistics are available.
In several other countries there are courts deciding whether or not a person shall be coercively hospitalised. This is not the situation in Norway. In Norway one may only complain to a so called “Control Commission” – after being hospitalised! In that situation it is often difficult for the patients to further their cases, because they are being drugged.
We have many examples of an utmost grave form of abuse of psychiatry – hospitalising people who have disclosed corruption and abuse of power. The most well known example is the infamous so called Juklerød-affair.
Arnold Juklerød was hospitalised at Gaustad Psychiatric Hospital in 1971, with the diagnosis “cverulantia paranoia,” According to the psychiatrists of Gaustad, Juklerød was diagnosed having “unchangeable paranoid false ideas”. This because he was able to prove, that the local authorities had broken the law, when shutting down a school.
As Trond Skaftnesmo later on documented, and also admitted by the Department itself in 1995, Juklerød’s “false ideas” were proven to be true! In spite of this, his so called “diagnosis” was never deleted.
Another one who was labelled mentally ill and coercively hospitalised was Synnøve Fjellbakk Taftø, a diplomat and a jurist. Taftø has written a book called Skjoldmøysagaen, where she writes about her experience from the Norwegian Diplomacy Service.
In the year 2000, the police in Sunnmøre wanted Kåre Torvholm and Oddmar Remøy mentally examined. In the case of Remøy, the argument for hospitalising him, tells a lot.
This is what Bjørn Martin Aasen, municipal doctor in Herøy, and former secretary in one of the departments of Gro Harlem Brundtland’s government, was writing to justify coercive hospitalisation:
“He belongs to a civil network with both local, national, and international connections, which purpose is to disclose criminal things, happening in the public sector, and to get things on to a more productive track. In my opinion the requirements in lph 3 are fulfilled” (Lph 3’ is a shortage for the Law on Mental Care).
In a report written in 1999, when a new law concerning psychiatry was carried, Dag Hiåsen wrote about the control commissions. In the year of 1997, as many as 9,651 Norwegians citizens were coercively hospitalised. The number of complaints on coercive psychiatric treatments, endorsed by the control commissions during the same year, was 49. That number was exceeded by the number of the control commissions at that time – which was 57!
During the last years the use of medication against ADHD has soared and has increased by 900% in the period 96-06. The UN’s drug organ has voiced concern about the strong increase in Norway, which is exceptional in Europe. There exist noteworthy warnings about side effects of this medication, as well as interesting alternatives to medication. (see http://home.no.net/fampo/adhd.html).
If – hypothetically – FAMPO: Folke-Aksjonen Mot Psykiaternes Overgrep / People’s action against the psychiatrician’s abuse’; ‘Psychiatry in Norway’ [PDF] report is (a) proven to be beyond reasonable doubt accurate about unethical – for example lack of fully informed consent or impartial legal due process – coercive institutionalization practices in Norwegian psychiatry; (b) you have never, and do not intend to ever express any professional objections to such unethical coercive practices; (c) would it be fair for a court to conclude that a more reasonable accurate interpretation as to your Norwegian medical general practitioner experience would be:
Frode Moe: 40 years of experience as a Norwegian medical general practitioner, profiting from ignoring and consequently professionally endorsing unethical – lack of fully informed consent or impartial legal due process – coercive institutionalization practices in Norwegian psychiatry.
Lara Johnstone, Pro Se.