On cross examination, the question of hallucinations got raised again:
TALKIN: And you said that you never observed any hallucination behavior, you personally never observed it?”
VAS: “No external evidence, yes.”
TALKIN: “And basically everyone at Carswell that you spoke to, no one else observed any external evidence?”
VAS: “Nobody observed any external evidence, yes.”
TALKIN: “And you say that she denied that she had any hallucinations while she was there?”
VAS: “That is true.”
What? No hallucinations! No hearing voices! Nothing at all?
No, no, no! Reports to the contrary are media propaganda, spun by White House overlords. Oh, that must have been so disappointing!
What’s a poor psychiatrist to do? Why, look for something else, of course!
What about delusions? Any evidence that I suffered those? That would be very helpful indeed!
Let’s not forget: the “internal medication hearing”522 on December 28, 2005 cited “treatment of delusions” as necessary for the “restoration of (my) competence.” That “summary of evidence” was hardly ambiguous.
It described the nature of my alleged delusions as follows:
“She denied the possibility of mental illness, once again reporting in detail her belief that the government is having her detained because she represents a threat to the administration, due to her differing beliefs about their policies on Iraq. She states she has been a government agent for 9 years working in “anti-terrorism.”
The handwritten document was signed by Dr. Pederson and Dr. Collin Vas. That would be the same Dr. Vas testifying before Judge Mukasey.
O’CALLAGHAN: “Can you please turn to page 11 of Government Exhibit 1. Does it have hand writing on that page?”
VAS: “This is Ms. Lindauer’s handwriting. At the top of the working diagnosis section, she writes “None. Witness proves it’s all true.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “I direct your attention to page 14 of Government Exhibit 1. Is there handwriting on that page?
VAS: It states: “Susan Lindauer reports no episodes of hallucinations and demands that Shadduck interview witnesses. Disagrees entirely. [signed] Susan Lindauer, January 16, 06.” [See Appendix]
O’CALLAGHAN: “And directing your attention to page 17 of that exhibit, is there handwriting on that page?”
VAS: “It’s got Ms. Lindauer’s signature dated March 28, 2006, and “Refused to agree with diagnosis. No symptoms.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “What is your understanding of whose handwriting that is?”
VAS: “That’s Ms. Lindauer’s handwriting.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “Turn to page 18. Is there handwriting on that page?”
VAS: “It says “Never suffered those symptoms.” That’s relating to psychotic symptoms.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “And whose handwriting is that?”
VAS: “That’s hers. Ms. Lindauer’s.”
You can not imagine how my hands shook as I clutched the pen to write those words. I looked around M-1 at the damaged lives of other women inmates. I could see what awaited me if I did not fight back hard. And win.
Low and behold, here was the clincher:
O’CALLAGHAN: “What is the working diagnosis that is recorded on page 11?”
VAS: “Well, it is: “Ruled out delusional disorder.” And that’s entered in the computer.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “And did you rule out “delusional disorder” during the course of Ms. Lindauer’s evaluation at FMC Carswell?”
VAS: “At the end of the diagnostic phase, which was completed in December of 2005, delusional disorder had been ruled out, after the behavioral observations, diagnostic interviews and psychological testing.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “If you could turn to page three, what should the correct date be?”
VAS: “December 21, 2005.”
Wait a minute! What was that?
No delusional disorder?
That’s right. No delusional disorder!
Not what the corporate media told you, eh?
The Justice Department was sh— out of luck. As hard as they tried, Carswell could find no evidence to justify such a politically tantalizing diagnosis. They could provide no examples of delusional episodes to the Court that I couldn’t attack as perjury and medical fraud. Darn!
My story was fully truthful and authentic! Inconvenient, yes. Disappointing, no doubt. Unhappily for Carswell’s psychology department, it all checked out.
That made it awfully difficult to declare that I suffer a “delusional disorder.”
For my own protection, after Carswell’s refusal to release me, I took the battle to Carswell. I warned every single person in the Psych Department that if Dr. Shadduck appeared in Court and denied authenticating my story, I would demand that he face prosecution for felony perjury.
I told staff and fellow prisoners alike that Shadduck could expect to spend some quality time in prison himself, if he lied under oath to Judge Mukasey—like a lot of the women inmates at Carswell.
I suspect that’s why Carswell sent Dr. Vas to testify instead.
The next question should have been—why? Why did Carswell rule out “delusional disorder?”
Did Dr. Vas have the integrity to elucidate for the Court why Carswell had been forced to abandon such a prized diagnosis?
Nobody asked those pertinent questions. And Dr. Vas offered no explanation. There was no mention of my two outstanding witnesses, who bombarded Shadduck with phone calls until the Chief of Psychology finally broke down and verified my story.
The truth was so glaring they could not risk it. They did not dare.
Dr. Vas gave the date the diagnosis got struck— December 21. And he said no more.
Sitting in the defendant’s chair, I was astounded by the timing. The “internal medication hearing” took place on December 28, one week after the “diagnosis” had been struck. (See Appendix).
That’s the meeting when Dr. Vas and Dr. Pederson suggested I should take Haldol, Ativan and Prozac as treatment for my “delusional disorder,” for the “restoration” of my competence.
And now in Court, Vas admitted that “delusional disorder” had been thrown out one week before the “internal medication hearing” took place.
For me, that epitomizes the irrational nature of psychiatry. Would any reputable medical doctor prescribe insulin for a patient not suffering from diabetes? Would a medical doctor recommend chemotherapy after ruling out cancer?
The question answers itself. Any respectable physician would consider it grossly unethical to prescribe treatment for non-existent conditions—much less to impose harsh drugs on unwilling participants, without cause. Low and behold, when Judge Mukasey issued his ruling, he made a straight declaration that he perceived my Defense lacked satisfactory corroboration from independent sources, as evidenced by the psychiatric evaluations.523
Clearly Judge Mukasey had no idea, relying on psychiatric evaluations and court testimony, that my story had been fully validated by highly reputable independent sources, who spoke with the FBI, Ted Lindauer, and Carswell’s own Dr. Shadduck, on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons.524 Psychiatrists could have corrected those misrepresentations of their own volition. But that would have defeated their objective—to maintain a false authority in court proceedings that allowed them to force a finding of incompetence over a Defendant’s loud objections. The evaluation process was driven by ego.
It’s why I named it “delusional psychiatry.”
Wait—This was a court hearing on whether I should be strapped to a gurney and forcibly injected with massive doses of Haldol.
What could justify forcibly administering such heavy drugs, if there was no evidence of hallucinations, depression or a “delusional disorder?”
Was I aggressive towards guards or other inmates?525
VAS: “She was initially very cooperative and pleasant with us. She wanted to tell us her story, and we l
istened, and we actually did not have many problems until we gave her feedback.”
“At the end of the diagnostic phase, we met with Ms. Lindauer and informed her of her psychiatric diagnosis, and recommendations for treatment with psychotropic medications. She became very angry and enraged and has been hostile towards many members of the treatment team since.”
“Until she left Carswell, she was quite hostile and oppositional.”
I freely admit that I revile psychiatry. But was Dr. Vas’ statement truthful? Was my behavior hostile towards prison staff, guards or other inmates, as Dr. Vas insinuated?
Observation notes from prison staff on M-1 paint a different portrait.526
On February 22, 2006, M-1 staff wrote: “Ms. Lindauer is functioning well on the unit.”
Other handwritten notes said, “Functional and not a behavior problem,” underlined by staff.
Another staffer wrote, “Not a problem when confronted about anything.”
Another guard wrote, “She is low key and cooperative. Cares for self, good hygiene. Zero behavioral problems. She is focused on getting a trial.”
On March 29, 2006, interaction with staff was called “appropriate.”
On April 3, 2006, interaction with staff. “Appropriate.”
On April 9, 2006, interaction with staff. “Appropriate.”
My attorney raised this point on cross examination.527
TALKIN: “Throughout the reports, pretty much the interaction with staff on M-1 was appropriate?”
VAS: “For the large part, yes.”
TALKIN: “And for the large part, her interaction with everyone, except the psychiatrists and psychologists, was appropriate?”
VAS: “Appropriate is kind of a complex word.”
Actually, it’s not. No matter how badly Carswell abused my rights, I kept my cool. I stayed pleasant and cooperative with M-1 staff and guards. I never created problems on the unit. That’s remarkable, if you think about what I was facing.
And it explains why every monthly report declared that I “socialized well,” showed “good intellectual functioning” and “good physical health.” [See Appendix]528
Throughout those frightening months, staff frequently described me as: “Smiling, pleasant and cooperative. With good eye contact.”529
Sounds like I was a model prisoner.
As for my hostility towards the psychiatry staff, try to imagine the shock of my predicament! What would be the normal reaction of a prisoner stonewalled and denied release on the day promised by federal statute? After you’ve surrendered to prison over your strongest objections? While the Court refuses to honor your statutory right to call witnesses to prove you’ve been telling the truth about everything?
Would that upset you to wake up on the morning of your release date, and discover that your prison detention was prolonged “indefinitely”? Up to 10 years!
Carswell speculated that “very likely” my “cure” would require a “lengthy period of detention” and prison “treatment” because my confidence in my Asset work was so deeply embedded in my spirit. Evaluations warned that breaking my sense of identity would take much hard work.
All signs pointed to long years of imprisonment.
Would you be frightened? Would it be irrational to feel scared?
I suspect that would be upsetting for most people.
It’s a heart-stopping moment, for sure.
Most “indefinite” detentions are limited to incompetent inmates who are violent or destructive, and pose a lasting threat to the community. Typically, they get detained for the maximum sentence as part of the incompetence finding. In my case, it would be up to Carswell to recommend the timing of my release. That would stay open-ended for years.
So yes, I freely admit that I was horrified. From that moment on, I feared greatly for my future.
That strikes me as perfectly sane.
The question was why?
How does psychiatry justify any type of forcible “treatment” — if that individual shows no symptoms of any kind? No hallucinations, no delusions, no depression, no aggressive behavior. If they’re cooperative and functional, without behavioral problems?
Dr. Vas and Dr. Shadduck kicked around until they found a solution—a diagnosis of “psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.”530
No wonder it took 7 ½ months.
O’CALLAGHAN: “And why was that diagnosis determined to be the most accurate diagnosis?”
VAS: “Well, primarily because she does not clearly meet the criteria for the diagnosis I have just stated. When somebody does not meet a specific diagnosis, and if there is inadequate or conflicting data, we come to a diagnosis of “psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.”
O’CALLAGHAN: “Does psychotic disorder “not otherwise specified” contain a delusional disorder component?”
VAS: “It certainly contains a component of delusion.”
On cross examination, Talkin questioned what that diagnosis actually means?
TALKIN: “Now that’s kind of a catch-all diagnosis. In other words, if someone doesn’t fit in to, say, for example a delusional order– and you can’t find another psychotic disorder, then you put them in “psychotic order not otherwise specified.”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “So basically that’s a diagnosis that you’re not able to completely diagnose the individual?”
VAS: “In some situations, yes.”
TALKIN: “As far as you can tell from Susan Lindauer, other than her interactions with you when she became hostile or angry, when you told her she had a disease, as the reports indicated, she basically functioned normally among the other individuals in the facility, correct?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “And Dr. Pederson concluded that Ms. Lindauer wasn’t suicidal?”
VAS: “That’s right.”
TALKIN: “He concluded she wasn’t a risk of injury to herself?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “Or to anybody else?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “Or to property, I believe?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “So that’s the position of the people at Carswell?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “Carswell is a federal medical center, but it’s a jail, correct?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “It’s a prison?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “No one’s free to leave?”
VAS: “That’s correct.”
TALKIN: “The interaction among individuals in that jail is different than it would be on the street, correct?”
VAS: “Quite true.”
TALKIN: “People are guarded in their behavior with others?”
VAS: “Often times.”
TALKIN: “Selective in who they speak to?”
VAS: “That’s right.”
TALKIN: “Everybody in the jail is like that for the most part—Withdrawn. For the most part, people are like that?”
VAS: “Many people are like that.”
TALKIN: “That’s normal behavior in that type of a setting, correct?”
VAS: “Agreed.”
TALKIN: “And throughout the government exhibit that describes her behavior, that’s exactly how Ms. Lindauer’s behavior is described among her peers, correct?”
VAS: “That she was guarded, yes.”
TALKIN: “And selective?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “And there was also times that she was smiling, correct?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “And there was times that she was happy, correct?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “And there was times she was having a good time with other individuals, correct?”
VAS: “Yes.”
TALKIN: “And there was times that she wasn’t having a good time with individuals?”
VAS: “True.”
TALKIN: “Sometimes she had
a bad day, correct?”
VAS: “Yes.”
Hello! I would have expected Carswell to give me a clean bill of “mental health,” with that kind of reporting.
And yet, no matter the absence of “symptoms,’ Carswell and the US Attorneys Office didn’t bat an eye when they asked for permission to shoot me up like a street junkie.
At least Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Vas interviewed me. The witness for the Defense, Dr. Robert L. Goldstein, a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia University,531 never bothered to do that.
I laid eyes on him for the first time when he appeared in Court on the second morning of testimony.
On the bright side, at least Dr. Goldstein opposed drugging me. He assured the Court that drugs would not cure my “condition.”
Dr. Goldstein also scoffed that I might suffer schizophrenia, though nobody had suggested it to that point. It’s still worth noting:532
GOLDSTEIN: “The criterion for schizophrenia has never been met in this case, because the patient does not have those enumerated criteria, which do include prominent hallucinations; disorganization of thought and delusions— but delusions of a bizarre quality.”
“When I say bizarre, I mean it’s a term of art in psychiatry, which means that such things could never happen in the real world. For example, believing that Martians have implanted electrodes in your brain to control your behavior or something like that. Whereas in delusional disorder, you have non-bizarre delusions, things that possibly could happen, like somebody could be following you, somebody could want to kill you, somebody could have special talents and relationships as I enumerated before.”
That would have been well and good, if he had stopped there.
Instead, Dr. Goldstein put forth a hypothesis that I suffered “delusional disorder, mixed type,” that encompassed two areas. Paranoia. And grandiosity.533
Pay attention, folks. Soviet Psychiatry invoked identical terminology and diagnosis to attack political dissidents and intellectuals during the Cold War Age—One third of all Soviet intellectuals, who got arrested for anti-government activities, got locked up in mental asylums, using this “diagnosis.”
“Paranoid delusions,” according to Goldstein, encompassed “individual beliefs that they’re being persecuted, followed, spied on, individuals want to harm them, even kill them, or otherwise cause mischief in their lives. And they spend lots of time trying to protect themselves against these various imaginary enemies.”
EXTREME PREJUDICE: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq Page 52
