Schizophrenia? You sure?

This is a brief segment from a longer article I have published to my main website.

It's important because it discusses one of the primary mechanisms via which those behind the investigation have attempted to discredit my very legitimate efforts to obtain proof of the investigation of me, and that is ... that it's all just some 'delusion of reference' or otherwise construct of my supposedly sick imagination.

Read it carefully ... then visit the link at the bottom of this blog post to read the entire article published at my main site:

...


Insofar as the circumstances portrayed in jbhFILE.com are concerned ... there are many actions against my person which I have managed to obtain significant evidence of, both in the way of physical evidence and even direct witnessing of the events by others. For other actions, I've obtained no proof at all.

Also, I frequently reference certain persons from long time personal social circles who have confided in me their personal knowledge of the investigation; these same persons have also, on particular occasions, alerted me to possible upcoming actions against my person. These persons are essential to my being able to author occasional articles such as this.

Such persons remain anonymous for two specific reasons: first, they can in no way assist me in my legal efforts to obtain proof of an investigation as they are not actual 'numbered informants' to the investigators; secondly, these person's could be held legally liable for a number of different reasons related to the impeding of federal and local investigations.

That said, and since I happen to personally know that the stigma of mental illness of some kind, be it biological or otherwise, is absolutely necessary to the investigations ultimate goals, ... please consider the following questions:

Because a person claims that certain things have happened to him or her and if said person cannot generate adequate proof of the supposed event, does this necessarily give any other human being the right to call that person mentally ill? Does this give a legal system the right to then say that it will control the direction of the days of said persons life? Does this then give the same legal system the right to force the medication of said person with drugs scientifically proven to cause actual and permanent damage to a person's brain while simultaneously being unproveable insofar as their effects on the same person's brain?

Or consider this scenario: pretend for a moment that I am successfully incarcerated and a subsequent follow up investigation of my residence or otherwise turns up a planted cache of evidence related to ongoing unsolved crimes in areas I had resided or worked? Some clothing stolen from an ex girlfriends house, a weapon or something else stolen from some other person's property, property reportedly missing from a vehicle i was required to work on or drive under my employment circumstances, etc. ... all FOUND ON MY PROPERTY.

What would be my defense? I mean, c'mon ... it was found on my own property for pete's sake! I mean, dead to rights and all ...

I of course would cry foul play on the part of the authorities and would indicate my past five years of legal efforts to expose an investigation and then refer the questioners to my various online and otherwise writings on the subject. The answer in the courts eyes, of course, would be mental illness, and besides, there'd be 25 years of clinical study to show that I'm simply nuts.

As a counterpoint to that specific example, do we not know that, on occasion, authorities have been exposed countless times for planting evidence?

Do we not know, on occasion, that authorities have sometimes been discovered to be so obsessed with an investigative outcome, for personal or professional reasons alone, that they have been willing to lie or wrongfully prosecute to see that investigation's closure along lines acceptable to them?

Then why would it be so unlikely in a case such as that described above ... myself, a person who has written for years about an investigation of himself, one who has carried on a publicized legal effort with mature, reasonable and determined effort, who is suddenly and unexplainably implicated in some crime as described above.

Mental illness, the court would argue, what else should we believe? Some conspiracy among desparate officials desiring a specific end to a long winded investigation? Inflamed egos associated with federal and local law enforcement personas relative to my family social circles, simply wanting to look good? Save face?

...

Finally, and taking the question of how to properly and scientifically define mental illness a step or two forward, consider this question as well: Is it appropriate to label a person mentally ill who is simply claiming to be experiencing circumstances which might seem, in a popular sense, merely unlikely?

I think those are fair questions...

...

You can READ the ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE


-------------------------------------------------------
this post is intended to be supplemental to the facts made public in my main website, http://www.jbhfile.com/; it probably will not make much sense to you if you have not already made yourself aware of the legal and personal efforts discussed in that site. please see http://www.jbhfile.com/ for a necessary introduction into why this blog exists. or, if you just like reading weird stuff, then don't. and, enjoy.
-------------------------------------------------------

jbh.

-------------------------------------------------------