The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion We No Longer Struggle With

A judge in Vermont recently ruled that a man civilly committed under Vermont’s civil commitment scheme known as Act 248 which places individuals who have been accused of a crime or are considered a “danger to the public” does not have the right to a renewed competency evaluation and to stand trial.  According to this ruling a person found incompetent to stand trial has forfeited the right forever to attain competency and face their accuser to clear their name.  Statutes: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=18&Chapter=206

Upon a finding of incompetence the individual in this case, William Bennett was  “committed” to the care and custody of the Vermont Commissioner of the Department of Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) .  The  charges were then dismissed yet the State’s Attorney retains the right to reinstate the charges, in other words the statutes of limitations are stayed.

Competency unlike an insanity defense,  refers to an individuals ability to understand the court proceedings and  effectively assist their attorney in providing a defense.  The statutes clearly state that the individual, his attorney or a judge may at any time request a renewed competency evaluation.  Because competency is fluid some individuals  may be brought to competency through education.  This is especially true in this case where you have a borderline, or questionable diagnosis of mild metal retardation.  Even though V.S.A. 4814 (a) seems to allow for renewed competency evaluations, the Judge ruled otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92323235/Manley-Decision-4-6-12-1

In this case the State’s Attorney argued that there are no charges pending and that the Statutes of Limitations had expired in June of 2011. Therefore States Attorney, Lisa Warren argued, a competency cannot be ordered.   Yet in November of 2011 the DAIL  Attorney with the State’s attorney proposed the following:

The charges against Mr. Bennett were dismissed without prejudice back in 2006 and so could be reinstated.  Under this agreement, your client would not challenge his competency.  Caledonia State’s attorney Lisa Warren (also co-signatory to this letter) would reinstate the original two counts of L&L and your client would plead guilty and be offered a probationary sentence.  This offer stands for a period of two weeks until November 9, 2011. Note: this offer is only good if your client agrees to a plea deal. This is not an offer to reopen the criminal case for the purpose of bringing the criminal case through trial. http://www.scribd.com/doc/92324748/Lisa-Warren-3-7-12

This was clearly an attempt to coerce my son into a guilty plea which if accepted would have brought him back to criminal court where a judge must inform a defendant of his or her right to a trial.  The judge would also have to ask the defendant if he or she was coerced into the plea.

In the original case William was charged with two counts of L&L, not L&L against a child.  The alleged victim was older than William and the circumstances surrounding the events were very suspicious.  A provider for the Agency brought William, then 18 and a 19 yr old female client to a hotel and left the their alone.  The provider had been explicitly instructed by me, Bill’s mother and Bill’s therapist to prevent these types of situations..  The State’s attorney waited a full year before bringing charges.  From reviewing the files, I believe the State’s attorney only filed the charges as a vehicle to the commitment.

In her decision Judge Manley also ruled that each annual review of the committment is a new case (even though they are filed under the same docket number), and that the proceedings occur in the family court  rather than the crimminal court which the statute clearly states.  In this particular court there has been a long standing practice to close these proceedings to the public.  This practice isn’t provided for by law or statute, it simply is the way for the State and the Court do it.

In her decision Judge Manly also denies the Guardian of the committed individual party status.  The Act 248 statutes provide for an annual review which is supposed to review whether or not the DAIL is providing  care and habitation in a “individualized manner” in accordance with the statutes and whether or not they pose a risk to public safety.  In this proceeding the Commissioner must show that the individual still poses a threat to public safety and is still in need of “care and habilitation”.

In the cases I have seen the individual is provided a Guardian by the State and an Attorney from Vermont Legal Aid.  If a state Guardian is involved they are given party status and they file a report agreeing with the state.   If the guardian is a  private non-state guardian, they are not given party status and receive no notification of a review before or after it takes place.  Attorneys form Vermont Legal Aid have Stipulated to the States recommendations that the individual should remain in custody for another year without ever meeting with their client.    The State and the Court have it pretty well rigged.

You might at this point be asking yourself why the State would want to keep someone in custody who doesn’t pose a threat to the public.  The answer is very simple, MONEY.  A lot of money comes into the State’s Coffers under these people’s commitments.   Some of of the money stays at the state level to pay salaries  for case managers and “Public Safety Specialists” and $100,000. to $300,000 comes straight to a local “Designated Agency” who provides supervision.  This is a big chunk of money that goes right into the Agencies budget and they do not like to see it go away.

In December of 2010, I hired a private attorney for my son.  Since that time my son has suffered at the hands of the Commissioner and the “Designated Agency”.  A bizarre series of attempts to isolate and intimidate and harass him began, he has been assaulted by a “home care provider”, denied his inhaler, forced to clean other peoples urine an feces, denied  access to his attorney, forbidden to see his private psychologist, he’s been moved from location to location without any idea where he’s being taken, he’s been forced to sleep on springs, he’s been  threatened, intimidated and harassed beyond what most of us could endure.

Yet he’s maintains composure and determination to end the cycle of abuse perpetrated against him by the courts and Vermont Human Services.  Adult Protective Services is currently investigating one of the placements where Bill had to clean someone else’s urine and feces.  During this time, he was also denied his inhaler for allergies and asthma.  This is disgusting and a disgrace to the State of Vermont.   video:http://youtu.be/O0fN5aDlB7k

After a year of wondering why an how the citizens and the Government of Vermont can witness such abuse and neglect of a disabled group of men without and fail to act,  I came across some research by Melvin Lerner that explains the psychology of what I’m witnessing.   In 2008 Lerner was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award by the International Society for Justice Research.  Lerner sought to answer the questions of how regimes that cause cruelty and suffering maintain popular support, and how people come to accept social norms and laws that produce misery and suffering.  This is a question I have struggled with.  Why when abuse is obvious and blatant in this rural area of Vermont do Judges and law makers just turn their heads and even reward the abusers.

Lerner’s repeatedly witnessed the tendency of observers to blame victims for their suffering.  During his clinical training as a psychologist, he observed treatment of mentally ill persons by the health care practitioners with whom he worked.  Though he knew them to be kindhearted, educated people, they blamed patients for their own suffering.

In 1966, Lerner and his colleagues began a series of experiments that used shock paradigms to investigate observer responses to victimization. In the first of these experiments, 72 female subjects were made to watch a confederate receiving electrical shocks under a variety of conditions. Initially, the obseres were shocked by the apparent suffering of the subject.  However, as the suffering continued and observers remained unable to intervene, they began to blame the victim.  The blame became greater as the shock treatments intensified.  Other researchers were able to replicate Lerner’s findings.

Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a just world is crucially important for people to maintain for their own well-being. However, when daily with evidence that the world is not just: people suffer without apparent cause, one strategy people will use to make sense of nonsense is to blame the victim.  To avoid the feelings of  powerlessness victims will even blame themselves.  Most survivors of sexual abuse can identify with this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

After years of presenting evidence of abuse to Mental Health professionals,  judges and  the Agencies tasked with protecting victims,  I’ve been relieved of the delusion.  I’ve found support among others who’ve also been freed of the delusion, we are working hard together to force justice upon the deluded.  Each of us has a role and a voice.  Write a letter to the editor, like it on facebook, educate your Grand children and children about the dangers of the system.  To speak out in any form and you are part of the solution.

Lets keep working toward peace an justice in reality.

Tracy Gilman

Pattern of abuse; Vermont Human Services

A pattern seems to be emerging from my relentless attempts to hold Vermont Human Services, specifically The Department of Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) and the local designated human services agency, specifically Northeast Kingdom Human Services accountable for gross systematic abuse and reckless endangerment of a vulnerable adult, Bill Bennett.

Under the Vermont Statutes that civilly Commit Bill to the “Care and Custody” of the Department of Aging and Independent Living  (DAIL)  The Commissioner, Dr. Susan Wehry of DAIL is responsible to provide Bennett with “Individualized Treatment” based on Bill’s disability and provides for his well-being.

Attorney’s for the Commissioner, Dr Susan Wehry, upon reports of abuse  have instantly reacted against the Guardian instead of the offending parties.  I can confidently say “offending” parties because as I said, a clear pattern has emerged as a result of investigations into the reports of abuse.

Claims made by Attorney’s for Vermont Human Services and Northeast Kingdom Human Services (NKHS) that the Mother is interfering and preventing Bill from receiving appropriate individualized “care and habilitation” seem laughable in light of the following investigations.

After repeated reports to APS an investigation resulted in the State finding many violations against the Safe choices Lowell House where Bill Bennett was placed by the Commissioner.  Reports made directly to the Commissioner were ignored but an investigation by the State Licensing  for Care Facilities turned up many violations which were directly related to my Complaints. See full Report  http://www.scribd.com/doc/81206732/Safe-Choices-Lowell-House-120911

The first retaliatory acts from Vermont Human Services began in 2011 immediately after Bill Bennett hired an attorney to help fight for his freedom:

On Feb. 23, 2011,  Bill Bennett reported being  picked up, thrown on a bed and held down by a home care provider after he asked to use the phone to call his attorney. I made a Report to Disability Rights Vermont.  Reports to APS were also made but that agency would not make a copy of the investigation available and made no findings of Abuse, which is in stark contrast to the DRV findings, which are as follows:

The evidence appears to support a finding that Home Care Provider #2 did hold Bill on the bed unnecessarily as other options,
such as allowing personal space, were available and could have been implemented without harm to any party or property.

Home Care Provider #2 could have given Bill distance and space at that time but instead chose to impose more confrontation on the situation. the use of restraint on the bed was more likely than not an effort on the part of Home Care Provider #2 to intimidate and
place Bill in fear in order to reassert control and express Home Care Provider #2’s frustration over the day’s events.

According to the Behavior Support Guidelines published by DAIL and dated October 2004, “[Th]e following types of restraint are
prohibited under any circumstances…Restraints that have the individual lying on the ground or in a bed with a worker on top of
the individual.”

Despite the fact that Home Care Provider #1 was the contracted home provider, SAS knowingly supported her in not complying with
the requirements laid out in their Contract for Services.

To Read full DRV Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/56888199/Disability-Rights-Vermont-Investigation-into-Abuse-By-Home-Care-Providers

Despite the fact that DAIL is aware of these findings and violations of their service providers they continue to attack me, the Mother, even going so far as blaming me for all their problems.  In a recent document sent to the Caledonia Court where Bennett’s Annual Review should take place but is now a full year overdue! DAIL asserts that the “Mother’s inability to work respectfully with providers” is the source of all Bill’s mistreatment,  providers found by investigating Agencies to be Negligent, Incompetent and in violation of the many State Regulations.