Disgraceful authorities like Justice John McIsaac and Dr. Margulies make a
total mockery of the judicial process. In particular, criminal court
Justices like McIsaac and hired gun "experts" like Psychiatrist, Dr. Margulies
routinely obstruct justice and drive people like Marc Rosenberg, the late
Ontario Court of Appeal Justice, crazy.
It is no
surprise that Justice Rosenberg was deeply affected from his involvement
in the wrongful convictions that arose from unreliable testimony given by
pathologist Dr. Charles Smith. Smith is the disgraced expert who prompted
defendants to plead guilty to killing their children rather than to risk
facing a trial.
We smugly assume that the judicial process is no longer coercive and abusive since he was disgraced but there is no evidence of that. As long as the people who empowered Dr. Charles Smith are not criticized, nothing has changed.
Dr. Charles Smith was not a "God." He relied upon the people who hired him to formulate his opinions. When these hired guns pretend to be objective, they need to be exposed, not acknowledged. Their "evidence" which is tainted by a selective presentation is not evidence at all. Consequently, when judges like John McIsaac enthusiastically engage the unreliable testimony of hired gun experts, are they not equally culpable for the kinds of miscarriages of justice that were blamed on Dr. Charles Smith?
It is easy to misrepresent through hired gun testimony but how many people have
the integrity and the capacity to be fair, reasonable and just? Justice Marc Rosenberg
had it. Justice John McIsaac, Dr. Charles Smith and Dr. Margulies, do not.
Advocates like Dr. Margulies narrow and restrict inquiry to justify agenda-driven theories and it is quite astounding how they somehow manage to corrupt the enire judicial process in the same manner again and again and again. It is time to openly challenge their tactics because it is rather clear and obvious that in the civil law context, they mimick the abusive and coercive tactics of twin cousin Dr. Charles Smith, who corrupted the process again and again and again, until he was eventually disgraced.
In the civil
law context, biased experts like psychiatrist, Alfred Margulies are still the
darlings of a dysfunctional insurance industry that routinely discredits
worthy accident benefits claimants through misleading and inaccurate reports.
For example,
if you suffer chronic physical pain, Dr. Margulies will manufacture
predictable spin, as he did in a case in 2001 wherein he labelled a victim
prior to her accident, as "a personality disordered individual, needy of
affection and neurotically prone to look for the love and caring which
always eluded her in fundamentally unsatisfactory relationships". He
opined that although her actual depressive illness eventually
resolved, her pattern of pain persisted and was repeatedly reinforced and
perpetuated by factors which fulfilled her needs "which long antedated the
subject accident" and that these factors "have played the major role in
the perpetuation of her complaints of pain in sites initially traumatized
in it".
That is essentially this
man's routine gig.
In a
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals tribunal Decision released
on December 7, 2012, Dr. Margulies's bizarre claim that it was not
possible to determine whether workplace injuries aggravated what he
called the worker’s pre-existing delusional disorder, dominated the
hearing in question. The doctor found it “impossible to state the extent
to which the right knee injury may have worsened what was clearly
described as a pre-existing delusional disorder.”
According to
Dr. Margulies, the worker’s left knee injury “may have been an
exacerbating factor” and “may have exacerbated the pre-existing delusional
disorder.” Is it appropriate to use this kind of sloppy
language to evade the proper consideration of a physical injury?
Dr. Margulies also found that the worker’s disorder would have
developed and become symptomatic even in the absence of his work injuries,
which is the extremely cunning, cookie-cutter tactic Dr.
Margulies commonly deploys to make light of the pain and the disability
that physical injuries cause.
The lack of
humanity of those who exploit personal, emotional and relationship
difficulties should be scourned, there is no merit to this unfounded
speculation that hired guns promote.
If you
review the reports that Dr. Margulies routinely prepares to help insurance
companies evade liability, you will find a clear and identifiable
variation of a refrain like; "I said - to reiterate, I said that you were psychotic
before the accident, and sadly, you remain psychotic, and the accident had
nothing to do with the psychosis, that's what I am saying."
The following cases wherein Dr. Margulies essentially uses circular reasoning in effort to undermine the pain of physical injury are rather interesting but it is very difficult to suggest that Dr. Margulies actually proves anything beyond the capacity to profit from his "perfect gig".
A sample of reports which illustrate the rather unsavoury
tactics/gimmicks of Dr. Alfred Margulies:
APPEALS
TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1949/99; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1356/09R; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 774/12; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1781/05 ; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1033/11; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 974/07; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 383/91; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2018/03; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 174/11; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO.743/09; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1068/08; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 525/99; APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 299/07
How many lives has Dr. Alfred Margulies destroyed through his hired gun tactics?
CONCLUSION: Everybody struggles. Psychiatrist, Dr. Margulies exploits
typical, human weaknesses -which is what psychopaths do. Consequently,
please post your story right
here. The length of the list of people Dr. Margulies has victimized is
shockingly long.
Like psychopaths, who are keenly aware of the impact their
behavior has on others, Dr. Margulies evidently exploits insecurities and vulnerabilities
in a heartbeat and then make the conscious choice to use his influence to destroy lives. They know right from wrong and simply choose to steamroll
straight through it because they derive satisfaction from making people
suffer.
The following narrative by William Hirstein Ph.D., illustrates the
character of the psychopath: In the early 1800s, doctors who worked
with mental patients began to notice that some of their patients who
appeared outwardly normal had what they termed a “moral depravity” or
“moral insanity,” in that they seemed to possess no sense of ethics or of
the rights of other people. The term “psychopath” was first applied to
these people around 1900. The term was changed to “sociopath” in the 1930s
to emphasize the damage they do to society. Currently researchers have
returned to using the term “psychopath.” Some of them use that term to
refer to a more serious disorder, linked to genetic traits, producing more
dangerous individuals, while continuing to use “sociopath” to refer to
less dangerous people who are seen more as products of their environment,
including their upbringing. Other researchers make a distinction between
“primary psychopaths,” who are thought to be genetically caused, and
“secondary psychopaths,” seen as more a product of their environments.
Instead of being objective, the psychopaths who manipulate the
judicial process are as credible as disgraced pathologist, Dr. Charles
Smith. For example, Psychiatrist, Alfred Margulies routinely stigmatizes
accident victims by blaming the cause of their pain on pre-existing mental
illnesses, and the intelligence or the integrity of the people who accept
this claim ought to be seriously challenged.
The following is the typical narrative that Dr. Marguiles advances:
"... Dr. Margulies considers that the worker had significant
pre-accident emotional problems and was in the midst of a serious
depressive episode (her second) at the time of her compensable accident.
In his two reports, he sets out his reasons for considering that the
worker's pain disorder with psychological factors is related to her
underlying personality disorders and the various supports she has received
since her compensable accident, rather than to a reaction to the accident
itself."
In yet another case, Dr. Margulies predictably theorized that a woman
who is incapable of employment because of a psychiatric condition will be
miraculously cured of her psychiatric ailment, if her so-called safety net
(support payments) is taken away. His "political views" are not exactly
scientific or objective disclosure, but they certainly expose the workings
of his mind.
On April 10, 2009, the New York Times wrote an article that exposed
what lawyers who represent injured people have known for a long time; “The
so-called 'Independent Medical Exam' is not at all independent because
doctors are really hired to keep injured people from getting the
compensation they deserve for their injuries.” Dr. Margulies claims
objectivity and independence, but his reports are anything but and he
should therefore not be testifying in any court of law because he is evidently as
credible as Dr. Charles Smith was.
It is extremely easy to cherry pick facts to develop a false diagnosis
in a field where nobody is perfectly normal and it appears that nothing
has changed since ALAN M. MANN, M.D. (Associate Psychiatrist at Montreal
General Hospital and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at McGill
University) and ELLEN M. GOLD, MA., published the article titled,
Psychological Sequelae of Accidental Injury -A Medico-Legal Quagmire:
Current methods of evaluating psychological sequelae of accidental
injury are inaccurate and unsatisfactory, partly because of the
protagonists' conceptual, motivational and semantic differences. In
addition, there is no really satisfactory method of (a) determining and
quantifying minor but significant degrees of brain damage, (b)
distinguishing these from “post-traumatic neurosis”, or (c) determining
the relationship between the trauma and subsequent disturbance of
function. Increasingly “expert” advice is solicited but owing to the
nature of the data and conditions of examination, such advice does little
to clarify the underlying problems. Furthermore, doctors are often unable
to communicate effectively to the judiciary just how the trauma has
affected the patient. Even though certain suggestions for improvement are
advanced, the need for comprehensive, longitudinal research is
inescapable.
Dr. Margulies has been exploiting the quagmire long enough and it is
time for him to retire.
Objective experts who are professional, compassionate, caring and
donate their time without the expectation of compensation, are reliable.
The reports of hired guns that mirror the agenda of the people who fund
them manufacture evidence.
According to Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D, who earned her doctorate degree in
Psychology from Northwestern University, we need to guard against the
predictable, legal psychiatric ploys which are very common amongst abusers
who use the Courts to control their victims/adversaries. Jeanne King calls
the work of people like Margulies, "Crazy Making Legal Psychiatric
Ploys" and they do not belong in any court of law.
According to Thomas Stephen Szasz, psychiatrist and academic who has
been Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York
Health Science Center since 1990; "Psychiatric diagnoses are stigmatizing
labels phrased to resemble medical diagnoses and applied to people whose
behavior annoys or offends others."
Dr. Szasz is a well-known social critic who has dissected the moral and
scientific foundations of psychiatry and strongly implies that even if
labels are “appropriately" imposed, they are more detrimental than useful.
As Dr. Szasc indicates, psychiatric disorders are essentially
prescriptive, not descriptive. They do not really describe anything, they
prescribe a course of action.
It is consequently clear and obvious that Dr. Margulies should not be using the courts
to promote his fiction.