It's simple: you either go to AA, conform complete to its covenant, or you die.
Update: AA removed these videos from YouTube. Even they are embarrassed by what their founder says.
More from Bill W., Cult Leader
It's simple: you either go to AA, conform complete to its covenant, or you die.
Update: AA removed these videos from YouTube. Even they are embarrassed by what their founder says.
Bill W. speaks of "The Only Way..."
Straight from the cult leader's mouth. Religion is everything to AA.
Again...I don't mind so much if people wish to do this foolishness on their own time. People are free to do or worship how they wish. Even more so in New Hampshire, the "live free or die" state.
However, it is wrong, legally and morally, for a State government to force non-willing participants to attend what is, in essence, an undeniably religious organization.
Oh...and don't tell me "AA has changed," because it hasn't. They still strictly adhere to the tenets of Bill W.'s "Big Book" which they regard as their bible.
Update: AA has removed these embarrassing and disturbing videos of their founder. I'll find them and repost them myself.
It revealing that AA has done this. They don't stand behind what their leader says and what is written in the "Big Book." They feel the need to hide it from viewers of Youtube. What hypocrites.
AA didn't work for Debra Oberlin....apparently
Former president of MADD arrested on DUI charge
Published: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
A former president of the defunct local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was arrested recently by the Gainesville Police Department on a DUI charge.
Debra Oberlin, 48, was arrested after she had difficulty on a field sobriety test. She registered a .234 and .239 on breath alcohol tests. Florida's legal limit for driving is .08.
Oberlin, a Realtor, had no comment when contacted Thursday by The Sun.
On Feb. 18 at 1:10 a.m., an officer spotted Oberlin driving erratically on Northwest 19th Street, swerving and crossing lanes, an arrest report states. Oberlin was pulled over in the 3600 block of Northwest 39th Avenue.
The officer wrote that Oberlin smelled of alcohol and had watery, bloodshot and dilated eyes. The report states that Oberlin told the officer she had four beers.
Gainesville's MADD chapter existed for several years in the 1990s before closing in 1996 because of lack of financial support. Oberlin was the chapter president for three years.
Disclose.tv - Former President Of MADD Arrested On DUI Charge Video
Blogger Jeremy Witteveen (Le Café Witteveen) posted a blog entry entitled "I love you, Debra Oberlin" and got this response:
"This hippocritical bitch should be public beat to death or better yet,turned over to any 100 of the thousands whose lives she helped ruin with her holier than thou bullshit,and let them deal with her.It would be too much to ask for that the system will subject her to the full extent of the law. They will probably coddel her because of the income flow she helped create."
Mothers Against Drunk Driving "was originally formed by Candice Lightner, who later left the organization. In 2002 she said that MADD 'has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.'" MADD, like AA, the "recovery" system, and IDIP providers here in New Hampshire like Amethyst Foundation, Inc., Serenity House, Inc., REAP, Inc., don't want to eliminate drinking and driving--they want to eliminate drinking entirely in keeping with the religious/cult doctrines of AA (while making quite a nice, tax-free, profit doing so).
Good job, AA! You took an organization that once had merit (MADD) and ran it into the ground, trampling people's civil liberties, creating a legion of people that absolutely despise you.
The Heresy of the Twelve Steps
The fundamentalist, former drunks who run AA (and the entire "industry" including Amethyst Foundation, Inc.), if they had functioning intellects, would quickly realize that the Twelve Steps are heresy. But, either by choice, or by past alcohol use, or genetics, or a combination thereof, they don't. I'll spell it out for them:
"I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me." 1st Commandment
In the Alcoholics Anonymous program, you can use anything for your "God" or "Higher Power". A.A. has lots of stories of people using a bedpan, a teacup, a doorknob, a stone, a teddy bear, a mountain, a motorcycle, or "Good Orderly Direction" for their "Higher Power". You can pray to any Golden Calf, stone idol, or Higher-Powered item of Household Hardware that you like. One of the more ridiculous word redefinitions that A.A. offers us is, you can make the word "G.O.D." mean "Group Of Drunks". The LADC I was mandated to see told me, therefore, that my atheism was no excuse not to like A.A.
A.A. founder Bill Wilson ("Bill W.") wrote:
"I must quickly assure you that A.A.'s tread innumerable paths in their quest for faith. ... You can, if you wish, make A.A. itself your 'higher power.' Here's a very large group who have solved their alcohol problem. In this respect they are certainly a power greater than you, who have not even come close to a solution. Surely you can have faith in them. Even this minimum of faith will be enough."
--Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, page 27.
Given that most Christians believe in the holy trinity (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost), I don't think many of them would think kindly to praying to a Group Of Drunks, or seeking and doing the will of a bunch of drunkards. Also, how would Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jews feel about being told this?
But then, that's assuming that people that go to A.A. think. They don't.
In addition, the Twelve Steps talk about "God as we understood Him". Members are allegedly free to define God however they imagine or understand "Him" to be. Bill Wilson told A.A. recruiters to
Stress the spiritual feature freely. If the man be agnostic or atheist, make it emphatic that he does not have to agree with your conception of God. He can choose any conception he likes, provided it makes sense to him. The main thing is that he be willing to believe in a Power greater than himself and that he live by spiritual principles.
--The Big Book, William G. Wilson, Chapter 7, Working With Others, page 93.
Obviously, this makes A.A. incompatible with atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in a higher power. But A.A. members just see an atheist's nonbelief as another fault (like his alcoholism in denial) that needs to be cured. God will cure the poor sap's atheism--he just needs to be dragged in to A.A. meetings.
How about making my higher power Satan? Or Hitler? Or Wotan, Thor, Loki, etc...? Some of the people I've meet at A.A. meetings are absolutely insane. They have truly drunk the cool-aid and are full-blown cult followers. I'm sure some of the things they understand god to be would get them committed if anyone looked at A.A. with any degree of scrutiny. (A.A., for some reason, likely ignorance, gets largely a free pass by society, despite it being a religious cult which is completely ineffective at treating alcoholism.)
Bill Wilson emphatically repeated that doctrine in the Big Book:
Despite the living example of my friend [a sober Ebby Thacher] there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. ..
My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said,"Why don't you choose your own conception of God?"
That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last.
It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a Power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning. I saw that growth could start from that point. Upon a foundation of complete willingness I might build what I saw in my friend. Would I have it? Of course I would!
Thus was I convinced that God is concerned with us humans when we want Him enough. At long last I saw, I felt, I believed. Scales of pride and prejudice fell from my eyes. A new world came into view.
--Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 1, "Bill's Story", Page 12.
We were now at Step Three. Many of us said to our Maker, as we understood Him: "God, I offer myself to Thee — to build with me and to do with me as Thou wilt. Relieve me of the bondage of self, that I may better do Thy will. Take away my difficulties, that victory over them may bear witness to those I would help of Thy Power, Thy Love, and Thy Way of life. May I do Thy will always!" We thought well before taking this step making sure we were ready; that we could at last abandon ourselves utterly to Him.
--A.A. Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, page 63.
Follow the dictates of a Higher Power and you will presently live in a new and wonderful world, no matter what your present circumstance.
--The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, page 100.
You might be thinking that this is just "The Big Book" and A.A. doesn't really follow it strictly. You would be wrong in thinking so. You will very quickly learn that "The Big Book" is the absolute final authority and is never to be questioned! Bill W. is viewed as a near-God by these people. This, despite his well-documented abuse of his wife, infidelity, narcissism, and his utter failure at being sober (he cried out for whiskey on his deathbed).
The blind, cult-like obedience to the religion of A.A. extends beyond the meetings in church basements. In New Hampshire, the agencies entrusted with carrying out court-ordered Impaired Driver Intervention Programs (IDIPs), such as Amethyst Foundation, Inc., REAP, Inc., and Serenity House, Inc., are owned, operated, and staffed by A.A. members. Staff members spread the gospel of A.A. during IDIP classes, declare everyone an alcoholic (either admitted or in denial) and order mandatory A.A. attendance as part of the aftercare that virtually everyone is assigned. Also, as part of the "aftercare" is mandatory counseling sessions with Licensed Drug and Alcohol Counselors, who happen to espouse...yes, that's right, the tenets of A.A.
In essence, the state of New Hampshire let A.A. infiltrate a significant component of the government. (And I haven't even mentioned A.A.'s role in New Hampshire's prisons, parole hearings, professional disciplinary proceedings, and others yet...I will later.) The entire recovery industry is reaping in huge (tax free) revenue while indoctrinating new member into their A.A. cult. It's a great scam, and I'm sure the smart ones at the top are laughing their way to the bank. The stupid ones being exploited merely think they are saving souls.
Here's one final secret about A.A. members: they lie. They lie because they believe they are saving souls and that they know better than you. I've caught people at A.A. meetings (and at Amethyst Foundation, Inc.) red-handed in the act of lying, with well-documented evidence, and they still shamelessly maintain they are right.
If you are at the mercy of these people and need your license back, you need to understand the personalities you are dealing with. These are people who think they are fault-less and perfect because god has revealed to them the truth. They take pity on you. With the power they have been entrusted by the state they will bend you to their will. Play dumb. Reveal no will, backbone, or free-thought. Lie, as they will lie to you. Escape their clutches, get your license back and flip them the bird in your rear view mirror as you drive away.
If there were a god, and the Ten Commandments, these people would surely be going to hell.
Atheism: Ready for Primetime!
It's great to see an admired, lead character in a popular prime time television program trash religion. This makes me optimistic about the future of society.
Forced Worship Celebrates 3000 hits
Though it doesn't sound like very much, three thousand hits is actually a fairly impressive number for a little blog like this.
Good luck to those of you who are going through what I had to go through.
Would you like your story heard? Send it to me!
Good luck to those of you who are going through what I had to go through.
Would you like your story heard? Send it to me!
16 Red Flag Hearings: 14 Affirmed, 0 Reversed, 2 Remanded
Looking for Justice by holding a Red-Flag Hearing? Don't Count On It
The Department of Safety, Bureau of Hearings, has posted a Compendium of Superior Court Cases. Under "I. Substance Abuse Completion Requirements" there are listed sixteen red-flag hearings, or appeals of decisions made by Amethyst Foundation, REAP, or other administrators of IDIP programs. Of those sixteen hearings, none were reversed.
"90 meetings in 90 days"
Keskula v. Beecher, 04-E-142, (Merrimack, Lewis, 07/19/04) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling by LADAC; Petitioned for, and after a hearing, Hearings Examiner entered as his disposition the indefinite suspension of Petitioner's driving privileges and further directed that he attend 90 self-held group meetings in 90 days, and securing a low-risk alcohol evaluation from a LADAC …; Petitioner disagreed; appeal filed; HELD: "The Hearings Examiner acted within his discretion in making the rulings and determinations … There is ample support for the conclusion that the required aftercare was warranted in this case."
Charming. Ninety meetings in ninety days is an old AA slogan. It is how new people ("pigeons" in AA slang) are recruited. Like other cults, AA tries to insulate new member from the outside world during the period of indoctrination. There's no evidence that this helps in maintaining sobriety at all.
Issues of effectiveness aside, ordering AA attendance, which this clearly is doing, is unconstitutional.
All of these courts have ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion or engages in religious activities:
- the Federal 7th Circuit Court in Wisconsin, 1984.
- the Federal District Court for Southern New York, 1994.
- the New York Court of Appeals, 1996.
- the New York State Supreme Court, 1996.
- the U.S. Supreme Court, 1997.
- the Tennessee State Supreme Court.
- the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, 1996.
- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, 1996.
- the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago, 1996.
- the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, September 7, 2007.
- the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2006.
- the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2005.
- the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 2006.
The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to those rulings, or to change or over-turn those lower court decisions. By letting them stand, the Supreme Court has made them the law of the land.
In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:
Alcoholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
— Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz
"Conflicting LADACs"
Reyno v. Beecher, 05-E-603,(Merrimack, Fitzgerald, 01/18/06) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling by LADAC; suspension sustained after hearing with conflicting testimony from more than one LADAC. Program disagreed with LADAC. Hearings Examiner held that Petitioner must follow program's recommendation. Court affirmed in a short one-line opinion.
Bastille v. Beecher, 05-E-055,(Rockingham, McHugh, 04/27/05) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling, suspension was sustained after hearing with conflicting LDACs. Director ordered counseling. Court ordered Petitioner to submit to a new LDAC evaluation. Evidence was sufficient to sustain order, but time was up and court ordered restoration after it reviewed additional submissions by petitioner about two weeks later.
The bottom line appears to be: In a contest of opinion between an Amethyst Foundation/REAP/Serenity House LADC vs. your outside expert, you lose.
"The Court may not 'Second Guess' the Examiner's reliance on the Reports, as to what weight and credibility to assign them."
Gregoire v. Beecher, 04-E-0063, (Strafford, Smukler, 07/07/04) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling; did not comply and at a hearing, the Hearings Examiner ordered Petitioner to show compliance; Petitioner argues that although the examiner was correct in reaching the foregoing conclusions based on the evidence before him, the evidence upon which he relied was inaccurate. HELD: Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that the examiner's decision was unreasonable or unlawful. "The Court … may not second-guess the examiner's reliance on the reports or his determination, as to what weight and credibility to assign them."
Oeser v. Beecher, 02-E-50, (Cheshire, Groff, 8/19/02) AFFIRMED
After a hearing ordering aftercare, Petitioner appealed raising "the following five issues on appeal: (1) …sentence has been served and her license must be restored; (2) … was not granted a hearing; (3) … license must be reinstated after 1-year; (4) hearing violated … right to due process and the DOS regulations; (5) … counselor is unqualified and the tests used … to determine her risk of re-offending were unreliable." Court held: "clearly the statute provides for continued revocation of the license of a person convicted of a DWI offense beyond the 1-yr period, if the person fails to meet the further counseling requirements. The Court finds that there is no evidence the hearings officer failed to follow the departmental regulations in the conduct of the hearing, or failed to give … a full and fair hearing in complete accord with all constitutional requirements of due process. Finally, the Court finds that … has failed to establish as a matter of law that the counselor was unqualified or that the tests were unreliable. The Court finds that the hearings officer's acceptance of the counselor's opinions and recommendations for treatment were reasonable."
Ferris v. Beecher, 01-E-42, (Strafford, Mohl, 4/6/01) AFFIRMED
Referred to further counseling by CADAC; after hearing the Hearings Examiner agreed with the CADAC and concluded that petitioner's alcohol abuse problem was not under control and that he was at risk to be a repeat DWI offender; appeal filed; petitioner considers himself only a "problem drinker" and argues that his test scores were inaccurate because he answered the questions based on his life style habits in 1998 as opposed to the present, as directed to do by the CADAC. The Court held: once petitioner demonstrates compliance with the program and is not at risk to recidivate, he can then petition to be decertified as an Habitual Offender.
So not only will your expert witness be wrong, the court will too, and it must defer to the wisdom of the Amethyst Foundation/REAP/Serenity House LADC! Nevermind that to be a LADC requires only a rudimentary training, and not even a high school diploma, which is driven by christian fundamentalist ideology that is unconcerned with issues such as fairness. Retribution, punishment, and "saving you" for your own good is all that they are concerned with.
I Don't Care If People Don't Like Me
Senator Franken got it almost right with his character, Stuart Smalley. But Stuart is kind and assumes the best in people (just not himself). The twelve-steppers of AA, founded on Christian born again fundamentalism, aren't They are full of fear, intolerance, and hate. The audience of SNL wasn't (and probably still isn't) ready for this type of honest depiction, however. It's still taboo to criticize religion. Hopefully people will start to see these psychotics for the irrational, dangerous, lunatics they are.
Naturally Incapable of Rigorous Honesty and Suffering From Grave Emotional and Mental Disorders
Every AA meeting opens up with this prayer:
If you have any independent thought, you will soon grow extremely tired of its astounding degree of condescension, blaming, arrogance, and shockingly blatant effort at manipulation.Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. There are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.
"Rarely have they seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path"
Wow. It sounds like AA is very effective! This is a lie. Even AA admits it. They qualify this statement by "thoroughly." If it doesn't work for you, it's your fault--you didn't follow their (simple) path thoroughly enough. It's your fault! You can't even follow a simple program!!
The truth is that people who quit on their own have an equal, if not higher, success rate than those that follow AA's path. The problem isn't with the person, it's with the program. AA simultaneously falsely legitimizes itself as effective when it is not, and then bashes the poor alcoholic when AA doesn't work for him/her. Charming.
"Men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates."
This is perhaps the most condescending statement I've heard anyone utter. The idea that a group of deluded, unthinking, unquestioning sheep could know myself better than I do is outrageous. They can't even accurately assess their own lives or critically assess the AA program. They unquestioningly accept what Bill W. says as the truth. If they are unable to question themselves critically, they are in no position to do so to me. But they do, and take pity on me as a hopeless case...an "unfortunate" who they turn their backs on.
People who fail are either:
"naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty"
I always snorted when someone said this. If AA members lived in a manner demanding rigorous honesty they would realize:
- that AA has been repeatedly shown, using rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, to be utterly ineffective in achieving sobriety. The likelihood of success is just as high in those that stop drinking on their own. One major study showed that people who attend AA are 9-times more likely to binge drink, compared with those who do Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT). Even AA's triennial survey admitted to the ineffectiveness of its program. But AA members reject these pieces of evidence. They are in a constant state of denial, which is ironic because that's how they dismiss others (like myself) who disagree with them.
- that the evidence for a Christian God, which is what AA is based on, is nonexistent. Combine this with the many suspect, self serving reasons to believe in such a god (fear of death, fear of others unlike us, fear of change, selfloathing, etc...), and all this god talk begins to sound like a type of psychosis. I heard many testimonies about personal visits and conversations from God by people in AA meetings. I was scared that such delusional people were, not just walking the streets, but approved of by society.
- they are, in no way, superior to me in being capable of being honest with myself. Not only am I incapable of being rigorously honest, but I'm naturally incapable of even grasping it! I was evidently born defective mentally, and cannot operate at the high plane of mental functioning that average AA members are able. And even more, I'm so stunted intellectually and/or morally that I'm incapable of realizing it!
- they were wasting half their lives at AA meetings in dark damp church basements where all anyone ever talks about is how great the program is, how close to death they were, and how they would be dead if it weren't for AA. Say it enough times, and people will believe it, maybe, is what they are shooting for. This is also called "brainwashing." Look into it.
"suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders"
I guess my doctors are all incompetent. I must be bipolar or schizophrenic and they missed it. Maybe I should trust AA instead of them, especially since they're so rigorously honest, unlike my physicians.
"many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."
So all you have to do to succeed at AA is have the capability of being honest. I guess "honest" really in the language that AA uses means "gullible." It certainly doesn't mean believing the truth. It means believing the lies that AA tells you, and then spouting off constantly about how wonderfully it works.
This mean-spirited, "kick 'em when their down," attitude is common to christian fundamentalists. It's not the version of Christianity taught in the older, more traditional forms of Catholicism, Protestantism, or other religions. The christian "born again" fundamentalists are a sick, twisted, selfish, and hateful lot.
I don't know which is more shocking to me: that society has such a beneficent view of the AA, or that people in AA can be such gullible idiots. Society doesn't really know that much about AA. Most people only know of someone who has gone to meetings. If they had gone themselves, or have read the lunatic rantings of Bill W. in the "Big Book" that is read like scripture in every meeting and followed with blind obedience, I'm sure they would think differently.
The sad fact of the matter is that there are many people truly helpless at the hands of alcohol. They are decent people who, for some reason, cannot stop drinking. They are suckered into the scam that AA will save them, if only they are subservient enough and give up all critical reasoning ability. Why trust medical researchers and physicians, when you can trust a former drunk's uncritical, uneducated religious rantings in the basement of a church? The fact that AA preys on these, the real "unfortunates," is the worst aspect of this entire sham.
Atheists Aren't The Ones Who Are Arrogant
During my IDIP courses at Amethyst Foundation, Inc., the LADC who was "teaching" told me repeatedly that my "arrogant atheism" prevented me from ever being able to deal with my "drinking problem."
I encountered this same insanity during the AA meetings I was forced to attend (especially when I refused to hold hands in a circle and pray with those losers).
You know what's arrogant? Thinking that the supreme being is interested in your sorry ass or your whining about your "drinking problem." That's the height of arrogance.
It's also the height of stupidity. But if you've been through this, you already know how stupid these people are. Willful ignorance is a prerequisite to being a LADC, and it's why they drank to deal with their problems before being certified to push their nonthinking ideology on others. I'd rather they had stayed the pathetic drunks they were.
Wanted: Civil Rights Attorney
I've been contacted by several people who, like me, are deeply offended by being forced by the state of New Hampshire to attend AA meetings that are religious, ineffective, and insulting to anyone with any degree of intelligence. We would love to file a class-action lawsuit in Federal Court on Establishment Clause grounds.
Are there any seasoned civil rights attorneys out there who would be willing to help? This abuse of power needs to be stopped. If so, please email me at AtheosAmericus@gmail.com
Would You Like To Guest Blog?
I'd love to hear from anyone wanting to guest blog on Force Worship! It will be anonymous, of course. Email me!
(Note: be sure to exempt AtheosAmericus@gmail.com from your spam filter.)
(Note: be sure to exempt AtheosAmericus@gmail.com from your spam filter.)
Getting a Good DUI Lawyer
Finding the Right Attorney is Very, Very Important
I'm sure there are other great attorneys out there. You should look for someone who specializes in DUI cases, is smart, and is passionate. Passion is indicated to me by the degree of intellectual curiosity shown on their websites and their accomplishments. The attorneys above have written books on DUI defenses, have specialized training in DUI law, and even teach CLE courses on this stuff. They have taken the time to create excellent websites.
When I was arrested for DUI, a lot was at stake: jail time, huge fines, etc... I went to one of the most reputable law firm in New Hampshire. It would seem a logical choice, but I ended up getting crappy representation from an inadequately supervised junior associate who was too afraid and insecure to admit when he didn't know something. I trusted him because he worked for a highly respected law firm. This was a mistake. I ended up making wrong, uninformed (and expensive) decisions--some of which I actually had to correct for him by filing court paperwork later. To add insult to injury, the guy was a former cop who just dripped with a snarky, judgmental, "you deserved it, so stop whining" attitude. I really felt ripped off.
My advice to anyone looking for a lawyer to is surf the web and look for attorneys that show a passion for criminal defense work in general, and DUI defense in specific. DUI laws are grossly unfair and extremely punitive. Because of hysterical MADD lobbying groups and religious AA prohibitionists, state legislators, district attorneys, sheriffs and other elected officials are pressured to enact and enforce ridiculous DUI laws.
Good attorneys know this, and they know that good citizens are being unfairly punished and need good representation. Their passion will show in their websites. A good DUI lawyer will blog about DUI laws, defenses, and legislation, etc... and I'm sure they would have done a better and cheaper job then the jerk I hired.
Here are some sites that impressed me. I wish I had checked them out:
Gene Struckhoff ("Citizen, Lawyer"), a graduate of Harvard Law who has been defending individuals since 1969, has a long essay entitled "The Importance of Defending DWI/DUI Cases." I couldn't help but be impressed with this.
Mark Stevens specializes in DUI representation and is extremely experienced at it, as indicated by his online attorney profile. He went to law school at Massachusetts School of Law, which is not a very good law school. But the truth is that law school really doesn't teach you how to be an attorney, practicing law does. Getting into Harvard Law really only shows that you got (very) good grades as an undergraduate and scored (very) high on the LSAT. Stevens looks good, and his passion for what he does is evident.
I was very impressed with Hynes's plucky attitude. He's gotten great reviews on Google and Yahoo. He does mainly DWI cases and has a lot of experience. His passion for his work comes across in his website videos, his online guidebook to DWI defenses, and extensive website DUI-related material. I feel that anyone who takes the time to write and make available content like this has a passion for what he does, and would likely do a great job defending you. He also seems aware of and sensitive to the expense of representation. Hayes went to University of Albany (Criminology Major) and then to Western New England Law School. Again, Western New England Law is not Harvard Law, but I'm not sure how meaningful the difference is in reality.
Russman looks very experienced and accomplished. A graduate of Suffolk Law and author of two books on DUI defense, he offers extensive resources on his website and is impressive. As a semi-finalist in both the ABA National Trail competition and Suffolk Law third year moot court competition, he's probably a great attorney if you have to go to trial. He has great customer reviews, too.
I'm sure there are other great attorneys out there. You should look for someone who specializes in DUI cases, is smart, and is passionate. Passion is indicated to me by the degree of intellectual curiosity shown on their websites and their accomplishments. The attorneys above have written books on DUI defenses, have specialized training in DUI law, and even teach CLE courses on this stuff. They have taken the time to create excellent websites.
Keep in mind that if you go to the firms above, you may very well be represented by a supervised, junior attorney. But be careful. Get assurances that they are competent and well supervised.
Though the attorney I hired worked for an impressive law firm, and was under the supervision of one of it's partners, he was a joke (an expensive one).
Do you know of a good attorney? If so, email me!
Do you know of a good attorney? If so, email me!
Your W/IDIP Intake Interview: Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine.
Your W/IDIP Intake Interview
What happens at your intake interview is dictated by He-A 707.10:
He-A 707.10 IDIP and WIDIP Intake Interview.
(a) There shall be an initial one-on-one intake interview between the client and a NH LADC, or an IDIP or WIDIP staff member under LADC supervision.
(b) The intake interview shall take place prior to, and separate from, course sessions.
(c) The intake interview shall include the following steps:
(1) Each client shall provide the IDIP or WIDIP with the documents required pursuant to He-A 704.04;
(2) The client shall complete the DRI-II and the RIASI diagnostic instruments;
(3) The LADC shall complete Form IDIP-011, client profile, by including the following printed or typewritten information:
a. The facility code;
b. The section where the client is assigned;
c. The last four digits of the client’s Social Security number;
d. The client’s name;
e. The client’s initials;
f. The program type;
g. The client’s address;
h. The client’s date of birth;
i. The date of the client’s intake interview;
j. The client’s gender;
k. Whether the client is restarting a program;
l. The court of the client’s conviction;
m. The date of the client’s arrest;
n. The client’s blood alcohol test results, or an indication of the client’s refusal of consent;
o. All of the client’s DWI convictions, including the current one, and drug impaired driving convictions, unless otherwise protected by law;
p. All DWI courses previously attended by the client;
q. The client’s marital status;
r. The client’s education level;
s. The client’s occupation;
t. The client’s current income;
u. Whether the program fee was reduced due to financial hardship;
v. The client’s history of treatment for any other alcohol or other substance abuse problem;
w. The frequency of alcohol consumption in the past;
x. The client’s scores on the DRI-II and RIASI diagnostic instruments; and
y. The signature of the LADC completing the top of the form, which shall not be printed or typewritten;
(4) The client shall provide to the LADC completing Form IDIP-011, client profile, the information required in (3)c., o. through t., v., and w.;
(5) The client shall complete Form IDIP-019, consent for the release of confidential information, specifically for the department, the convicting court, and the department of safety, by including:
a. The client’s name;
b. The name and address of the convicting court; and
c. The client’s dated signature;
(6) The provider staff member shall sign and date Form IDIP-019, consent for the release of confidential information;
(7) The client shall read and complete either Form IDIP-014, IDIP client agreement, or Form IDIP-015, WIDIP client agreement, by including:
a. The client’s name; and
b. The client’s dated signature, indicating that he or she has read the form and agrees to attend the identified sessions; and
(8) The provider staff member shall complete either Form IDIP-014, IDIP client agreement, or Form IDIP-015, WIDIP client agreement, by including:
a. The class location of the IDIP or WIDIP, including the street address, city or town, and telephone number;
b. All scheduled session days, dates, times, and instructors; and
c. The dated signature of the IDIP or WIDIP staff member.
(d) The client shall read, complete, and sign any other forms and materials that describe the provider’s individual IDIP or WIDIP policies and procedures or that offer other information related to the program.
What Happens During Your W/IDIP Intake Interview
You arrive at Amethyst Foundation in Epping at the appointed time with your required paperwork:
- an original certified copy of your driving record, no older than 60 days, from New Hampshire, any state in which you hold a driver's license, and any state in which you've been arrested or convicted on a DWI/DUI
- Your Department of Safety Notice Of Action indicating what program you are to take (i.e., IDIP)
- Superior or district court orders
- Chemical test results
You give these to the intake interviewer, who will be a LADC or, more likely, supervised staff member.
You then take two assessment exams; the RIASI (Research Institute on Addictions Self-Inventory) and DRI-II (Driver Risk Inventory-II).
The RIASI is the 1995 edition of the diagnostic instrument created by Thomas J. Nochasjski of the State University of New York that is specifically designed for DWI offenders. I have posted the actual RIASI test you will take here. You can see that the questions are pretty straightforward. Be careful about the questions that seem to be asking about something else but are actually asking about your alcohol/drug use, stress coping, or agressiveness. These are the nonobvious, subtle questions that I wrote about previously, here.
The DRI-II is the first edition, published in 1997, of the driving while impaired risk and needs assessment instrument created by Behavioral Data Systems, Ltd., which supposedly evaluates alcohol and other drug abuse, identifies driver aggressiveness, and measures stress coping abilities. I do not have a copy of the DRI-II test, but the questions are very similar to those of the RIASI test.
Both tests are complete baloney and there is no scientific evidence at all that they are predictive for DUI/DWI reoffending. Everyone, if they answer truthfully, will score as an alcoholic/drug addict on the RIASI. The same is true for the DRI-II. There are scientific papers showing the unreliability of the RIASI. All but two of the studies done on the DRI-II, however, were conducted by Behavioral Data Systems, Ltd., the company that makes and sells it, so, of course, it works just smashingly. The two non-BDS authored studies are severely flawed in methodology and are inconclusive. Both the RIASI and DRI-II exams are garbage (I'll cover this topic in a later post). But they are easy and cheap to administer, and give the appearance of being accurate and "scientific," so the state and recovery industry love them.
The DRI-II claims to measure "truthfulness" which you need to be very careful about. I was completely honest when I took the DRI-II the first time, but I flunked the "truthfulness" component.
I really hate to advise anyone to do this, but I in this instance I have to. LIE. Lie on both exams. You never drank or took drugs except for the night of the DUI/DWI. For the DRI-II, you will take this again at the end of your assigned aftercare, so remember your lies, so that you can repeat them the second time you take it. The DRI-II test compares the answers you give on the second administration to the the answers you gave on the first administration. Just be consistent. You are an angel who never took a drink or drug until your DUI/DWI...got it? Good.
The people at Amethyst Foundation will do everything in their power to get you to be honest. They will pretend to want to help you, or will suggest that there will be no consequences to your admissions. Do not fool yourself. They only want to get you to admit that you are an alcoholic or drug abuser and then punish you.
Why would they want to do that?
Because they are all former hardcore down and out alcoholics that have gone through AA. They see everyone who gets arrested for a DUI/DWI as an alcoholic. AA is a religious-based organization whose 10th and 12th steps mandate that members continue lifelong participation in the program and "carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs." They see you as an "unfortunate" and want to save you.
And also because these are people who are angry at the world for their past and current problems and who have now been given some power. You'll see that these are very spiteful, petty people.
So, in conclusion, lie on the RIASI and two administered DRI-II exams. They are rigged against you. Answer truthfully and you will be labelled an alcoholic or drug user by Amethyst and you can kiss your license goodbye for at least nine months while you attend AA meetings and pay for expensive weekly counseling sessions with a LADC (which are not covered by insurance).
Other Intake Paperwork
In addition to the assessment tests, you'll also have to fill out a bunch of paperwork, the most important of which is IDIP-019, the consent for release of confidential information, specifically for the Department of Health and Human Services, the convicting court, and the Department of Safety. Once you sign this, be aware that anything you say or do from now on will not confidential and will be used against you. Even statements made during aftercare AA meetings and individual LADC "counseling" sessions will be used against you (see the previous post for an outrageous example of this). So be paranoid from this point onward.
Miscellaneous
I've been told that the intake interviewers will also take notes regarding your appearance, manners, punctuality, and anything else that might indicate alcohol or substance abuse. Make sure you are clean (haircut, shave, use visine, mouthwash, etc...), dress well in ironed clothing, sit up straight, maintain eye contact, be calm, don't fidget, and be polite. Do not smell of tobacco smoke (a symptom to them of an addictive personality) or alcohol. Don't appear too intelligent. They would probably love seeing some subtle indication that you are christian (jewelry, necklace?).
I doubt if my intake interviewer would have noticed, though. (See below.)
My Intake
My intake was pretty routine. It was performed by an old lady training to become a LADC. She arrived almost a half-hour late, looked hungover in ragged clothing and uncombed/undyed hair, and shuffled, stumbled, and mumbled her way through the paperwork. Multiple times I had to correct her instructions or redo the paperwork because of her confusion. One of the Amethyst Foundation administrators (one of the few there that seems somewhat together) yelled at her several times, when she arrive late, and when she went to ask for help. That wasn't bad--at least she wasn't one of the mean ones. You'll meet those.
So, good luck. Be paranoid. Lie. Remember your lies so that you lie consistently (especially on the second DRI-II test). Keep your mouth shut and incriminate yourself as little as possible. Pretend you are stupid--they like that.
Amethyst Foundation LADC Orders Six More Months of Aftercare For Consuming One Drink, And Despite An Independent LADC's "Low Risk" Assessment
One Drink During Six Months of Assigned Aftercare Results in Six MORE Months of After-Aftercare
Here's a story from a recent victim of Amethyst Foundation, Inc.
As a form of self therapy to help me deal with their idiocy, I've written an imaginary letter to the Amethyst LADC in question. Any rational person will see the problems with what this LADC did, and may not get much from reading it, but my rant will help vent some anger and frustration. And, who knows, maybe the LADC will read it and have a "moment of clarity," to borrow a phrase from AA.
An Open Letter to the LADC at Amethyst Foundation, Inc., Who Did This:
What did assigning another six months of aftercare for having one drink accomplish? Really, what good could result from this? (--and your identity was provided to me by your victim, so I know who you are.) Does this make you feel good about yourself? As a licensed counselor bound by an ethical code to help your clients? As a person?
Your job is as an agent of the state of New Hampshire to competently implement DWI programs. As an agent of the state, you work for the taxpayers of New Hampshire (even though your paycheck says "Amethyst Foundation, Inc."). Your job is to protect the public from DWI offenders repeating their offense, by educating them about the dangers of drinking and driving. To repeat, your job is to educate and intervene, period. Even had this person gotten behind the wheel, his/her abilities to drive would not have been impaired.
Your job is NOT to punish. That is the job of the courts, not you.
Your job is NOT to diagnose people as alcoholics. Your job is to stop people from driving while under the influence of alcohol. People are free to drink as much as they want, as long as they don't drive, or behave in public in a disorderly fashion. It is not against the law to get drunk.
Furthermore, you are NOT QUALIFIED to diagnose people as alcoholics. Under He-A 705.02, Minimum Qualifications for Certification;
Your job is NOT to stop people from drinking altogether. Your job is to stop people from drinking to impairment and driving. Having one drink in a six month period will not result in a DWI. How much a person has to drink is none of your business as long as they do not get behind the wheel.
Your job is NOT to cast moral judgment on others. Lose the scorn and judgment. It has no role in the realm of counseling or education. Drinking, by itself, is not inherently bad. People have done it since the beginning of civilization, when they learned about the fermenting process. They will continue it do so likely indefinitely. And society does no have a problem with it--only you do.
I know you are a former drunk who has been indoctrinated into the cult-like organization, AA. AA has told you that you have a disease and that you can never have even a single drink again. "One drink, one drunk" is one of your mottos. I know that AA has taught you that thinking is bad and the God is good. I also know that the 12th step commands you to convert others to the AA ideology.
I know that you are limited in your intellect, ability to think critically, and ability to think in shades of gray (everything is black and white to you). You are also in deep denial (yet, ironically accuse all who disagree with you to be so). I've written this message to you in simple language and, I hope, with convincing reasoning. I have also written it in the best interest of all. I do not hate you personally. I hate what you are doing to people. Though I do not believe in "karma" per se, I do believe that when you treat enough people badly, some of them will "bite back." This is human nature.
Well, being a professional LADC serving the needs of the citizens of New Hampshire means putting your ideology aside and doing your job.
Your job is to prevent people from driving while impaired. It is not to stop people from drinking. We tried prohibition, and it was a monumental failure (Google it). Your job is not to punish people. You may be a former drunk, caught up in your own fantasy world in which you refuse to critically reason, but don't turn everyone else into one. Most of the people arrested for DWI are not alcoholics. They do not need to attend AA and conned into praying to God and believing that only "he" can cure them of their lifelong disease. It's not a disease. And even if it were, it's not your concern if they don't drive. For the purposes of your employer (us) they just have to stop driving while impaired.
I really don't expect any LADCs to understand this. You are uneducated, anti-intellectual, and have cast away all belief in rationality for faith. You simply "believe" that you are right, and that others are wrong. You do not "believe" scientific or medical data, despite how much of it they are shown. Furthermore, why are you so angry and so set on exerting your authority on others through petty acts like those above? I suspect the anger comes from the same self-hatred that caused you to become an alcoholic and then a LADC. This is payback for you against a world that has "mistreated you."
So keep your ideology to yourself, get off your power trip, and start acting like a professional by doing your job by helping people, not punishing them. No wonder people hate and disrespect you so much.
You might start by thinking about why, as a counselor who has been trained to "help" people, you are so universally hated. And, no, it's not because we're all in denial. Most of us have nothing to be in "denial" about because we're not alcoholics. It's you who are in denial about what it is you are supposed to be doing.
Here's a story from a recent victim of Amethyst Foundation, Inc.
"I did amethyst's after care. some counseling and some AA, but one evening I had dinner with my father (who I rarely see). I had one drink. literally, one drink. I admitted it to my counselor and Amethyst ended up hearing about it in her report. My counselor still said that I was a low risk--didn't even make me complete all the counseling. But Amethyst says they want to hold my license for six more months because of that one drink. And even worse, I would have to report to myself about abstinence. HELLO!! You meatballs! I could just lie to you, so what's the point? Sounds more like a punishment. They want to get an alcoholic (which I'm not) off the roads, but instead they are going to put a crazed man going postal pretty soon."This is very much like my experience with the spiteful idiots that run Amethyst Foundation, Inc.
As a form of self therapy to help me deal with their idiocy, I've written an imaginary letter to the Amethyst LADC in question. Any rational person will see the problems with what this LADC did, and may not get much from reading it, but my rant will help vent some anger and frustration. And, who knows, maybe the LADC will read it and have a "moment of clarity," to borrow a phrase from AA.
An Open Letter to the LADC at Amethyst Foundation, Inc., Who Did This:
What did assigning another six months of aftercare for having one drink accomplish? Really, what good could result from this? (--and your identity was provided to me by your victim, so I know who you are.) Does this make you feel good about yourself? As a licensed counselor bound by an ethical code to help your clients? As a person?
Your job is as an agent of the state of New Hampshire to competently implement DWI programs. As an agent of the state, you work for the taxpayers of New Hampshire (even though your paycheck says "Amethyst Foundation, Inc."). Your job is to protect the public from DWI offenders repeating their offense, by educating them about the dangers of drinking and driving. To repeat, your job is to educate and intervene, period. Even had this person gotten behind the wheel, his/her abilities to drive would not have been impaired.
Your job is NOT to punish. That is the job of the courts, not you.
Your job is NOT to diagnose people as alcoholics. Your job is to stop people from driving while under the influence of alcohol. People are free to drink as much as they want, as long as they don't drive, or behave in public in a disorderly fashion. It is not against the law to get drunk.
Furthermore, you are NOT QUALIFIED to diagnose people as alcoholics. Under He-A 705.02, Minimum Qualifications for Certification;
To qualify as an IDIP or WIDIP instructor, the applicant shall either:
(a) Meet the following requirements:
(1) Possess a valid New Hampshire LADC license; and (2) Document 6 months experience in substance abuse and group counseling or otherwise formal group facilitation; OR
(b) Meet the following alternative requirements:Under He-A 705.02(a)(1)-(2), you do not even need a high school diploma or a GED (LADC licensure in New Hampshire does not require this). Even if you meet the "higher" standard of He-A 705.02(b)(1)-(3) and hold a high school diploma or a GED, you do not possess an adequate education in science or medicine to be diagnosing people.
(1) Document a minimum of one year's experience in the field of education, social sciences training, or substance abuse and group counseling or otherwise formal group activities facilitation;
(2) Demonstrate knowledge of the impaired driver intervention program and curricula and of other programs in New Hampshire that provide intervention and educational programming in the field of alcohol or drug abuse for a comparable clientele, or of equivalent DWI intervention programs in other states; and
(3) Hold at least a high school diploma or GED.
Your job is NOT to stop people from drinking altogether. Your job is to stop people from drinking to impairment and driving. Having one drink in a six month period will not result in a DWI. How much a person has to drink is none of your business as long as they do not get behind the wheel.
Your job is NOT to cast moral judgment on others. Lose the scorn and judgment. It has no role in the realm of counseling or education. Drinking, by itself, is not inherently bad. People have done it since the beginning of civilization, when they learned about the fermenting process. They will continue it do so likely indefinitely. And society does no have a problem with it--only you do.
I know you are a former drunk who has been indoctrinated into the cult-like organization, AA. AA has told you that you have a disease and that you can never have even a single drink again. "One drink, one drunk" is one of your mottos. I know that AA has taught you that thinking is bad and the God is good. I also know that the 12th step commands you to convert others to the AA ideology.
I know that you are limited in your intellect, ability to think critically, and ability to think in shades of gray (everything is black and white to you). You are also in deep denial (yet, ironically accuse all who disagree with you to be so). I've written this message to you in simple language and, I hope, with convincing reasoning. I have also written it in the best interest of all. I do not hate you personally. I hate what you are doing to people. Though I do not believe in "karma" per se, I do believe that when you treat enough people badly, some of them will "bite back." This is human nature.
Well, being a professional LADC serving the needs of the citizens of New Hampshire means putting your ideology aside and doing your job.
Your job is to prevent people from driving while impaired. It is not to stop people from drinking. We tried prohibition, and it was a monumental failure (Google it). Your job is not to punish people. You may be a former drunk, caught up in your own fantasy world in which you refuse to critically reason, but don't turn everyone else into one. Most of the people arrested for DWI are not alcoholics. They do not need to attend AA and conned into praying to God and believing that only "he" can cure them of their lifelong disease. It's not a disease. And even if it were, it's not your concern if they don't drive. For the purposes of your employer (us) they just have to stop driving while impaired.
I really don't expect any LADCs to understand this. You are uneducated, anti-intellectual, and have cast away all belief in rationality for faith. You simply "believe" that you are right, and that others are wrong. You do not "believe" scientific or medical data, despite how much of it they are shown. Furthermore, why are you so angry and so set on exerting your authority on others through petty acts like those above? I suspect the anger comes from the same self-hatred that caused you to become an alcoholic and then a LADC. This is payback for you against a world that has "mistreated you."
So keep your ideology to yourself, get off your power trip, and start acting like a professional by doing your job by helping people, not punishing them. No wonder people hate and disrespect you so much.
You might start by thinking about why, as a counselor who has been trained to "help" people, you are so universally hated. And, no, it's not because we're all in denial. Most of us have nothing to be in "denial" about because we're not alcoholics. It's you who are in denial about what it is you are supposed to be doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)