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:


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.


Look who's talking

It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox.

Message Board -Click Here !