Forced Worship

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!

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.

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:

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.

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 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.)

Getting a Good DUI Lawyer

Finding the Right Attorney is Very, Very Important

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:

Eugene C. Struckhoff, III, Lothstein Law Office, PLLC, Concord, New Hampshire

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, The Law Offices of Mark Stevens, Salem, New Hampshire

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.

Daniel Hynes (aka, "The NH DWI Guy"), The Law Offices of Daniel Hynes, Nashua, New Hampshire

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.

Ryan Russman, Russman Law Offices, Exeter, New Hampshire

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!

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.