Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes, I'm an atheist. And I consider any out side help as a higher

power and

> in that respect Yes AA as a whole is outside help and a part of my

higher

> power.

So, Jim, how do you feel about AA's repeated slanders of atheists?

How about taking a stand against the hatred in the Big Book and the

dishonesty of the wives chapter?

And, as an influential stepper what have you done to protest AA's

position that Buchman's pro-Hitler statments have been vindicated?

Pass It On brags that every statement has been documented but makes

the totally fabricated claim that most critics of Buchman's 1936

interview have changed their minds.

[Guest guest]

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

> ,> > I would not trust Jim with any information you do not want going back> the PO. He claims atheism and his "Higher Power" is AA itself. You> can find out more about him by doing a search on the ADDICT-L list.> Their archives are at http://listserv.kent.edu and are publicly> available.> > Ken RaggeKen, Yes, I'm an atheist. And I consider any out side help as a higher power and in that respect Yes AA as a whole is outside help and a part of my higher power. But does that have to do with anything? First, I suspect that you really don't know much about the greater Seattle area and King County. There are at least one hundred Probation officers in Seattle and surrounding King County and at least fifty or so courts, district and municipal, all with their own probation departments. I'm semi retired and have not had contact with criminal legal stuff since the first of the year. Even if I had the desire, which I don't, I doubt that I could find out who 's husband's P.O. is or what court he is out of. Even I knew what court, unless I had his date of birth and Soc. number I doubt it I could find out. Now what reason would I have? I have given her the names of two of the top DUI attorneys in the state and a program that is not disease nor 12 step orientated. So what would my motive be?

(Church Lady voice) HMMM, now let's seeeeeee. What could Jim POSSIBLY want to do to someone who's used RR's formal articulated program to quit but has ONGOING problems in Jim's own special territory of WAC LAND. Could it be that Jim thinks Jack is . . . . SATAN ! ! ! ( LOUD REVERBERATION )

DT

[Guest guest]

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

> > Yes, I'm an atheist. And I consider any out side help as a higher power and > in that respect Yes AA as a whole is outside help and a part of my higher > power. So, Jim, how do you feel about AA's repeated slanders of atheists? How about taking a stand against the hatred in the Big Book and the dishonesty of the wives chapter?And, as an influential stepper what have you done to protest AA's position that Buchman's pro-Hitler statments have been vindicated?Pass It On brags that every statement has been documented but makes the totally fabricated claim that most critics of Buchman's 1936 interview have changed their minds.

Don't hold your breath, I would expect Shirk more likely to try and become an AA GSO Board Member, rather than rock the boat.

DT

[Guest guest]

Church Lady voice) HMMM, now let's seeeeeee. What could Jim POSSIBLY want to do to someone who's used RR's formal articulated program to quit but has ONGOING problems in Jim's own special territory of WAC LAND. Could it be that Jim thinks Jack is . . . . SATAN ! ! ! ( LOUD REVERBERATION )

I am most reluctant to weigh in on either side of this imbroglio because I just do not know enough about Jack's licensing problems, Jim's history in recovery politics & etc, to voice an intelligent opinion. With that caveat, and with the understanding I am praising form but not substance...THAT WAS FRIGGIN FUNNY! I had not previously seen you to have a sense of humor.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

, List,

Jim Shirk has been banned from the list.

Ken Ragge

listowner

Trippel wrote:

>

>

> Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here

> and why )

> In a message dated 6/30/01 4:49:22 PM Pacific Daylight

> Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> > ,

> >

> > I would not trust Jim with any information you do not

> want going back

> > the PO. He claims atheism and his " Higher Power " is AA

> itself. You

> > can find out more about him by doing a search on the

> ADDICT-L list.

> > Their archives are at http://listserv.kent.edu and are

> publicly

> > available.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

>

> Ken,

>

> Yes, I'm an atheist. And I consider any out side help as a

> higher power and

> in that respect Yes AA as a whole is outside help and a part

> of my higher

> power. But does that have to do with anything? First, I

> suspect that you

> really don't know much about the greater Seattle area and

> King County. There

> are at least one hundred Probation officers in Seattle and

> surrounding King

> County and at least fifty or so courts, district and

> municipal, all with

> their own probation departments. I'm semi retired and have

> not had contact

> with criminal legal stuff since the first of the year. Even

> if I had the

> desire, which I don't, I doubt that I could find out who

> 's husband's

> P.O. is or what court he is out of. Even I knew what court,

> unless I had his

> date of birth and Soc. number I doubt it I could find out.

> Now what reason

> would I have? I have given her the names of two of the top

> DUI attorneys in

> the state and a program that is not disease nor 12 step

> orientated. So what

> would my motive be?

>

> (Church Lady voice) HMMM, now let's seeeeeee. What could Jim POSSIBLY

> want to do to someone who's used RR's formal articulated program to

> quit but has ONGOING problems in Jim's own special territory of WAC

> LAND. Could it be that Jim thinks Jack is . . . . SATAN ! ! ! ( LOUD

> REVERBERATION ) DT

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you don't mind me asking-what "crime" did your husband commit? was it strictly motor vehicle offenses? Mike.

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

> Thank you. This is really what I've been searching for... a direct response> from someone who knows. Ken Stark didn't know, and my husband's PO skirted> the issue in true AA form. You are right that REBT is no longer associated> with RR, so that counseling service would be of no use to us. My husband> made a personal (and public) commitment to stop drinking alcohol for good,> and is holding himself up to a higher standard than AA would. Therefore the> judge should, by all reason, take my husbands word for it, just as he would> were my husband to jettison more money out of our hands into the treatment> industry. My husband agrees with the RR idea that mingling with other> people in "recovery" (read: people who won't commit to stop and only want to> wallow in self pity at being victims of some mysterious disease) only> awakens his desire to drink and puts him in a place he doesn't want to be.> He has moved on with his life, is permanently abstinent. Since my husband's> alternative treatment plan is abstinance based, as is RR, I would think that> falls within the definition described in the WAC. To save me time, where> exactly in the WAC is all this, and does it only relate to deferred> prosecutions? I would think that since this is no longer a deferred> prosecution, the judge would have some leeway here. Right? It's nice to> know these things, as it helps formulate statements to be made to the judge> next week. Also, we need to prime our attorney since he's really only> worried about keeping my husband out of jail and could care less about the> 1st Amendment Establishment Clause as it relates to my husband and the PO.> > Your information about the WAC is very helpful, thank you. And as luck> would have it, my husband screwed up his deferred and was sentenced to 1> year in jail which he was PR'd from because the PO wants my husband to go to> treatment and attend AA. (his words). SO, now we are faced with the PO's> idea of treatment, our idea of treatment, and jail. As I've stated in> earlier posts, my husband will go back to jail to finish his sentence should> the judge feel that is in the best interest of my husband and our community.> > I don't want you to have to go look through your storage unit, (if it's> anything like ours, then I wouldn't wish that on anyone! but that is up to> you and once again, I appreciate your input very much.> ----- Original Message -----, I'll take another shot at this, I was nearly finished when my computer dropped. I was not a happy camper. Many strong words directed to the idiot box. Ok, The fact that your husband is no longer on a deferred prosecution changes things. RCW 10.05 does not apply. Now he is dealing with two separated entities, the courts and Department of Licensing. Both will require a minimum of sixty days of treatment at a state approved facility. Most programs have a minimum of 95 days with the average running about six months. If your husbands wants to drive again he will have to meet these requirements. Judges actually can do what they want but it has been my experience over the last 20 years in the field in this state, that they seldom deviate from the Department of Licensing requirements. Remember that MADD mothers sit in court rooms and monitor what judges do. Washington state requires that all legal treatment must be provided at a state approved treatment facility. From what little you have posted about your husband's proposed plan he will run into the following problems. One, to the best of my knowledge, Rational Recovery does not have a state approved facility in Washington State and the judge is not going to accept a self monitored program with no self help support group, especially not a person with multiple DUIs. Didn't you say that he had a couple? Also the court, though the probation department, requires monthly status reports. These reports must also be issued by a state approved counselor who is working in a state approved facility. Also some judges may balk at drug urine screen because they are generally useless for alcohol due to the short half life. The above is why I recommended that you contact Serenity Counseling Service. They are a non-disease concept, non-12 step program. Joann Crystal, the administrator is anti 12-step and very anti disease concept. Their groups are not 12-step. I believe that they are more like SMART. Joann was in with Trimpey until he came up the bit that a non recovered alcoholic could not help an another alcoholic. I will go up to my storage locker over the week end and find my copy of the WAC. RCWs are the laws and WACs are the codes that dictate how treatment programs run and consist of. There is not law to the best of my knowledge that specifically mandates AA, however it does mandate self help support groups. You should have no real problem with the AA part as there are alternative programs in the area. But RR is not going to work because they have no program in the area and do not have self help groups any more. One thing that worries me is that your attorney should know all of this. There is an attorney in Seattle named FOX and one in Bremerton named Steve . they are two best DUI attorneys in the state. The problem is they are both expensive. I think its three thousand for a DUI and there are no guarantees. However I have worked with and have seen him pull rabbits out of hats when there were no rabbits and no hats. One other thing, again your attorney should know this. If there is a major conflict between your husband and his probation office he can request a new P.O. due to personality conflict and this sure as hell sounds like a conflict to me. What court is your husband out of? Most of my experience is in Kitsap, Pierce and Mason. I worked with a couple of courts in King but not to many. The bottom line I think is that you can get rid of the AA but he is going to have to do a program. My advice is to find one that is as close to what he is doing as possible. Again in that respect I would recommend Serenity. And again you can win on the AA and 12 step based program but I doubt that you will win on no formal program. I'll get back to you when I find my copies of the WAC. Jim

,

Here in Illinois, when DUI lawyers appeal the Secretary of State's office's decision to require long time abstainers (usually a year or more) to begin attending meetings of the Recovery Group Movement in order to satisfy the administrative code, there has been some success, but it's been a mixed bag.

The dui lawyer here who's appealed the most decisions says that the monitoring agencies have been nailed down to admitting that a person need prove nothing more than having an "articulated program of recovery". It does not necessarily need to be lifestyle invasive or even ongoing. We of course know those latter programs as counterproductive as your husband has confirmed. Nevertheless, you will still find "helpful" people, even here on 12step free, trying to convince you to cave into the substance abuse treatment cartel they so dearly love for well known reasons.

As you know Rational Recovery IS an "articulated program of recovery", and may well hold up in an appeals process. The affidavit of The Big Plan is by far the best articulation any judge in his right mind could possibly imagine.

By the way the State of Washington Administrative Code is online at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp

DT

[Guest guest]

ya know, I don't know what makes something a "crime" per se. I think it is just a misdemeaner. And yes, we had an off duty state troopy here on the very eve that our laws changed from .10 to .08 crash and kill the passenger in his car cuz he was totally drunk off his ass. He got one year. Big whoopee. My step son didn't kill anyone but got 10 years. I'm not saying what he did wasn't bad, he deserved to do time. But we thought 10 years was a bit much considering that I've read about and seen more people who have killed others intentionally and get less than 10 years. But that's another subject and frankly all I'm going to write on it.

I think my point has been hammered home re: hubby. Let the guy get on with his life for crissakes.

lisak

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

> Thank you. This is really what I've been searching for... a direct response> from someone who knows. Ken Stark didn't know, and my husband's PO skirted> the issue in true AA form. You are right that REBT is no longer associated> with RR, so that counseling service would be of no use to us. My husband> made a personal (and public) commitment to stop drinking alcohol for good,> and is holding himself up to a higher standard than AA would. Therefore the> judge should, by all reason, take my husbands word for it, just as he would> were my husband to jettison more money out of our hands into the treatment> industry. My husband agrees with the RR idea that mingling with other> people in "recovery" (read: people who won't commit to stop and only want to> wallow in self pity at being victims of some mysterious disease) only> awakens his desire to drink and puts him in a place he doesn't want to be.> He has moved on with his life, is permanently abstinent. Since my husband's> alternative treatment plan is abstinance based, as is RR, I would think that> falls within the definition described in the WAC. To save me time, where> exactly in the WAC is all this, and does it only relate to deferred> prosecutions? I would think that since this is no longer a deferred> prosecution, the judge would have some leeway here. Right? It's nice to> know these things, as it helps formulate statements to be made to the judge> next week. Also, we need to prime our attorney since he's really only> worried about keeping my husband out of jail and could care less about the> 1st Amendment Establishment Clause as it relates to my husband and the PO.> > Your information about the WAC is very helpful, thank you. And as luck> would have it, my husband screwed up his deferred and was sentenced to 1> year in jail which he was PR'd from because the PO wants my husband to go to> treatment and attend AA. (his words). SO, now we are faced with the PO's> idea of treatment, our idea of treatment, and jail. As I've stated in> earlier posts, my husband will go back to jail to finish his sentence should> the judge feel that is in the best interest of my husband and our community.> > I don't want you to have to go look through your storage unit, (if it's> anything like ours, then I wouldn't wish that on anyone! but that is up to> you and once again, I appreciate your input very much.> ----- Original Message -----, I'll take another shot at this, I was nearly finished when my computer dropped. I was not a happy camper. Many strong words directed to the idiot box. Ok, The fact that your husband is no longer on a deferred prosecution changes things. RCW 10.05 does not apply. Now he is dealing with two separated entities, the courts and Department of Licensing. Both will require a minimum of sixty days of treatment at a state approved facility. Most programs have a minimum of 95 days with the average running about six months. If your husbands wants to drive again he will have to meet these requirements. Judges actually can do what they want but it has been my experience over the last 20 years in the field in this state, that they seldom deviate from the Department of Licensing requirements. Remember that MADD mothers sit in court rooms and monitor what judges do. Washington state requires that all legal treatment must be provided at a state approved treatment facility. From what little you have posted about your husband's proposed plan he will run into the following problems. One, to the best of my knowledge, Rational Recovery does not have a state approved facility in Washington State and the judge is not going to accept a self monitored program with no self help support group, especially not a person with multiple DUIs. Didn't you say that he had a couple? Also the court, though the probation department, requires monthly status reports. These reports must also be issued by a state approved counselor who is working in a state approved facility. Also some judges may balk at drug urine screen because they are generally useless for alcohol due to the short half life. The above is why I recommended that you contact Serenity Counseling Service. They are a non-disease concept, non-12 step program. Joann Crystal, the administrator is anti 12-step and very anti disease concept. Their groups are not 12-step. I believe that they are more like SMART. Joann was in with Trimpey until he came up the bit that a non recovered alcoholic could not help an another alcoholic. I will go up to my storage locker over the week end and find my copy of the WAC. RCWs are the laws and WACs are the codes that dictate how treatment programs run and consist of. There is not law to the best of my knowledge that specifically mandates AA, however it does mandate self help support groups. You should have no real problem with the AA part as there are alternative programs in the area. But RR is not going to work because they have no program in the area and do not have self help groups any more. One thing that worries me is that your attorney should know all of this. There is an attorney in Seattle named FOX and one in Bremerton named Steve . they are two best DUI attorneys in the state. The problem is they are both expensive. I think its three thousand for a DUI and there are no guarantees. However I have worked with and have seen him pull rabbits out of hats when there were no rabbits and no hats. One other thing, again your attorney should know this. If there is a major conflict between your husband and his probation office he can request a new P.O. due to personality conflict and this sure as hell sounds like a conflict to me. What court is your husband out of? Most of my experience is in Kitsap, Pierce and Mason. I worked with a couple of courts in King but not to many. The bottom line I think is that you can get rid of the AA but he is going to have to do a program. My advice is to find one that is as close to what he is doing as possible. Again in that respect I would recommend Serenity. And again you can win on the AA and 12 step based program but I doubt that you will win on no formal program. I'll get back to you when I find my copies of the WAC. Jim

,

Here in Illinois, when DUI lawyers appeal the Secretary of State's office's decision to require long time abstainers (usually a year or more) to begin attending meetings of the Recovery Group Movement in order to satisfy the administrative code, there has been some success, but it's been a mixed bag.

The dui lawyer here who's appealed the most decisions says that the monitoring agencies have been nailed down to admitting that a person need prove nothing more than having an "articulated program of recovery". It does not necessarily need to be lifestyle invasive or even ongoing. We of course know those latter programs as counterproductive as your husband has confirmed. Nevertheless, you will still find "helpful" people, even here on 12step free, trying to convince you to cave into the substance abuse treatment cartel they so dearly love for well known reasons.

As you know Rational Recovery IS an "articulated program of recovery", and may well hold up in an appeals process. The affidavit of The Big Plan is by far the best articulation any judge in his right mind could possibly imagine.

By the way the State of Washington Administrative Code is online at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp

DT

[Guest guest]

Well, I for one don't have a history with Mr. Shirk, so I guess I don't

understand what the problem is. I was asking for info and he gave it. I

think that DT got a little sassy first if ya ask me. (but it seems they are

like oil and water to begin with and I respect that) But again, I don't KNOW

Mr. Shirk and could be naive in my Pollyanna-ish-ness. I think it mixes it

up pretty good when we get someone on the list that we can debate with. Not

AA-Nazi's per se, but reasonable folks who are not antagonistic. I dunno,

it's your list. And perhaps I should re-read the intent of this forum.

Debating with non-antagonistic-AA'ers keeps my mind sharp. Just my opinion.

( I did have to laugh about the church lady thing though...cheeky, but

pretty funny DT)

lisak

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here

> > and why )

> > In a message dated 6/30/01 4:49:22 PM Pacific Daylight

> > Time, kenr1@...

> > writes:

> >

> > > ,

> > >

> > > I would not trust Jim with any information you do not

> > want going back

> > > the PO. He claims atheism and his " Higher Power " is AA

> > itself. You

> > > can find out more about him by doing a search on the

> > ADDICT-L list.

> > > Their archives are at http://listserv.kent.edu and are

> > publicly

> > > available.

> > >

> > > Ken Ragge

> >

> > Ken,

> >

> > Yes, I'm an atheist. And I consider any out side help as a

> > higher power and

> > in that respect Yes AA as a whole is outside help and a part

> > of my higher

> > power. But does that have to do with anything? First, I

> > suspect that you

> > really don't know much about the greater Seattle area and

> > King County. There

> > are at least one hundred Probation officers in Seattle and

> > surrounding King

> > County and at least fifty or so courts, district and

> > municipal, all with

> > their own probation departments. I'm semi retired and have

> > not had contact

> > with criminal legal stuff since the first of the year. Even

> > if I had the

> > desire, which I don't, I doubt that I could find out who

> > 's husband's

> > P.O. is or what court he is out of. Even I knew what court,

> > unless I had his

> > date of birth and Soc. number I doubt it I could find out.

> > Now what reason

> > would I have? I have given her the names of two of the top

> > DUI attorneys in

> > the state and a program that is not disease nor 12 step

> > orientated. So what

> > would my motive be?

> >

> > (Church Lady voice) HMMM, now let's seeeeeee. What could Jim POSSIBLY

> > want to do to someone who's used RR's formal articulated program to

> > quit but has ONGOING problems in Jim's own special territory of WAC

> > LAND. Could it be that Jim thinks Jack is . . . . SATAN ! ! ! ( LOUD

> > REVERBERATION ) DT

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In New jersey 'Driving While Intoxicated ' is NOT a crime it is a motor vehicle offense. If you keep getting them, you can get jail time. Usually you just lose your license, and then if you drive under the influence while on the revoked list, you are subject to incarceration. In my opinion this is fair, but strictly DWI should be nothing more than a motor vehicle offense-like speeding or reckless driving. When you get drunk and hurt someone, you can be prosecuted for the crime of hurting them- I guess the logic is that you cannot say you hurt them by accident, if the aggravating factor of being drunk while driving is present. in NJ they give people who run someone over and kill them while drunk as much as 15 to 20 years in prison, and in my opinion, if they are truly trashed, it is fair. I feel that the blood alcohol determination of intoxication is not really fair, because many people can pass a field sobriety test, or any other general coordination test while being pretty well soused. The truth is, some people can drive safely while drunk, but this would be too much of a monkey wrench to throw into the authorities crowd control mechanisms, so they make the arbitrary cutoff level.

We had an off-duty police detective crash his car into a family car with kids in it, sending several people to the hospital, while he was pretty far above the .10 level. His colleagues spirited him out of the hospital illegally before the investigating officers could give him a breath test. However the hospital had taken a blood sample which showed how drunk he was. He got some sharpie lawyer, and they claimed the cops blood alcohol was elevated due to being treated by EMT's with alcohol swabs on his abrasions and cuts, and some friendly court dismissed the charges. God bless America, Truth and justice for all. Mike.

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

> Thank you. This is really what I've been searching for... a direct response> from someone who knows. Ken Stark didn't know, and my husband's PO skirted> the issue in true AA form. You are right that REBT is no longer associated> with RR, so that counseling service would be of no use to us. My husband> made a personal (and public) commitment to stop drinking alcohol for good,> and is holding himself up to a higher standard than AA would. Therefore the> judge should, by all reason, take my husbands word for it, just as he would> were my husband to jettison more money out of our hands into the treatment> industry. My husband agrees with the RR idea that mingling with other> people in "recovery" (read: people who won't commit to stop and only want to> wallow in self pity at being victims of some mysterious disease) only> awakens his desire to drink and puts him in a place he doesn't want to be.> He has moved on with his life, is permanently abstinent. Since my husband's> alternative treatment plan is abstinance based, as is RR, I would think that> falls within the definition described in the WAC. To save me time, where> exactly in the WAC is all this, and does it only relate to deferred> prosecutions? I would think that since this is no longer a deferred> prosecution, the judge would have some leeway here. Right? It's nice to> know these things, as it helps formulate statements to be made to the judge> next week. Also, we need to prime our attorney since he's really only> worried about keeping my husband out of jail and could care less about the> 1st Amendment Establishment Clause as it relates to my husband and the PO.> > Your information about the WAC is very helpful, thank you. And as luck> would have it, my husband screwed up his deferred and was sentenced to 1> year in jail which he was PR'd from because the PO wants my husband to go to> treatment and attend AA. (his words). SO, now we are faced with the PO's> idea of treatment, our idea of treatment, and jail. As I've stated in> earlier posts, my husband will go back to jail to finish his sentence should> the judge feel that is in the best interest of my husband and our community.> > I don't want you to have to go look through your storage unit, (if it's> anything like ours, then I wouldn't wish that on anyone! but that is up to> you and once again, I appreciate your input very much.> ----- Original Message -----, I'll take another shot at this, I was nearly finished when my computer dropped. I was not a happy camper. Many strong words directed to the idiot box. Ok, The fact that your husband is no longer on a deferred prosecution changes things. RCW 10.05 does not apply. Now he is dealing with two separated entities, the courts and Department of Licensing. Both will require a minimum of sixty days of treatment at a state approved facility. Most programs have a minimum of 95 days with the average running about six months. If your husbands wants to drive again he will have to meet these requirements. Judges actually can do what they want but it has been my experience over the last 20 years in the field in this state, that they seldom deviate from the Department of Licensing requirements. Remember that MADD mothers sit in court rooms and monitor what judges do. Washington state requires that all legal treatment must be provided at a state approved treatment facility. From what little you have posted about your husband's proposed plan he will run into the following problems. One, to the best of my knowledge, Rational Recovery does not have a state approved facility in Washington State and the judge is not going to accept a self monitored program with no self help support group, especially not a person with multiple DUIs. Didn't you say that he had a couple? Also the court, though the probation department, requires monthly status reports. These reports must also be issued by a state approved counselor who is working in a state approved facility. Also some judges may balk at drug urine screen because they are generally useless for alcohol due to the short half life. The above is why I recommended that you contact Serenity Counseling Service. They are a non-disease concept, non-12 step program. Joann Crystal, the administrator is anti 12-step and very anti disease concept. Their groups are not 12-step. I believe that they are more like SMART. Joann was in with Trimpey until he came up the bit that a non recovered alcoholic could not help an another alcoholic. I will go up to my storage locker over the week end and find my copy of the WAC. RCWs are the laws and WACs are the codes that dictate how treatment programs run and consist of. There is not law to the best of my knowledge that specifically mandates AA, however it does mandate self help support groups. You should have no real problem with the AA part as there are alternative programs in the area. But RR is not going to work because they have no program in the area and do not have self help groups any more. One thing that worries me is that your attorney should know all of this. There is an attorney in Seattle named FOX and one in Bremerton named Steve . they are two best DUI attorneys in the state. The problem is they are both expensive. I think its three thousand for a DUI and there are no guarantees. However I have worked with and have seen him pull rabbits out of hats when there were no rabbits and no hats. One other thing, again your attorney should know this. If there is a major conflict between your husband and his probation office he can request a new P.O. due to personality conflict and this sure as hell sounds like a conflict to me. What court is your husband out of? Most of my experience is in Kitsap, Pierce and Mason. I worked with a couple of courts in King but not to many. The bottom line I think is that you can get rid of the AA but he is going to have to do a program. My advice is to find one that is as close to what he is doing as possible. Again in that respect I would recommend Serenity. And again you can win on the AA and 12 step based program but I doubt that you will win on no formal program. I'll get back to you when I find my copies of the WAC. Jim

,

Here in Illinois, when DUI lawyers appeal the Secretary of State's office's decision to require long time abstainers (usually a year or more) to begin attending meetings of the Recovery Group Movement in order to satisfy the administrative code, there has been some success, but it's been a mixed bag.

The dui lawyer here who's appealed the most decisions says that the monitoring agencies have been nailed down to admitting that a person need prove nothing more than having an "articulated program of recovery". It does not necessarily need to be lifestyle invasive or even ongoing. We of course know those latter programs as counterproductive as your husband has confirmed. Nevertheless, you will still find "helpful" people, even here on 12step free, trying to convince you to cave into the substance abuse treatment cartel they so dearly love for well known reasons.

As you know Rational Recovery IS an "articulated program of recovery", and may well hold up in an appeals process. The affidavit of The Big Plan is by far the best articulation any judge in his right mind could possibly imagine.

By the way the State of Washington Administrative Code is online at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp

DT

[Guest guest]

well, in a state trooper's case, I think it is fair to consider the fact that he loses his job and has to start his life over as an ex-con as a real part of his punishment. It is a true jolt to a police officer to be adjudged criminal and to do time, more so than someone who has been used to being in institutions all his/her life. Mike.

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

> Thank you. This is really what I've been searching for... a direct response> from someone who knows. Ken Stark didn't know, and my husband's PO skirted> the issue in true AA form. You are right that REBT is no longer associated> with RR, so that counseling service would be of no use to us. My husband> made a personal (and public) commitment to stop drinking alcohol for good,> and is holding himself up to a higher standard than AA would. Therefore the> judge should, by all reason, take my husbands word for it, just as he would> were my husband to jettison more money out of our hands into the treatment> industry. My husband agrees with the RR idea that mingling with other> people in "recovery" (read: people who won't commit to stop and only want to> wallow in self pity at being victims of some mysterious disease) only> awakens his desire to drink and puts him in a place he doesn't want to be.> He has moved on with his life, is permanently abstinent. Since my husband's> alternative treatment plan is abstinance based, as is RR, I would think that> falls within the definition described in the WAC. To save me time, where> exactly in the WAC is all this, and does it only relate to deferred> prosecutions? I would think that since this is no longer a deferred> prosecution, the judge would have some leeway here. Right? It's nice to> know these things, as it helps formulate statements to be made to the judge> next week. Also, we need to prime our attorney since he's really only> worried about keeping my husband out of jail and could care less about the> 1st Amendment Establishment Clause as it relates to my husband and the PO.> > Your information about the WAC is very helpful, thank you. And as luck> would have it, my husband screwed up his deferred and was sentenced to 1> year in jail which he was PR'd from because the PO wants my husband to go to> treatment and attend AA. (his words). SO, now we are faced with the PO's> idea of treatment, our idea of treatment, and jail. As I've stated in> earlier posts, my husband will go back to jail to finish his sentence should> the judge feel that is in the best interest of my husband and our community.> > I don't want you to have to go look through your storage unit, (if it's> anything like ours, then I wouldn't wish that on anyone! but that is up to> you and once again, I appreciate your input very much.> ----- Original Message -----, I'll take another shot at this, I was nearly finished when my computer dropped. I was not a happy camper. Many strong words directed to the idiot box. Ok, The fact that your husband is no longer on a deferred prosecution changes things. RCW 10.05 does not apply. Now he is dealing with two separated entities, the courts and Department of Licensing. Both will require a minimum of sixty days of treatment at a state approved facility. Most programs have a minimum of 95 days with the average running about six months. If your husbands wants to drive again he will have to meet these requirements. Judges actually can do what they want but it has been my experience over the last 20 years in the field in this state, that they seldom deviate from the Department of Licensing requirements. Remember that MADD mothers sit in court rooms and monitor what judges do. Washington state requires that all legal treatment must be provided at a state approved treatment facility. From what little you have posted about your husband's proposed plan he will run into the following problems. One, to the best of my knowledge, Rational Recovery does not have a state approved facility in Washington State and the judge is not going to accept a self monitored program with no self help support group, especially not a person with multiple DUIs. Didn't you say that he had a couple? Also the court, though the probation department, requires monthly status reports. These reports must also be issued by a state approved counselor who is working in a state approved facility. Also some judges may balk at drug urine screen because they are generally useless for alcohol due to the short half life. The above is why I recommended that you contact Serenity Counseling Service. They are a non-disease concept, non-12 step program. Joann Crystal, the administrator is anti 12-step and very anti disease concept. Their groups are not 12-step. I believe that they are more like SMART. Joann was in with Trimpey until he came up the bit that a non recovered alcoholic could not help an another alcoholic. I will go up to my storage locker over the week end and find my copy of the WAC. RCWs are the laws and WACs are the codes that dictate how treatment programs run and consist of. There is not law to the best of my knowledge that specifically mandates AA, however it does mandate self help support groups. You should have no real problem with the AA part as there are alternative programs in the area. But RR is not going to work because they have no program in the area and do not have self help groups any more. One thing that worries me is that your attorney should know all of this. There is an attorney in Seattle named FOX and one in Bremerton named Steve . they are two best DUI attorneys in the state. The problem is they are both expensive. I think its three thousand for a DUI and there are no guarantees. However I have worked with and have seen him pull rabbits out of hats when there were no rabbits and no hats. One other thing, again your attorney should know this. If there is a major conflict between your husband and his probation office he can request a new P.O. due to personality conflict and this sure as hell sounds like a conflict to me. What court is your husband out of? Most of my experience is in Kitsap, Pierce and Mason. I worked with a couple of courts in King but not to many. The bottom line I think is that you can get rid of the AA but he is going to have to do a program. My advice is to find one that is as close to what he is doing as possible. Again in that respect I would recommend Serenity. And again you can win on the AA and 12 step based program but I doubt that you will win on no formal program. I'll get back to you when I find my copies of the WAC. Jim

,

Here in Illinois, when DUI lawyers appeal the Secretary of State's office's decision to require long time abstainers (usually a year or more) to begin attending meetings of the Recovery Group Movement in order to satisfy the administrative code, there has been some success, but it's been a mixed bag.

The dui lawyer here who's appealed the most decisions says that the monitoring agencies have been nailed down to admitting that a person need prove nothing more than having an "articulated program of recovery". It does not necessarily need to be lifestyle invasive or even ongoing. We of course know those latter programs as counterproductive as your husband has confirmed. Nevertheless, you will still find "helpful" people, even here on 12step free, trying to convince you to cave into the substance abuse treatment cartel they so dearly love for well known reasons.

As you know Rational Recovery IS an "articulated program of recovery", and may well hold up in an appeals process. The affidavit of The Big Plan is by far the best articulation any judge in his right mind could possibly imagine.

By the way the State of Washington Administrative Code is online at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp

DT