Re: forced into AA

[Guest guest]

Hi .

I accidentally fell over your mail, and it set off a stream of thoughts that I would like to "share" with you.

It's been some kind of discussion about differences on opinion amongst people opposing AA.

I do think there is some similarities, but also very different expressions of this similarity.

This, I think, is because AA is floating over it's natural banks, and is touching several institutions and beliefs in society that will eventually fight back.

But when they do they almost exclusively gets an experience that confirms their view.

No matter if you're an former problem drinker, journalist, psychiatrist, psychologist, lawyer, soldier, woman, politician, police man, different, etc.

I think I joined 12-step-free for about 3 years ago, but have been in and out.

When I read your mail I thought. "That's it. That's what they are doing to everyone, and that's exactly what scares me!"

It's like I've heard the same melody in so many voices. They're not only mistaken, they are hurting really living people when they try to defend their human dignity.

You always start out with thinking they're wrong, but if you voice it you'll discover that they are not only wrong. They represent evil too.

I've been interested in AA since 1978 from an academically point of view, but in 1988 it got this second emotion when I discovered that an article I wrote in a Danish paper resulted in attempts of character murder and disguised threats about physical injury.

Personally I'm more a coward than a hero, but the nazis gave my mother a life sentence, and my father smuggled weapons into the Norwegian mountains from the coast. When discovered he fled to Sweden and from there to Scotland by plane.

Therefore I feel some obligation to fight back, even though I could easily have a calm and decent life forgetting it all.

Actually my 'resistance' could possibly jeopardize my present living conditions, but I just thought AA should know that they picked the wrong guy when they threatened me.

I think I owe this to my parents.

But honestly speaking I would rather be without my knowledge/experience.

Your mail kicked these thoughts off.

Best

Bjørn

Re: Re: forced into AA

I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal . I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way !

[Guest guest]

Hi .

I accidentally fell over your mail, and it set off a stream of thoughts that I would like to "share" with you.

It's been some kind of discussion about differences on opinion amongst people opposing AA.

I do think there is some similarities, but also very different expressions of this similarity.

This, I think, is because AA is floating over it's natural banks, and is touching several institutions and beliefs in society that will eventually fight back.

But when they do they almost exclusively gets an experience that confirms their view.

No matter if you're an former problem drinker, journalist, psychiatrist, psychologist, lawyer, soldier, woman, politician, police man, different, etc.

I think I joined 12-step-free for about 3 years ago, but have been in and out.

When I read your mail I thought. "That's it. That's what they are doing to everyone, and that's exactly what scares me!"

It's like I've heard the same melody in so many voices. They're not only mistaken, they are hurting really living people when they try to defend their human dignity.

You always start out with thinking they're wrong, but if you voice it you'll discover that they are not only wrong. They represent evil too.

I've been interested in AA since 1978 from an academically point of view, but in 1988 it got this second emotion when I discovered that an article I wrote in a Danish paper resulted in attempts of character murder and disguised threats about physical injury.

Personally I'm more a coward than a hero, but the nazis gave my mother a life sentence, and my father smuggled weapons into the Norwegian mountains from the coast. When discovered he fled to Sweden and from there to Scotland by plane.

Therefore I feel some obligation to fight back, even though I could easily have a calm and decent life forgetting it all.

Actually my 'resistance' could possibly jeopardize my present living conditions, but I just thought AA should know that they picked the wrong guy when they threatened me.

I think I owe this to my parents.

But honestly speaking I would rather be without my knowledge/experience.

Your mail kicked these thoughts off.

Best

Bjørn

Re: Re: forced into AA

I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal . I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way !

[Guest guest]

Oh dear, I certainly didn't mean to direct it at mikdan's insufferable post.

I have a letter I would like to write to him. APPLAUSE to Mona and BOOS to

mikdan.

[Guest guest]

<< -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

> problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

> (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

> whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

As I said to neils, it's alive and well in the prisons as an AA " alternative "

and Secular Humanism has been ruled to be religious, although I understand

the lawsuit involved had some circumstances which would need to be

considered. But I've always wondered, since RET is practiced by clinicians

(often MSW's, etc., and apparently gets a lot of flack from many PhD's and

MD's who think it's ineffective and sometimes becomes ethically questionable.

I've always wondered, if a woman were in a relationship which wasn't

physically abusive, but blatantly verbal abuse (I hesitate to use the terms

" verbal " or " emotional " abuse, but just as a blatant example) and went to a

cognitive therapist who decided to use pure RET, wouldn't telling the woman

that the way she perceives it should be changed as she is making it

exacerbate a major depression, telling her that the problem stems from her

beliefs that " he *shouldn't* say those horrible things " or " I *must* get out

of this relationship " ...

Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it doesn't have

to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

Nick

[Guest guest]

<< -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

> problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

> (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

> whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

As I said to neils, it's alive and well in the prisons as an AA " alternative "

and Secular Humanism has been ruled to be religious, although I understand

the lawsuit involved had some circumstances which would need to be

considered. But I've always wondered, since RET is practiced by clinicians

(often MSW's, etc., and apparently gets a lot of flack from many PhD's and

MD's who think it's ineffective and sometimes becomes ethically questionable.

I've always wondered, if a woman were in a relationship which wasn't

physically abusive, but blatantly verbal abuse (I hesitate to use the terms

" verbal " or " emotional " abuse, but just as a blatant example) and went to a

cognitive therapist who decided to use pure RET, wouldn't telling the woman

that the way she perceives it should be changed as she is making it

exacerbate a major depression, telling her that the problem stems from her

beliefs that " he *shouldn't* say those horrible things " or " I *must* get out

of this relationship " ...

Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it doesn't have

to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

Nick

[Guest guest]

Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: "If your child dies, rationally, it doesn't have to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction." (1982)

Tell me he did not actually say that. I apply RET, but let me assure you, when my son died it was of no use whatsoever in the immediate weeks, and even months, following his death. Is he saying that purely *rationally this is so, and at least conceding that rational thinking is going to be overwhelmed by grief, shock and devastation at this time?

My body literally went into a state of shock when I was told my son was dead. There were acute physical symptoms. It had nothing to do with reason; it was a big surprise to me how weak and unsteady I was for weeks afterward. I went from doing 45 minutes on the Stairmaster to barely being able to manage 10 when I tried to return to my workout routine three weeks after the funeral. My legs were like rubber. I couldn't eat. I couldn't comprehend the reality of what had happened; everything seemed surreal for at least a month.

Is there are reasonable context for what Ellis said?

--Mona--

Is there any context

[Guest guest]

Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: "If your child dies, rationally, it doesn't have to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction." (1982)

Tell me he did not actually say that. I apply RET, but let me assure you, when my son died it was of no use whatsoever in the immediate weeks, and even months, following his death. Is he saying that purely *rationally this is so, and at least conceding that rational thinking is going to be overwhelmed by grief, shock and devastation at this time?

My body literally went into a state of shock when I was told my son was dead. There were acute physical symptoms. It had nothing to do with reason; it was a big surprise to me how weak and unsteady I was for weeks afterward. I went from doing 45 minutes on the Stairmaster to barely being able to manage 10 when I tried to return to my workout routine three weeks after the funeral. My legs were like rubber. I couldn't eat. I couldn't comprehend the reality of what had happened; everything seemed surreal for at least a month.

Is there are reasonable context for what Ellis said?

--Mona--

Is there any context

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 5/9/01 1:17:46 AM, rita66@w... writes:

>

> << -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that

the

> > problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about

it. "

> > (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a

shot.) The

> > whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of

me.

>

> As I said to neils, it's alive and well in the prisons as an AA

" alternative "

> and Secular Humanism has been ruled to be religious, although I

understand

> the lawsuit involved had some circumstances which would need to be

> considered. But I've always wondered, since RET is practiced by

clinicians

> (often MSW's, etc., and apparently gets a lot of flack from many

PhD's and

> MD's who think it's ineffective and sometimes becomes ethically

questionable.

> I've always wondered, if a woman were in a relationship which wasn't

> physically abusive, but blatantly verbal abuse (I hesitate to use

the terms

> " verbal " or " emotional " abuse, but just as a blatant example) and

went to a

> cognitive therapist who decided to use pure RET, wouldn't telling

the woman

> that the way she perceives it should be changed as she is making it

> exacerbate a major depression, telling her that the problem stems

from her

> beliefs that " he *shouldn't* say those horrible things " or " I *must*

get out

> of this relationship " ...

>

> Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it

doesn't have

> to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

>

> Nick

Hello,

So many comments and thoughts flitted through my mind at reading these

words! Truly, they are almost beyond compare in the annals of asinine

utterances!!!

It did bring to my attention how similar this idea is with AA as it is

practiced in that strong emotions are dismissed, trivalized, set aside

and labeled dangerous. The only difference I can see is that AA gives

it all to the HP ( " Relax, God is in Charge " ) and this gives it all to

" rationality. " Big diff. You're just as squelched either way. I

don't have a lot of experience with the RET approach, and from what

you've posted here, I'm glad I don't.

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 5/9/01 1:17:46 AM, rita66@w... writes:

>

> << -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that

the

> > problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about

it. "

> > (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a

shot.) The

> > whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of

me.

>

> As I said to neils, it's alive and well in the prisons as an AA

" alternative "

> and Secular Humanism has been ruled to be religious, although I

understand

> the lawsuit involved had some circumstances which would need to be

> considered. But I've always wondered, since RET is practiced by

clinicians

> (often MSW's, etc., and apparently gets a lot of flack from many

PhD's and

> MD's who think it's ineffective and sometimes becomes ethically

questionable.

> I've always wondered, if a woman were in a relationship which wasn't

> physically abusive, but blatantly verbal abuse (I hesitate to use

the terms

> " verbal " or " emotional " abuse, but just as a blatant example) and

went to a

> cognitive therapist who decided to use pure RET, wouldn't telling

the woman

> that the way she perceives it should be changed as she is making it

> exacerbate a major depression, telling her that the problem stems

from her

> beliefs that " he *shouldn't* say those horrible things " or " I *must*

get out

> of this relationship " ...

>

> Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it

doesn't have

> to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

>

> Nick

Hello,

So many comments and thoughts flitted through my mind at reading these

words! Truly, they are almost beyond compare in the annals of asinine

utterances!!!

It did bring to my attention how similar this idea is with AA as it is

practiced in that strong emotions are dismissed, trivalized, set aside

and labeled dangerous. The only difference I can see is that AA gives

it all to the HP ( " Relax, God is in Charge " ) and this gives it all to

" rationality. " Big diff. You're just as squelched either way. I

don't have a lot of experience with the RET approach, and from what

you've posted here, I'm glad I don't.

[Guest guest]

> Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it

doesn't have

> to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

Sounds more like Spock (Mr., not Dr.!)

[Guest guest]

> Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it

doesn't have

> to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

Sounds more like Spock (Mr., not Dr.!)

[Guest guest]

> Dr. A. Ellis famous quote: " If your child dies, rationally, it

doesn't have

> to be any more than just an inconvenience or distraction. " (1982)

Sounds more like Spock (Mr., not Dr.!)

[Guest guest]

Stuart,

I am not trying to propogate a myth as I have heard this repeatedly as well

as the first case which explicitly made the ruling, I believe it was in 1962.

I'm sure it's buried in one of my textbooks or my dad's run of Cornell Law

Review (don't plan on trying to find it in there though.) Since I trust your

legal knowledge though I will investigate it further as I have found it

interesting myself and a little far-fetched, but it was nearly forty years

ago and as you pointed out the environment was much different, even in court.

There are some definite religious elements I've come up with in Secular

Humanism:

1. Secular Humanists hold Dr. Albert Ellis is held to a higher status than

the human population (I don't know when this becomes " God " and how that would

be determined in court, or if it even matters, my legal knowledge is minimal).

2. Dr. Ellis claims that his revelation came in a " flash of light " type

experience, when he realized that his profession of psychology, to which he

had devoted much of his teen and adult life, was all a myth.

3. Ellis self-admittedly spent years writing " hundreds to thousands " of pages

of letters to Freud, after Freud was already deceased, explaining how Freud

had been incorrect, crazy, and deceitful with his theories, and Ellis made

some insinnuations to communicating with Freud in the afterlife (reported in

Psychology Today interview from a couple years ago.)

4. Although I don't think Secular Humanism requires devout Atheistic views,

many of its followers, including Ellis, are critical of religion,

spirituality, or other subjective " beliefs " that aren't based in

" rationality " . Ellis has made clear that a belief in a deity would not

reconcile with his own philosophy, which holds up devout adherence to

" rational thinking " as the way to live a fulfilled life.

5. " Rational " in Ellis/Beck theory clearly is not the same as " rational " as

defined in the dictionary, or used in the English language. In brief, Ellis'

" rational " thinking means thinking which will ultimately benefit oneself,

whether based in reality or not.

6. Some practitioners of RET/REBT refer to themselves as Albert Ellis

" disciples " , which is obviously a very religious term.

Again, I'm not insisting that Secular Humanism is a religion, although I will

say that I believe what I've cited above to suggest the possibility. I'm sure

there are numerous lists of qualifications in determining a religion, as well

as the definition given in the dictionary. But I don't want to start an

argument over religious-or-not, as with my little knowledge of religion I

would lose, and I think we've probably all been through that tortuous

experience... " no, silly, it's spiritual, not religious. You can believe in

ANYTHING for your higher power! use the group! GOD=Group of Drunks " .

I hope they're sober when they're being prayed to!

Nick

[Guest guest]

Stuart,

I am not trying to propogate a myth as I have heard this repeatedly as well

as the first case which explicitly made the ruling, I believe it was in 1962.

I'm sure it's buried in one of my textbooks or my dad's run of Cornell Law

Review (don't plan on trying to find it in there though.) Since I trust your

legal knowledge though I will investigate it further as I have found it

interesting myself and a little far-fetched, but it was nearly forty years

ago and as you pointed out the environment was much different, even in court.

There are some definite religious elements I've come up with in Secular

Humanism:

1. Secular Humanists hold Dr. Albert Ellis is held to a higher status than

the human population (I don't know when this becomes " God " and how that would

be determined in court, or if it even matters, my legal knowledge is minimal).

2. Dr. Ellis claims that his revelation came in a " flash of light " type

experience, when he realized that his profession of psychology, to which he

had devoted much of his teen and adult life, was all a myth.

3. Ellis self-admittedly spent years writing " hundreds to thousands " of pages

of letters to Freud, after Freud was already deceased, explaining how Freud

had been incorrect, crazy, and deceitful with his theories, and Ellis made

some insinnuations to communicating with Freud in the afterlife (reported in

Psychology Today interview from a couple years ago.)

4. Although I don't think Secular Humanism requires devout Atheistic views,

many of its followers, including Ellis, are critical of religion,

spirituality, or other subjective " beliefs " that aren't based in

" rationality " . Ellis has made clear that a belief in a deity would not

reconcile with his own philosophy, which holds up devout adherence to

" rational thinking " as the way to live a fulfilled life.

5. " Rational " in Ellis/Beck theory clearly is not the same as " rational " as

defined in the dictionary, or used in the English language. In brief, Ellis'

" rational " thinking means thinking which will ultimately benefit oneself,

whether based in reality or not.

6. Some practitioners of RET/REBT refer to themselves as Albert Ellis

" disciples " , which is obviously a very religious term.

Again, I'm not insisting that Secular Humanism is a religion, although I will

say that I believe what I've cited above to suggest the possibility. I'm sure

there are numerous lists of qualifications in determining a religion, as well

as the definition given in the dictionary. But I don't want to start an

argument over religious-or-not, as with my little knowledge of religion I

would lose, and I think we've probably all been through that tortuous

experience... " no, silly, it's spiritual, not religious. You can believe in

ANYTHING for your higher power! use the group! GOD=Group of Drunks " .

I hope they're sober when they're being prayed to!

Nick

[Guest guest]

Stuart,

I am not trying to propogate a myth as I have heard this repeatedly as well

as the first case which explicitly made the ruling, I believe it was in 1962.

I'm sure it's buried in one of my textbooks or my dad's run of Cornell Law

Review (don't plan on trying to find it in there though.) Since I trust your

legal knowledge though I will investigate it further as I have found it

interesting myself and a little far-fetched, but it was nearly forty years

ago and as you pointed out the environment was much different, even in court.

There are some definite religious elements I've come up with in Secular

Humanism:

1. Secular Humanists hold Dr. Albert Ellis is held to a higher status than

the human population (I don't know when this becomes " God " and how that would

be determined in court, or if it even matters, my legal knowledge is minimal).

2. Dr. Ellis claims that his revelation came in a " flash of light " type

experience, when he realized that his profession of psychology, to which he

had devoted much of his teen and adult life, was all a myth.

3. Ellis self-admittedly spent years writing " hundreds to thousands " of pages

of letters to Freud, after Freud was already deceased, explaining how Freud

had been incorrect, crazy, and deceitful with his theories, and Ellis made

some insinnuations to communicating with Freud in the afterlife (reported in

Psychology Today interview from a couple years ago.)

4. Although I don't think Secular Humanism requires devout Atheistic views,

many of its followers, including Ellis, are critical of religion,

spirituality, or other subjective " beliefs " that aren't based in

" rationality " . Ellis has made clear that a belief in a deity would not

reconcile with his own philosophy, which holds up devout adherence to

" rational thinking " as the way to live a fulfilled life.

5. " Rational " in Ellis/Beck theory clearly is not the same as " rational " as

defined in the dictionary, or used in the English language. In brief, Ellis'

" rational " thinking means thinking which will ultimately benefit oneself,

whether based in reality or not.

6. Some practitioners of RET/REBT refer to themselves as Albert Ellis

" disciples " , which is obviously a very religious term.

Again, I'm not insisting that Secular Humanism is a religion, although I will

say that I believe what I've cited above to suggest the possibility. I'm sure

there are numerous lists of qualifications in determining a religion, as well

as the definition given in the dictionary. But I don't want to start an

argument over religious-or-not, as with my little knowledge of religion I

would lose, and I think we've probably all been through that tortuous

experience... " no, silly, it's spiritual, not religious. You can believe in

ANYTHING for your higher power! use the group! GOD=Group of Drunks " .

I hope they're sober when they're being prayed to!

Nick

[Guest guest]

(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation officer deems appropriate)

I would argue, very strongly and compellingly, that this is still manifestly unconstitutional. It vests discretion in your PO to order you to attend meetings of an organization that is, at its core, and in its essence, religious. This is no different than the Court ordering that you attend "any and all faith healing services at a Southern Baptist Church as the PO may deem appropriate," and equally as unconstitutional.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation officer deems appropriate)

I would argue, very strongly and compellingly, that this is still manifestly unconstitutional. It vests discretion in your PO to order you to attend meetings of an organization that is, at its core, and in its essence, religious. This is no different than the Court ordering that you attend "any and all faith healing services at a Southern Baptist Church as the PO may deem appropriate," and equally as unconstitutional.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation officer deems appropriate)

I would argue, very strongly and compellingly, that this is still manifestly unconstitutional. It vests discretion in your PO to order you to attend meetings of an organization that is, at its core, and in its essence, religious. This is no different than the Court ordering that you attend "any and all faith healing services at a Southern Baptist Church as the PO may deem appropriate," and equally as unconstitutional.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to

attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.

the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the

order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready

told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.

the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to

have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views and

religous behavior as being

my main reason for seeking an alternative.

the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.

(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so

that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation

officer deems appropriate)

Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it sure

appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on

me.

any one have any feed back on this?

or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes an

order such as this.

thanx again.

I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.

lost in Illinois

Harley

[Guest guest]

I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to

attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.

the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the

order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready

told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.

the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to

have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views and

religous behavior as being

my main reason for seeking an alternative.

the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.

(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so

that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation

officer deems appropriate)

Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it sure

appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on

me.

any one have any feed back on this?

or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes an

order such as this.

thanx again.

I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.

lost in Illinois

Harley

[Guest guest]

I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to

attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.

the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the

order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready

told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.

the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to

have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views and

religous behavior as being

my main reason for seeking an alternative.

the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.

(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so

that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation

officer deems appropriate)

Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it sure

appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on

me.

any one have any feed back on this?

or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes an

order such as this.

thanx again.

I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.

lost in Illinois

Harley

[Guest guest]

Without making a Federal Case out of it ( which of course it ought to be ) you could tell your probation officer how much the order continues to disturb you as an American Citizen, and that you'd like him to write a letter to the effect that from his understanding of the US Constitution, he has no right to deem any AA meeting appropriate for you and that "no AA meeting would or could ever be deemed appropriate by one person for another" ("deem" is a synonym for "judge"). If he/she refuses, then consider going back to court again.

This type of judicial language from judges and state prosecutors shows again how clearly AA has become our state religion.

Dave Trippel

Re: forced into AA

I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views and religous behavior as being my main reason for seeking an alternative.the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation officer deems appropriate)Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it sure appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on me.any one have any feed back on this?or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes an order such as this.thanx again.I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.lost in IllinoisHarley

[Guest guest]

Without making a Federal Case out of it ( which of course it ought to be ) you could tell your probation officer how much the order continues to disturb you as an American Citizen, and that you'd like him to write a letter to the effect that from his understanding of the US Constitution, he has no right to deem any AA meeting appropriate for you and that "no AA meeting would or could ever be deemed appropriate by one person for another" ("deem" is a synonym for "judge"). If he/she refuses, then consider going back to court again.

This type of judicial language from judges and state prosecutors shows again how clearly AA has become our state religion.

Dave Trippel

Re: forced into AA

I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views and religous behavior as being my main reason for seeking an alternative.the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation officer deems appropriate)Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it sure appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on me.any one have any feed back on this?or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes an order such as this.thanx again.I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.lost in IllinoisHarley

[Guest guest]

Without making a Federal Case out of it ( which of course it ought to be ) you could tell your probation officer how much the order continues to disturb you as an American Citizen, and that you'd like him to write a letter to the effect that from his understanding of the US Constitution, he has no right to deem any AA meeting appropriate for you and that "no AA meeting would or could ever be deemed appropriate by one person for another" ("deem" is a synonym for "judge"). If he/she refuses, then consider going back to court again.

This type of judicial language from judges and state prosecutors shows again how clearly AA has become our state religion.

Dave Trippel

Re: forced into AA

I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views and religous behavior as being my main reason for seeking an alternative.the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.(it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation officer deems appropriate)Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it sure appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on me.any one have any feed back on this?or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes an order such as this.thanx again.I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.lost in IllinoisHarley

[Guest guest]

Harley,

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the original order was

from a judge who then removed the order and then worded the new order

as to place the burden on the probation officer?

Tommy

> I finally had my day in court today to try and have the order to

> attend the well known religous cult better known as AA.

> the judge had no problem with removing the order and rescendid the

> order pending approval from my probation officer who has allready

> told me that he had no problem with me asking to have it removed.

> the thing that got me a bit heated was the fact that when I asked to

> have my case back in court I expressed my concern with AA's views

and

> religous behavior as being

> my main reason for seeking an alternative.

> the state so kindly re wrote the order as follows.

> (it is hearby ordered that the defendant's sentance is modified so

> that he now attends any and all AA meetings that his probation

> officer deems appropriate)

> Allough he's told me he has no problem with it being reversed it

sure

> appears to me that the state is really still trying to force this on

> me.

> any one have any feed back on this?

> or does this sound like the proper way the state usually re writes

an

> order such as this.

>

> thanx again.

> I'd probably be real lost if you people wernt here.

> lost in Illinois

> Harley