NH House panel backs bill further punishing DWI arrestees

I recently found this article by Ted Siefer, the Union Leader's State House Bureau correspondent:

CONCORD – Repeat drunk drivers could be required to use an ignition interlock device when their driving privileges are restored under a bill backed unanimously by a House committee.

The House Transportation Committee voted 10-0 Tuesday to endorse Senate Bill 282, which was passed by the Senate in February.

The bill would allow the Commissioner of Safety to request an administrative hearing before returning the driver’s license or driving privileges to anyone who was convicted for drunk driving, aggravated drunk driving, reckless driving that involved alcohol, negligent homicide that resulted from drunken driving, or being a habitual drunk driver.

Under the bill, offenders could be required to use either a standard interlock or “enhanced” device, which takes a photo when users breathe into it, for a period of one to two years.

The bill is one of several being pushed by the Department of Safety this session in an effort to crack down on repeat drunk driving. Last month the Senate passed a House-passed bill, HB 482, which would require anyone who tries to circumvent an interlock device to use the enhanced device and face other penalties.

A full House vote on SB 282 has not yet been scheduled.

 Here's the official version of the proposed bill:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT authorizing the commissioner of safety to require the installation of an ignition interlock device as a condition of restoring driving privileges in certain instances.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Department of Safety Authority to Order Ignition Interlock Device Installation. Amend RSA 265-A by inserting after section 36 the following new section:

265-A:36-a Department of Safety Authority to Order Ignition Interlock Device Installation. The commissioner of safety may require an administrative hearing prior to the restoration of the license or driving privilege of a person whose license or driving privilege was revoked or suspended as the result of a conviction of any offense under RSA 265-A:45, RSA 265-A:2, RSA 265-A:3, RSA 265:79-a where alcohol was involved, RSA 262:19, or RSA 630:3, II, and, upon a finding that the safety of the person and of other users of the highways would be enhanced thereby, may order the person, as a condition of restoration of his or her license or driving privilege, to install an ignition interlock device in any vehicle registered to that person or used by that person, for not less than 12 months nor more than 2 years, subject to the same conditions and prohibitions as if the interlock was ordered by a court under the provisions of this subdivision.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.

(Note that this bill says nothing about "repeat offenders."  The Union Leader is the worst example of "journalism" I've ever encountered.  It's usually rife with factual, spelling, and typographical errors.)

I lost my driving privileges, due to a 1st Offense DUI in NH, for almost a year.  This was mainly due to the holy rollers at Amethyst Foundation punishing me for my "willfulness" (their actual words) in objecting to being forced to go to religious AA meetings.  During this period, I spent thousands on car rides to and from work (and mandated AA meetings). 

Bill 282 now provides additional hoops to jump through once you complete your aftercare:  an administrative hearing.  Administrative hearings, as I have posted before, are dangerous.  Unlike a criminal or civil court proceeding, administrative hearings do not afford the defendant much in the way of procedural protections.  Administrative hearings, in the name of judicial expediency and efficiency, often make quick, cursory, and subjective determinations.  See my previous post entitled:  "16 Red Flag Hearings: 14 Affirmed, 0 Reversed, 2 Remanded "

While restoring driving privileges on the condition that an ignition interlock device sounds reasonable (I would have gladly done this if it meant I could drive to work), it will likely open the door to further administrative requirements such as more aftercare being assigned, extra fees, and extended suspensions of driving privileges.  I see nothing in this bill that would restrain the administrative judges from doing this.

Further, ignition interlock devices (IIDs) are quite expensive.  In California the average cost for an IID is about $2.50 per day. Some companies additionally charge around $75-$100 for installation. You will also need to pay fees approaching $100 each month for the maintenance and calibration of your ignition interlock device.  Additionally, you will need to apply, and pay the fee, for a special IID license.  So, under NH Bill 282, the minimum one year IID could cost you around $1,300.

All this for a 1st Offense DUI, and after you complete your aftercare.  Again, my concern is that once forced into the administrative court hearing, you are relatively helpless to the whims of administrative judges, who, in the past, have not shown much leniency (or fairness, in my opinion).

A fairer version of this bill would allow the use of IIDs during the suspension period. Unless you live in Manchester or Concord, there is no public transportation.  Private rides cost $50-100, each.  Drivers on Craigslist are unreliable and sometimes dangerous.  Many people lose their jobs because they cannot afford this expense.  That's too harsh a penalty.

Not to the people at Amethyst Foundation, though, who will take glee in your suffering.  They are all former drunks who had to go through the same punishment, and will love to make you go through it, too.  Maybe, I'm sure they hope, you'll become a born-again Christian in the process, too.

Amethyst Foundation, Inc.'s 2010 IRS Form 990 -- More of the $ame

I've previously posted on the outrageous amount of money Amethyst Foundation, Inc., brings in, all tax-free.

Well, their IRS Form 990 for 2010 is now available and shows more of the same:

• a whopping total revenue of $1,165,753.00, of which $1,161,774.00 is entirely program service revenue from the state.

And, apparently, Amethyst Foundation, Inc., operated in the red last year, with expenses of $1,185,201, including:

• $557,353 in wages (!)  Really?
• $76,623 for Director Bob Kelley's salary
• $35,476 for office supplies (!!)  I saw one old HP inkjet printer when I was there.
•  $109,868 for "all other expenses." 

And if you buy that, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.

My Post to the Ripoff Report on Amethyst Foundation, Inc.

I'm not sure why I waited this long, but I finally got around to posting my experience with Amethyst  Foundation, Inc., on the RipOff Report website:

Several years ago, the state of NH privatized its impaired driver intervention programs, or IDIPs.  They are now all run by private organizations, of which Amethyst Foundation, Inc (aka "Amethyst House") is the largest.  Supposedly a "non-profit," Amethyst Foundation, Inc., nets well over a million dollars a year, all of which is tax-free.  They list one employee, Bob Kelley, on their IRS statements.  NH law mandates that you go to the closest organization, which for most people in the state means going to Amethyst Foundation.  They have a virtual monopoly.  Additionally, to ensure that the "customers" continue to roll in, Amethyst Foundation employs several experienced, influential lobbyists that apply pressure on NH State Representatives to maintain strict penalties for DUIs.  Bob Kelley has a sweet scam going, and it's all legal.

I admittedly made a huge blunder resulting in a 1st Offense DUI.  Though I had already paid large court and administrative fines, I was resigned to doing the IDIP program which met once a week for four weeks.  I was not prepared for what I would encounter there.

Most of the people that work at Amethyst Foundation, almost without exception, seemed bitter with the hand that life had dealt them, had a hateful, puritanical streak, treated clients like garbage, and were all too happy to exact punishment for the slightest infraction.  I suspect that most were former heavy alcoholics who had gone through the highly religious Alcoholics Anonymous program to stop drinking (they "hit their knees" in AA-speak, found god, and got dry).  I suspect that their cognitive abilities were affected by their past alcoholism, rendering them absolutely incompetent at their jobs.  I was pressured from day one, and throughout the IDIP program, to attend AA and get a sponsor. 

I told them that AA has been ruled by both Federal and State Courts to be a religious organization for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.  Despite this, and the fact that this was my first DUI, they assigned six months of twice weekly mandatory attendance at AA meetings.  At each meeting, I was pressured to pray, listen to these people's ignorant, holier-than-thou, pseudoscience rantings based on the Big Book written by Bill W. (really, the radical puritan/evangelical Oxford group--google it).  At the end of every meeting, members hold hands and recite the Lord's Prayer.  Nonbelievers are treated with contempt, scorn, and pity--this was perhaps the most egregious of the insults.

I complained in writing, sent certified/return receipt requested, to Amethyst Foundation, Inc. throughout this procedure.  Most of my letters were ignored.  The responses I got dripped with contempt.  Mr. Kelley went so far as to even attempt to mislead me over the phone into exhausting my one administrative hearing so that I wouldn't have another one for a year.

In addition to attending AA meetings, I also had to see a Licensed Drug and Alcohol Counselor, or LDAC, weekly, for four to six months.  This person was also a hard-core AA true believer.  These meetings consisted of him, not trying to help me with any supposed alcohol problems, but with trying to convince of god's existence and how wonderful AA is.  I had to pay him for this privilege.

The LDAC told me that Amethyst Foundation, Inc., punishes people who complain by taking their licenses away permanently or effectively doing so by ordering extensive aftercare.  When I completed my initial aftercare of AA and LDAC meetings, I received a notice from the Department of Safety of an Administrative Hearing requested by Amethyst Foundation to permanently revoke my license.  This occured despite the fact the I attended, with verification, all required AA meetings, and obtained a positive evaluation by my LDAC.

Luckily, I had written to the Governor several weeks prior, whose staff then contacted the Head of the NH Dept of Health and Human Services.  I updated the Governor's staff on what Amethyst Foundation had done.  The NH Dept of HHS then reprimanded Mr. Kelley, including sending him a written notice that mandating AA attendance was illegal.  I got my license back within a week.

Supposedly, Amethyst Foundation has been ordered to stop all aftercare self help group attendance.  I doubt that they will do this.  The staff there are on a religious mission to save people by getting them to go to AA.  They are really religious prohibitionists that want to eliminate all alcohol use, not just merely prevent future DUIs.  History has shown that you cannot stop religious zealots.

Surprisingly, I'm really not angry at what happened.  I'm more saddened and disappointed that in this day and age such backward religious zealots can still do such harm.  I thought that we, as a country that so highly values individual rights and freedoms, had moved beyond that long ago.  Ironically, this occurred in NH, the "live free or die" state.  How hypocritical and ignorant some NH residents are.

Forced Worship Reaches 5,000 Hits

Visits to this website have reached over 5,000!

Lots of people are, apparently, still being assigned attendance at AA meetings as part of "aftercare" by Amethyst Foundation, Inc.  If this has happened to you, please note that:

Several Federal District Courts and State Courts, including the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, have ruled AA to be a "religious organization" for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Coerced attendance at AA as part of your aftercare is illegal.

Amethyst Foundation, Inc., will often try to direct you to attend a "self-help" group as part of your aftercare, knowing full well that the only self-help groups available in the state of New Hampshire are AA.  They will then respond to your complaints by stating that "you are not being required to attend AA and are free to attend any self-help group you can find."

Should this happen, immediately inform Amethyst Foundation, Inc., the Governor of New Hampshire, and the Director of the State of New Hampshire Dept of Health and Human Services in writing, by certified mail/return receipt requested.  This should solve your problem.

In the unlikely event that this does not provide relief, file, pro se,  for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

There is no reason to attend AA or any type of self-group as part of your "aftercare."  Yes, it was wrong to drive with a BAC over the legal limit.  But that does not justify your being punished by the religious zealots of Amethyst Foundation, Inc., REAP, Serenity House, and others of the "recovery industry" with forced participation at cult-like, religious AA meetings.

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. 

Forced Worship Celebrates 4000 hits!

This tiny blog got over a thousand hits this week!

AA didn't work for Debra Oberlin....apparently

Former president of MADD arrested on DUI charge

By Cindy Swirko
Staff writer

Published: 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.

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!

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

Really, could the law be any clearer than that?

"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.

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.

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

If you forget any of these, or you attend an interview for the wrong program, you are rescheduled and charged an "administration fee" ($50 if IDIP, $100 if WIDIP, etc...).

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.

"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:
  (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.

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.

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.