ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADELAIDE REGISTRY No.
Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana
Applicant
-and-
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
PROVISIONAL OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION
Like or find fault, do as your pleasures are,
Now good or bad, ‘tis but the chance of war.
- William Shakespeare, The History of Trotlus and Cresida (1603), prologue, lines 30-31
Perspectives and theories
This is a ‘theoretical’ introduction to my relations with the world of reality as recorded by Emeritus Professor Doctor Bal Jha, a world renowned psychiatrist, who was head hunted and brought to Australia, and who has seen more migrants in Australia and minorities both in Australia and the world in a career spanning from 1955 to now. His experience related resume can be found in T-5 document ,which is the transcript dated 1/12/2004 at a hearing before Lander J of the Federal Court of Australia, action number SAD 67 of 2004 between Ranjit Rana and University of Adelaide and Ors. This has been identified as an exhibit in the current proceedings. See at pages 170 to 172 at lines 1 to 15, and again in this hearing dated 9/12/2008 at page 48 line 14 to page 49 to line 20. He has seen more patients in his life in big mental institutions of India, who suffered schizophrenia and other mental illnesses than Professor Goldney in his lifetime in terms of age seniority. He has more knowledge of epidemiology that concerns migrants and minorities than Professor Goldney, the very book Professor Goldney provided to this tribunal (now exhibit) the chapter 5 with many pages missing, which had more specific focus on Bradford criteria and associated elements of causality and effect, temporality and much more. I have not been allowed to recall Professor Jha to rebut Professor Goldney, as the tribunal made up its mind reminding me that the tribunal will be now ready to hear oral submissions in March next year. I was caught up by total surprise and could not respondent to such sudden finality of close of the hearing and no accommodation for rebuttals from me. Even the prior tribunals had recalled the experts to rebuttals. This has put me in a difficult position to rebut Professor Goldney’s allegations are that my symptoms are reconstructed after the events that occurred so long ago and lacks very credibility in asking for compensation.
This juncture in time I have to rely that Professor Jha does not agree with Professor Goldney at all, and Professor Jha has seen all the materials in cursory glance whatever was provided to Professor Goldney by the Australian Government Solicitor plus much more materials I have provided to him over the years. I have provided to him all the criminal convictions, all issues with police, family courts and many courts, my ongoing problems with Chief of Army, hospitals, military pension, being declared bankrupt by Chief of Army and so much continuous problems of my mental and physical and emotional survival truthfully based on contrition and heartfelt confession. Professor Jha has seen me now from 2003 continuously and has accounted for my culture appropriately. See the exhibits at volume 3 that is supplied to the tribunal by Australian Government Solicitor (starting) at page 976 (first page missing) the report of Dr. John Mellowship about my culture. In other words, Professor Jha thoroughly knows about my culture and even more than Anthropologist Dr. Mellowship, as he comes from the Priest class (Jha). I am comfortable with his appropriate diagnosis and my mental health has been stabilized over the time I have seen him. I agree with the view that other white male psychiatrists grossly overlooked my culture and mental problems and inadequately diagnosed me. I can say that my feelings of suffering from hallucinations and delusions in 1981 and having severe reaction to haloperidol for the first time at Royal Adelaide Hospital. This was the time I was having severe stress while I was in the Army.
I noticed symptoms of diabetes soon after this haloperidol reaction and my moods used to go up and down, from being active to being lazy. On top of that, I had depression and anxiety of Army life, I was having panic attacks to save my self and family life and Army life and much more. So far, the blood glucose reports up to 1982 readings did not show abnormal glucose readings in Australia. I do not access to such blood tests results that I had in Thailand and Nepal, when I had contacted herpes. In volume 1 of the exhibit and page 28, the glucose level was 4.7 fasting and Creat. was 0.10 both within normal range. At page 78, the glucose was normal in the same volume. At page 104 related blood test results have been missing. The complaints and symptoms recorded may point towards the effect of severe haloperidol reaction and to wards diabetes as the blood test result is missing. At page 105 the blood test result is missing. At page 112 it is in volume 1 the blood test is hard to read in establishing diabetes. In page 114 the glucose in normal. The applicant argues that the blood test results has been sabotaged for an ulterior purpose to hide blood test results at pages 128 to 129 to give Professor Goldney and Dr. Stevenson to fit in the so called Bradford criteria in terms of temporality and causality that matters my Army service and contributing towards my diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes type two. the applicant refers to volume 1 of the exhibit before this tribunal that consists all medical records. Same problem seems to be case in page 132 as a reasonable minded person cannot read the blood test result. This type of dishonest manipulation is again occurring at page 133 about the blood test. Glucose reading is normal at page 139. Blood test result is hard to read in page 140. I have had problems with diabetes like symptoms from 1981 after taking haloperidol’s severe reaction I had when forced with it in Royal Adelaide hospital.
I have had problems with such lethargy, which significantly affected in my work performance in the Army and in the universities and relationships. I tried part time employment periodically in 1983-1984 and then in 1986-1987 and from there I have not been able to work at all. There seems to be evidence from Dr. Stevenson that people from Kathmandu, Nepal 1 to greater than 20 times to get diabetes like the Australian Aboriginal cohorts. Then it is probable to infer that the applicant’s diabetes was significantly contributed by the haloperidol severe reaction in 1981, and went unnoticed and untreated by the Army and other State institutional health system until early to late 2005, which was noticed when it was severely aggravated and accelerated stage. The literature shows that there is a significant correlation with schizophrenia. The applicant argues this to mean a significant association with his paranoid schizophrenia. The applicant further argues that his paranoid schizophrenia was also not detected much early arising more serious sexual abuses in the Army he could not report it to the authorities. He tried to keep it a secret. There was significant evidence and was not provided by Australian Federal Police and this aspect the applicant took it all the way to the High Court and lost it and ordered to pay over A$30000. However, in all this matter and involving Western Union International Financial Services a deed of settlement has been reached has been the applicant’s evidence, and the Australian Government Solicitor’s (AGS) has remained silent about it. The Australian Federal Police’s civilian lawyers Philip Fox went over the head of the AGS. Likewise, all other factors that the appellant’s past problems have been solved by signing deeds even such matters the court found that he had tried to fraudulently sent emails and doctor documents. Currently, Justice Besanko is revisiting the issue that mattered University of South Australia. In another matter the applicant sued University of Adelaide and Professor Goldney, Justice Lander did not find the applicant sent such emails in similar type of allegations made by University of South Australia, which was also a party, who used the same experts and daughter of Justice Mansfield Annabel Mansfield. Thus, significant doubt remains about the finding made by Justice Besanko to which Professor Goldney was briefed in Repatriation matter.
No wonder he never has read the Military Police report and had no detailed knowledge of the applicant’s one and half years of acute tortured existence in the Army. He as a personal who is not only unethical and used criminally illegal ways to use Adelaide University’s logo to show his prestige doubted the applicant’s true confession and belief’s to Professor Bal Jha and others as falsely and recently constructed repressed memory to causes of his illnesses. What is wrong to inquire about causality as one is a human to search such meaning? The three volumes related brief to Professor Goldney does not have the Military Police report as that occurs in the pages 20 (last paragraph) to 23. The other abuses that occurs in page 23 and related negative findings by AAT of 2004(see Veterans’ Review Board reasons and decision VRB S03-0363 and DVA SM9393 dated 16/12/2004), is now the subject of the deed with Australian Federal Police in matters AAT then to Federal Magistrates Court action number ADG148 of 2007, Federal Court number SAD 113 of 2006 and High Court number A29 of 2007.
The applicant argues that at page 174, the Military System was not authorized to pass this sensitive information to the applicant’s ex-wife’s General Physician, which destroyed all relations with the ex-wife for reconciliation and hampered access to the child that mattered the child being infected with herpes virus. The Military System under Dr. Hoff and Dr. Bickmore (both Army doctors) claimed that it was theirs’ military duty under the ethics and laws of controlling of herpes epidemiology had to do so. This was the final straw any meaning relations that the applicant had with Army broke down and contributed ongoing stress to this day about guilt. The applicant argues this fact validates Dr. Pasquale’s assessment that Army significantly contributed to the breakage of the applicant’s marriage and access to the child and this is fact and not fantasy of Professor Goldney. There was no such law and the outdated Bradford criteria required by the Army to be applied in this issue that mattered epidemiology. This theory was first conceptualized in 1952 and is very hard to apply in this context and content, as is a significant issue of transcultural psychiatry that Professor Jha is well conversed with and has nothing to do with Professor Goldney’s expertise of suicide and homicide prevention. He is out of his depth and breadth in the matter that concerns paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes type two from a person from Nepal. He has not been to India and Nepal like Dr. Jha or Dr. Stevenson.
In volume 2 of the exhibit at page 475, the glucose test is normal. In page, 492 drug chlorpromazine notes and the date 8/7/1985.Same volume at page 503 the glucose level is abnormal at 6.6 fasting. No follow-ups occurred, as it will be shown, what Dr. David Miller had told the tribunal. At page 639, the glucose is normal. In page 805, the glucose reading is abnormal at 5.9 fasting. This is dated 14/7/1992.
In volume 3 and page 1063, this dated 28/12/1994. The glucose level fasting is 6.3. This is abnormal reading and no follow-ups were done by hospital. At page 1074 the glucose reading was fasting 8.8 and the Creatinine was 0.141 both significant higher readings. This is dated 25/3/1999 (fasting). No hospital follow-ups occurred as prescribed by Dr. David Miller. At page 1191, the glucose reading is very abnormal at 10 and Anion Gap. No follow-up by hospital occurred for the diagnosis of diabetes type 2. This is dated 17/5/2001. Much later in 2007 the diabetes analysis is recorded in 2007.
Professor Bal Jha, an internationally acclaimed psychiatrist has seen the applicant over many years and has accounted all the materials that Professor Goldney has seen. He has observed me and measured me scientifically, who also took notes and has truthfully and in detail recited them before the AAT. The T-5 document, which is also exhibit material or the transcript before His Honourable Lander J is also of the same consistency. The applicant has shown all case notes of the entire psychiatrist he has seen, the hospital discharge summaries over many years from Nepal, Thailand and all over Australia to Professor Jha. He has then assessed the perception of the applicant that he gives about his Army suffering great weight and will do forever akin to one cannot forget and forgive what has occurred in one’s life. He does not agree the assessment of Professor Goldney at all. Professor Goldney has treated the applicant akin to the Psychiatrist Eric Gassy who killed the Head of South Australian Mental Health Service, who has been described as delusional and cannot be trusted. Professor Goldney has alleged that the applicant has reconstructed a blame and shame game on the Australian Army for money on the background of his past criminal convictions. However, such convictions have been spent and the use of it is illegal, as it has violated the applicant’s human rights. Professor Goldney has further violated the applicant’s confidentiality and privacy by supplying a report to the tribunal without his express and implied or written permission. This is also in breaches of Federal Privacy Act. The responsibility lies with the Australian Government Solicitors. They did not issue a subpoena to produce such a report and as such has been obtained illegally. Professor Goldney has moral turpitude and was using University of Adelaide’s logo for his private practice like what former Federal Justice Einstein was doing in using Federal Court logo for his private practice. Actually, Professor Goldney had breached s. 5B of the University of Adelaide Act, which was passed by South Australian Parliament. The applicant in terms of equitable estoppel asks the tribunal to exclude all the evidence of Professor Goldney. He has also not seen the applicant for this tribunal purpose, and has used materials from other proceedings without the applicant’s permission. In addition there is no evidence that he has ever seen the Military Police report in detail like Professor Jha in terms of physical and indecent assault like described by Professor Jha at page 59 of the hearing transcript dated 9/12/2008 at lines 25 to 40. In the record noted by Professor Jha of his last interview with the applicant in mattered indecent assault by Private Jenkins of the Australian Army. To this, Professor Goldney indicated that such stressors are minor and major ones need to actual penis penetration of the applicant’s personal parts. Professor Jha does not agree. He stands by his report now the exhibit material and examined in detail by the respondent’s Counsel at length. Professor Jha has narrated it and explained it with precision and clarity from transcultural psychiatry point of view that was appropriate to the applicant. This fact has not been accounted for in the Bradford criteria. Section 4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 indicates that "injury" means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
. . .
The term "disease" is defined in s 4 of the Act as follows:
"disease" means:
(a) any ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) the aggravation of any such ailment;
being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation. (emphasis added)
The word "ailment" is also defined in s 4. That definition provides:
"ailment" means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).
The term "aggravation" is defined, in s 4 of the Act, as including "acceleration or recurrence".
5. Thus the Act does not use the word "disease" as it is commonly used. Under the Act the term "ailment" is used to describe what is usually considered a "disease", in ordinary language. It is only if an "ailment" or "the aggravation of any such ailment", is "contributed to in a material degree by the employee's employment" that it becomes a "disease" as defined in the Act and an "injury" for which compensation is payable under s 14 of the Act.
The diagnosis by Professor Jha about the applicant’s condition falls within this legislation and also the applicant’s diabetes by its association with paranoid schizophrenia. Because it has a significant statistical correlation and the multiplier effect that Dr. Stevenson agreed being 2 to 4 times greater….
The tribunal must be satisfied with these questions:
(i) Was the applicant subjected to bullying, harsh and humiliating treatment during service by way of verbal racial and sexual abuse, physical, indecent assaults, and sexual teasing?
(ii) If so, did that treatment contribute to a material degree to an aggravation of the applicant’s paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes?
(iii) Was there a delay in treatment of the applicant’s paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes, which aggravated the ailment and increased his impairment or incapacity?
Having regard to the applicant’s truthful evidence and by his expert witness and all exhibits tendered by the applicant the reply to this questions must be “yes”.
Aggravation may be by an acceleration of the course of an ailment, or by making the symptoms or prognosis of an ailment worse. Aggravation may result from a failure to diagnose and treat a disease if that results in a worsening or aggravation of the condition, when compared with the course which given timely treatment it would have taken. (See Johnston v The Commonwealth (1982) 150 CLR 331). Increased pain or other symptoms may constitute an aggravation, even though no pathological changes take place. (See Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626).. It is a difficult question whether in the case of schizophrenia, which is a psychotic ailment, an increase in stress, humiliation, and psychological trauma results in an aggravation of the ailment. An aggravation may make an ailment worse by making it more severe, or more resistant to treatment, or by making it more persistent in terms of not having the sort of remission that would in many cases be expected after a first episode of schizophrenia. In order to be compensable under s 14 of the Act, an aggravation must result in incapacity or impairment.
In Federal Broom Co, the High Court was considering a different legislative provision where the relevant words describing what is now referred to as an aggravation of an ailment or disease were "aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any disease". Windeyer J said at pp639- 640:
The next question then is, was there in December 1960 "an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration" of the disease? The words have somewhat differing meanings: one may be more apt than another to describe the circumstances of a particular case: but their several meanings are not exclusive of one another. The question that each poses is, it seems to me, whether the disease has been made worse in the sense of more grave, more grievous or more serious in its effects upon the patient. To say that a man's sickness is worse or has deteriorated means in ordinary parlance, oddly enough, the same thing as saying that his health has deteriorated. The word "acceleration" probably presupposes a progressive disease, one that, running its ordinary course, increases in gravity until a climax such as death or total invalidism is reached--its progress to this end result not being ordinarily susceptible of being permanently arrested, but susceptible of being hastened by external stimuli. . . However, in the present case the words "aggravation" or "exacerbation" are more apt than "acceleration" to describe the matters on which the case for the applicant depends.
Although the definition of "aggravation" in the Act only expressly includes "acceleration", we do not doubt that an exacerbation of a disease is an aggravation of an ailment. Thus, the comments of Windeyer J are helpful in considering the concept of aggravation of an ailment.
See Achurch and Comcare [2003] AATA 902 that defies the Bradford criteria of temporality and what Professor Goldney had to say. At paragraph 95 to 171. See Professor Jha in page 76 of the hearing transcript on 9/12/2008 in lines 1 to 5. The same logic is to my next case in USA below.
Professor Goldney indicated that the applicant has no contact with the Army in page 4 in the first paragraph. This is not true. The applicant has given testimony that he has been fighting for his compensation and from that time to now the Chief of Army making him bankrupt are significant stressors in accumulative terms. Dr. Jha has rebutted Professor Goldney in terms of the theory of “repressed homosexuality” before the tribunal. Professor Goldney count not account for the genetic issue of the applicant’s family ever suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The late onset of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes are recognized illness.
The tribunal must have increased confidence from Professor Jha’s prior knowledge, as his results conform to predictions from theoretical considerations and/or prior knowledge about specificity of type of exposure, or specificity regarding the outcome in different subgroups of the population. Association between A and D is coherent with biologic knowledge and/or a plausible mechanistic model of action can be delineated.
He knows from epidemiology strength of association between A and D exceeds that of potential confounders. Association between A and D is consistently observed in different population, with different types of studies, with different types of studies, or in different time intervals.
Professor Goldney has in favour of causation recited temporal relation by showing no mechanism of action of A on any or all stages of D has been established. (He did not even know what Barr-Epstein virus was in cross-examination). In terms of association to my Army service abuses, he indicated exposure to such abuses has not been precisely assessed. Which is invalid by inference. On the hand, Professor Jha showed the association validly with the logic A is a downstream factor of agent/determinant B that has been indicated as a casual factor of D. A has been associated with B that has been indicated as a casual factor of D. In terms of Professor Goldney there was differential bias (response or observer bias) in the direction of an association between A and D. Professor Goldney was invalid as there he showed my Army exposure being misclassified He showed observer bias without seeing me for this matter with unknown effect on the association between A and D. Thus the pragmatic dialogue approach to casual inferences about an agent or determinant A with respect to a disease D: Evidence from epidemiological studies in temporal relation Professor Goldney remained invalid in favour temporal relation and association issues.
Professor Goldney has introduced in this matter definition of causation from epidemiologic literature. Many disease (including schizophrenia) definitions already include a cause (eg. AIDS is a clinical syndrome in the presence of HIV infection of CD4 cells), but this must not be confused with a necessary cause. All clinical symptoms that occur in AIDS patients can have a variety of other “causes”. This is what Professor Goldney is confused about:
Environ Health Perspect. 2006 July; 114(7): 969–974.
Published online 2006 March 27. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8297.
PMCID: PMC1513293
Copyright This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI
Commentaries & Reviews
Causality and the Interpretation of Epidemiologic Evidence
Michael Kundi
Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Address correspondence to M. Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1095 Vienna, Austria. Telephone: 43-1-4277-64726. Fax: 43-1-4277-9647. E-mail: Michael.Kundi/at/meduniwien.ac.at
The author declares he has no competing financial interests.
Received May 8, 2005; Accepted March 27, 2006.
See letter "Risk Assessment and Epidemiologic Evidence in Environmental Health Science" on page A634a.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract
There is an ongoing debate regarding how and when an agent’s or determinant’s impact can be interpreted as causation with respect to some target disease. The so-called criteria of causation, originating from the seminal work of Sir Austin Bradford Hill and Mervyn Susser, are often schematically applied disregarding the fact that they were meant neither as criteria nor as a checklist for attributing to a hazard the potential of disease causation. Furthermore, there is a tendency to misinterpret the lack of evidence for causation as evidence for lack of a causal relation. There are no criteria in the strict sense for the assessment of evidence concerning an agent’s or determinant’s propensity to cause a disease, nor are there criteria to dismiss the notion of causation. Rather, there is a discursive process of conjecture and refutation. In this commentary, I propose a dialogue approach for the assessment of an agent or determinant. Starting from epidemiologic evidence, four issues need to be addressed: temporal relation, association, environmental equivalence, and population equivalence. If there are no valid counterarguments, a factor is attributed the potential of disease causation. More often than not, there will be insufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies. In these cases, other evidence can be used instead that increases or decreases confidence in a factor being causally related to a disease. Even though every verdict of causation is provisional, action must not be postponed until better evidence is available if our present knowledge appears to demand immediate measures for health protection.
Keywords: causality, epidemiology
The principle of causality, so deeply embedded in humans’ minds that it has been thought of as immediately evident, is the very foundation not only of all three monotheistic world religions but also of the first staggering steps of science [de nihilo nihil (nothing can be born of nothing); Lucretius 1951]. Hume (1739) was the first to note that there is no logical foundation in the assumption that if in the past every event has had a cause, this will also be the case in the future and, furthermore, that what we perceive in daily life as well as in science is only a sequence of events but not cause and effect. Although Hume deeply believed in the truth of the principle of causality, he pointed to the role of the human mind in constructing reality and the futility of scientifically proving its validity. Kant (1791), as he became acquainted with Hume’s thoughts, was awakened from his metaphysical slumber, or so he kept saying, and set out to solve the problem of how Newton’s physics, which he thought of as eternally true, could be possible in the face of Hume’s demonstration that it cannot be inferred from experience. The Copernican turn in Kant’s reasoning was to imply the principle of causality from the assumption that it is among the conditions of every experience. Indeed, if A is a necessary condition of B, then B is a sufficient condition of A. Hence, if for every experience we make (B) it is a precondition that everything has a cause (A), then from the fact that we do have experiences (B), it follows that everything has a cause (A). However, to make this a logically coherent theory, Kant had to sacrifice “objective knowledge”—that is, the Ding an sich (the “thing in itself”) remains incomprehensible for the human mind. For more than 100 years, the philosophy of science circled around either the assumptions or the (untoward) consequences of Kant’s solution. When in 1905 Einstein published his special theory of relativity and his theory of the interaction of electrons and light (Einstein 1905a, 1905b), the very foundation of Kant’s philosophy was called into question: the universal truth of Newton’s mechanics (Newton 1726) and the validity of the deterministic concept. These considerations not only profoundly changed modern science but also resulted in an open-ended controversy within epistemology. And last but not least, epidemiology and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence are deeply connected to these fundamental considerations about the nature of human knowledge.
Defining Cause and Causality
The most advanced sciences, physics and chemistry, have altogether abandoned the concepts of cause and effect. These terms are no longer used in these sciences. Newton had already replaced cause and effect with functional relationships; however, to make himself understood to his contemporaries, in the third book of his Principia (1726) he spoke about causes (especially to defend his position of what can be called a minimal sufficient cause). Nevertheless, “cause and effect” remained terms used in physics, somewhat anachronistically, especially for scholarly purposes until the end of the 19th century. Mach (1883), alluding to Hume, stressed the psychological nature of these concepts and pointed out that “in nature there is no cause and no effect” and that these concepts are results of an economical processing of perceptions by the human mind.
The notion that diseases have natural causes and are not God’s punishments or trials or curses of malicious beings or results of supernatural forces has not even fully penetrated Western culture, let alone become the prevailing view worldwide. Despite its metaphysical character, the etiologic axiom that every disease has an endogenous and/or exogenous cause was extremely successful and is still the foundation of scientific medicine. However, what actually “causes” a disease has from the very beginning been a matter of controversy. Indeed, a single clinical phenomenon can have quite different “causes,” and one “cause” can have quite different clinical consequences (Table 1). These facts are not consistent with the original concept of causation, which states that a cause is an object that is followed by another, and where all objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second (Hume 1739). Not even for infectious diseases does this (strong) concept of causation hold. (Hume gave several “definitions” of a cause, among these also what has been called the counter-factual approach, discussed below.)
Table 1
Definitions of causation from the epidemiologic literature (modified from Parascandola and Weed 2001).
How, then, should cause and causation be defined? In a review of definitions of “causation” in epidemiologic literature, Parascandola and Weed (2001) delineated five categories. However, all of these definitions (summarized in Table 1) have severe deficits. Not totally unexpected, the definitions found in the literature are insufficient to provide a basis for the notion of disease causation. As pointed out above for physical phenomena, it is also impossible for disease processes to draw an ontologic demarcation within the indefinite stream of events between causal and noncausal associations.
Consider a human being as a complex input–output system that is described by a path through a state space (of likely very high dimensionality) that may or may not explicitly depend on time. The task is to solve the equations that relate the input stream, the output stream, and the internal states to each other. The solution could give the probability that the human being will be in some internal state of disease at some point in time given a set of initial and/or side conditions. If we were in possession of such a tool, we would not need the crutch of a concept of causation. Meanwhile, in a pragmatic sense, it is reasonable to stay with this concept but hold in mind that it is just an economical way to organize the otherwise unfathomable stream of events and to take the necessary steps to counteract or prevent the disease process. The process of diagnosis itself is one of abstraction and generalization because no two diseased human beings given the same diagnosis have exactly the same features.
In this pragmatic sense, disease cause can be defined as follows: Given two or more populations of subjects that are sufficiently similar for the problem under study, a disease cause is a set of mutually exclusive conditions by which these populations differ that increase the probability of the disease. In some cases, the similarity must be high, such that only homozygous twins can be studied; in other cases, maybe only sex and age must be considered, or the state of immunity. To avoid encumbering the definition with unnecessary complexity, we use the term “conditions” and the active verb “increase.” What is meant is that a number of extrinsic and/or intrinsic factors (i.e., conditions) can be discerned that are present before diagnosis of the disease and that prevail at a time and for a duration that is compatible with what is known about the natural history of the disease. Hence, this temporal relation is a precondition for an agent to be considered a causal factor. The “conditions” must be mutually exclusive (e.g., groups of males characterized by one of the following conditions: smoking or having smoked cigarettes, cigars, pipes only, more than one of these, or none), because otherwise the increase in the probability of the disease cannot be uniquely related to any one of them.
This definition is in line with the main designs of epidemiologic studies: the cohort, the case–control, and the randomized controlled trial. It is also in line with the pragmatic definition that assessment of causality affords more than just the observation of an increased incidence or prevalence in some group or the other. This is the point from which Sir Austin Bradford Hill started his considerations that led to what are now commonly called the “Bradford Hill criteria” (1965).
Taking Refuge in Causality
It seems that the first time causality entered the discussion on epidemiologic results was during the tobacco controversy in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In particular, the criticism of Fisher (1959) concerning the conclusions drawn from the British Doctors Study by Doll and Bradford Hill (1954) initiated a detailed consideration of the concept of causality that led to the famous presidential address by Bradford Hill to the Section of Occupational Medicine of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1965. In this talk, Bradford Hill discussed nine issues that should be addressed when deciding whether an observed association is a causal relationship. These issues, now called the “Bradford Hill criteria”—although they were not intended as criteria and not all of them have stood the test of time—are still the starting point of many a treatise on the subject today.
The Bradford Hill criteria were established such that, in the case they are met for a specific factor, this would increase our confidence in this factor being causally related to the disease. However, they were not intended to dismiss a factor as potentially causing the disease: “None of my nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against the cause-and-effect hypothesis and none can be required as a sine qua non” (Bradford Hill 1965).
Some statements in the past few years about the relationship between environmental or occupational factors and human health have used the terms “causality” or “causal” in a negative sense—that is, claiming that there is no evidence for a causal relationship. First, one has to discriminate between evidence for no causal relationship, and no evidence of a causal relationship (Altman and Bland 1995). The former expresses an important piece of evidence that may have substantial consequences on steps taken to prevent health hazards, whereas the latter simply expresses lack of knowledge. It is, however, often misunderstood as an exculpation of the agent in question and is readily misused by interested parties to claim that exposure is not associated with adverse health effects.
Some examples of such statements illustrate the point:
· A “formal causation analysis based on an application of the Hill criteria confirms that there is no causal relationship between diesel exhaust and multiple myeloma” (Wong 2003).
· “Applying a weight-of-evidence evaluation to the PCB [polychlorinated biphenyl] epidemiologic studies can only lead to the conclusion that there is no causal relationship between PCB exposure and any form of cancer” (Golden et al. 2003).
· “Results of these studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF [radiofrequency] exposure and any adverse health effect” (Ahlbom et al. 2004).
There are significant differences between these statements. The last one claims that there is no “consistent or convincing evidence” (whatever this may be) of a causal relation. Hence, it points mainly to the lack of knowledge accumulated so far. The second one goes a step further: It claims that risk assessment based on the weight-of-evidence approach [as applied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1999) or the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2004)] leads to the conclusion of no causal relationship. However, there is no category of this type in the weight-of-evidence approaches. Either the category “not likely carcinogenic to humans” (U.S. EPA 1999) or “evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity” (IARC 2004) may be used. Because of the by far higher demands on quality and size of studies set out to dismiss the assumption of carcinogenicity, there is an inherent imbalance of classification concerning carcinogenicity and lack of carcinogenicity. The first statement goes still further: It claims that an analysis based on the Bradford Hill criteria confirms that there is no causal relationship. Because the only Bradford Hill criterion that is essential is “temporal relation,” the only way to confirm—based on these so-called criteria—that there is no causal relation is to demonstrate that exposure commenced after disease onset. All other evidence may reduce the weight in favor of a causal relationship but cannot confirm that there is no causal relationship.
Professor Goldney claims that no paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes was diagnosed while the applicant was in the Army in terms of the “temporal relation” with the applicant’s suffering any abuses. Transculturally the psychiatrists and doctors erred in making such diagnosis is a possible explanation. The genetic factor of the applicant in diabetes was there, and from there the probable diagnosis of schizophrenia could be inferred too is a valid argument, and Army health service did not provide adequate treatment in time and the late onset of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes in the applicant late onset is a reasonable hypothesis in the mind of the applicant in terms of casualty and causation or association. The cautions from these authors are what Professor Goldney is trying to do, that is to mislead the tribunal.
Bradford criteria fail to address the issue of the plight of asbestos related illness that develops gradually much after the events. Have there not been compensation payouts? This is the exactly the term what applies meaning ‘insidious’ disease which operates acting gradually and imperceptibly but with grave consequences. This was the exact words used by Professor Jha in the hearing for the applicant’s late onset of paranoid schizophrenia, and no genetic factor was observed by him Thus, this paranoid schizophrenia is a disease developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent could be satisfying to the tribunal with the global or universal application of the Bradford criteria in this matter. It just does not accommodate specifically the cultural component that was addressed by Professor Jha in his last two pages of the report that is the exhibit in the hearing.
At page 3 of the Goldney report, the author fails to reply specifically the value system of the applicant that is specific in a warrior class from Hindu religion. The applicant had indicated to him Baxter had violated his property in Kapooka in 1981 (evidence in 2004), Neil showing private parts and masturbating it (evidence in AAT 2004) and much more all accumulated to make the Army life a failure and this has been the unfinished business of the applicant as a migrant and ethnic minority in an urban setting. Professor Goldney has used Dr. Murphy in 1984 and there is no report of Dr. Cantor in 21/3/2005 as Professor Goldney has just fabricated a data in page 3 of the report concerning the applicant’s psychosis. This is a milestone or marker of the developmental phases of the applicant’s illness. The applicant has had and ongoing contact with Army since 1982 for compensation and pensions and following litigations. Professor Goldney at page 5 clinches the question 6 with however that he fails to see direct associations between stressors and onset of the insidious disease of the applicant as a true and global scientist, who writes reports to benefit the employer without the applicant’s wishes by using Adelaide University’s logo as the best person who knows these issues, and reduces the whole belief and value system of the applicant with one word “credible”. He is credible and others are not, His theory id tenable and others are not. By doing Derida deconstruction one finds how he is the central theorem of belief and others are required for exclusion as being marginal. Thus, he is not a scientist but a Courtroom performance artist with diabolical outlook in terms of being unethical and unlawful.
The respondent seeks to dismiss the complaint of the applicant as by law he refused to see Professor Goldney. It says it is more credible to obtain the report as it did under the circumstances to dismiss the applicant’s claim as DP Jarvis has ruled the use of Repatriation Commission data in these proceedings and as such, Professor Goldney’s testimony and report is more credible than Professor Jha is. Other dissatisfaction of the applicant of Professor Goldney is immaterial. The applicant does not agree with it.
Professor Goldney has failed to justify the direct association of diabetes and schizophrenia. See page 20 of the hearing at lines 20 to 25, page 21 at lines 30 to 40, page 23 at line 30 the applicant indicated Professor Goldney violated his trust was the word used by the applicant, there is evidence that the applicant did not get proper psychiatric treatment in Nepal in page 25 lines 15 to 20, About the applicant’s cultural value system is at lines 20 to 45 in page 32 and again in page 33.
Professor Goldney fails to adequately reply to Professor Jha and this tribunal cannot be satisfied with his over simplification and reduction of data that mattered the applicant. See at pages 59 lines 5 to 35, page 60 at lines 45 and next page to line 20, page 64 starting line 24, and to page 68 ending, again at page 71 line 1 to 10, at page 74 lines 15 to 45, and pages 75 to 76, at page 78 in lines 40 to 45, pages 79 to 83, Finally at pages 94 to 102.
Applying Bradford Hill's Criteria for Causation to Neuropsychiatry
Challenges and Opportunities
Robert van Reekum, M.D., F.R.C.P.C., David L. Streiner, Ph.D., C.Psych. and David K. Conn, M.B., F.R.C.P.C.
Received March 7, 2000; revised May 8, 2000; accepted May 25, 2000. From the Department of Psychiatry and Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, Toronto; Division of Geriatric Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Address correspondence to Dr. van Reekum, Department of Psychiatry, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, 3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON M6A 2E1, Canada.
This paper has addressed the need for rigorous criteria to establish causation in neuropsychiatry but has not yet addressed the process of establishing an argument of causation. How is it that we finally become convinced that A causes B? Ultimately we need to decide for ourselves, based on our review of the evidence. However, as humans we also value the opinions of others, especially "experts," and often it is not until a consensus of expert opinion is available that we will accept an argument of causation. Caution is warranted, however, because even experts may be prone to bias. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in court, where experts from the two sides may argue with great passion, and often from the same set of facts, as to whether a particular lesion in the brain is responsible for a particular Behavior. Awareness of the criteria for establishing arguments of causation, and of the research strategies (with their limitations) available to address these criteria, lowers our risk of being misled by the "expertise" of others.
See the article as it applies in my case.
· Search APA PsycNET
· PsycALERTS
· MyAPA
· PsycARTICLES:
· Citation and Abstract
View Article
Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in people with schizophrenia.
Resnick, Sandra G.; Bond, Gary R.; Mueser, Kim T.
Current issue feed
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 112(3), Aug 2003, 415-423.
This study evaluated the hypothesis that trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) severity would be positively associated with schizophrenia symptoms. Forty-seven clients with schizophrenia were assessed for schizophrenia severity and for lifetime trauma history and PTSD symptoms in 2 independent symptom interviews; 35 (74%) participants reported at least 1 event in which there was threat of harm or life threat and subjective distress, and 6 (13%) had current PTSD. Trauma across the life span was associated with greater severity of PTSD. Within the total sample, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater emotional distress, but not with schizophrenia-specific symptoms. Distress among clients with schizophrenia and PTSD suggests the need for routine assessment of PTSD and development of PTSD interventions in this population. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)
· Digital Object Identifier:
· 10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.415
Professor Goldney had indicated trauma couldn’t cause schizophrenia. See also about the association between schizophrenia and diabetes type 2.
December 11, 2008
Back to 1996 4th Quarter Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 11, 4th Quarter 1996
Schizophrenia: An Update of the Selenium Deficiency Hypothesis
James S. Brown, Jr., M.D.1 and Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Download The Full Text Article in (PDF)
Back to 1996 archives
Back To Archive Home Page
Subscribe to the JOM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
The nine Bradford Hill criteria are used to further assess the
possibility that selenium deficiency may be a risk factor in
schizophrenia. This hypothesis appears compatible with the known link
between industrialization and schizophrenia since air pollution
increases soil acidity, reducing selenium?sbioavailability. Several
feasible biological mechanisms for a selenium deficiency?schizophrenia
association are also identified, including prostaglandin imbalances,
viral mutation and excess 12-HPETE production. Evidence of a strong
negative correlation between activity of the selenoenzyme glutathione
peroxidase and schizophrenic brain atrophy is also reviewed. Nine
surveys, conducted between 1880 and 1963 indicate a continuing negative
relationship between selenium levels in fodder crops and United States
schizophrenia prevalence. Such variations in the prevalence of
schizophrenia in state and county mental hospitals suggest a selenium
related relative risk of 1.77:1. International similarities in the
spatial distributions of schizophrenia and celiac disease, cancer of
the esophagus and multiple sclerosis (all of which appear to involve
selenium inadequacy as either a cause or an effect) further support a
role for selenium deficiency in schizophrenia. It is concluded that the
available evidence warrants the careful testing of selenium
supplementation in the prevention and possible treatment of
schizophrenia.
Professor Goldney has given priority to bio-chemical model and relegated the applicant’s belief and culture of being from the soldier class as being reconstructed memory. The critiques of his approach are:
The practice of critical psychiatry has important ethical implications. It is often
difficult to work in the biomedical model in a way that really respects and engages with
the patient's beliefs and preferences. What point is there respecting the patient's view
if you believe that the main objective is to rectify a neurochemical imbalance in
someone's brain? The social model, on the other hand, recognizes that the meaning of
distress is culturally contingent, and so engaging with the person's belief systems and
values is of paramount importance. This can only be achieved by listening carefully and
respecting the person's beliefs. Critical psychiatry also brings a political perspective
on mental health issues. The biomedical model locates distress in the disordered function
of the individual's mind/brain, which relegates social contexts to a secondary role. This
is problematic because it completely overlooks the role of poverty and social exclusion
in psychosis. One of critical psychiatry?s most important tasks is the creation of a new
dialogue between survivors, mental health service users and psychiatrists, a dialogue
that recognizes the value of different types of expertise. Psychiatrists are experts by
profession, but service users are experts by experience. The best outcomes will only be
achieved when these two types of expertise can work in alliance, something that critical
psychiatry argues must happen now. The government already recognizes the importance of
alliance between patient experts and health professionals in the area of chronic physical
illness, by establishing an Expert Patients' Task Force to consider how professionals can
work in partnership with expert patients. We believe that this model must be applied to
the field of mental health, and we hope the government will not waste an excellent
opportunity to act on this.
The Critical Psychiatry Network can be contacted on http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/
Phil Thomas
Consultant Psychiatrist
Bradford Community Health Trust
Senior Research Fellow, Bradford University
Co-chairs, Critical Psychiatry Network
Joanna Moncrieff
Specialist Registrar
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
Correspondence to:
Dr. Phil Thomas
Bradford Home Treatment Service
26 Edmund Street
Bradford BD5 0BJ
One observation is from this conference:
The utility and role of modern epidemiological methods in the assessment of causal
relationships between psychosocial stressors and psychiatric illness and cardiovascular
disease were canvassed. A consensus was reached that use of the science of epidemiology
was appropriate and necessary in the process of examining potential causal associations
between stressors, stress and disease.
The process of causal inference was recognised as complex and subject to interindividual
variation. It was considered that the use of causal criteria such as those attributed to
Sir Austin Bradford Hill assisted in clarifying observed associations from causal
associations. The Bradford Hill criteria are:
Strength of association
Consistency of association
Specificity of association
Temporality of association
Gradient of effect (dose)
Biological plausibility/coherence
Experimental evidence
Analogy
It was recognised that in assessing causal associations between stressor experiences and
many of the psychiatric and cardiovascular disorders a number of the criteria would not
be met fully or at all. However, it was felt that in the consideration of the body of
evidence, the Bradford Hill or similar criteria should be used as an important part of
evaluating causality between stressor experiences and disease.
It was considered that once causality had been inferred, a dose, based on the available
sound medical scientific evidence, could be determined. In some situations the dose would
take the form of a threshold effect in that only after a certain exposure would a
negative health consequence emerges.
Outline of Broad Issues and the Consensus Findings
How can we establish causes, measure and set doses that explain any association between
exposure to stressors, psychiatric illness and cardiovascular disease?
A number of differing models and definitions of stress were considered. Stress may be
referred to as a cause or as an effect and the term ?stressor? is gaining greater
acceptance as a representation of the cause. Stress then refers to the psychological and
physiological responses which result from experiencing a stressor. For the purposes of
considering potential causal associations the term stress was considered ambiguous and
difficult to quantify and the term ?experiencing a stressor? was preferred by the
conference participants. The conference canvassed a number of opinions about the nature
of stressors and the essential elements of stressors that lead to adverse outcomes in
terms of psychiatric illness or cardiovascular disease.
The ex-service representatives provided the stimulus for the development of a definition
of military stressor. This definition was formed on the DSM-IV definition of the stressor
criteria required for the diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder, the advice of the
expert participants, (including that arising from systematic studies and data analyses,
in particular Dr Terry Keane), and input from the ex-service representative observers at
the conference. A stressor relevant to military service was defined by the conference
participants as:
The person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with an event or events that involved
actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person’s or other
people’s physical integrity that might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror.
In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans?
The applicant argues that Professor Jha has passed these criteria with flying colour as Professor Goldney could not be relied arising his moral turpitude. The applicant has not been convicted since he has a long time ago and he paid his price and is being as honest that is true to his heart.
The applicant argues that Professor Jha was not provided with any issue about his criminal convictions by Australian Government Solicitors. In fact, it was the applicant who provided him with all AAT decisions, all Court decisions and related transcripts and so on. The applicant did it with spontaneity and transparency. It is not like Professor Goldney’s ridiculous and child like irresponsible response to the tribunal that he had overlooked for fifteen years the illegal use of Adelaide University’s logo for his high profile employer clients. Professor Jha has given significant weight to the perception of the applicant’s ongoing problems with the Army life as it has remained unresolved, and is unlikely to remain resolved for a very long time. This implies from a dictionary meaning ‘the mental interpretation of physical sensations produced by stimuli from the external world’ and ‘intituitive discernment’. This is based upon the applicant’s Hindu warrior class family background. Some of the explanation Professor Jha provides in his report at page 5 in the last paragraph to page 6. Anthropologist Dr. John Mellowship supports this at pages 976 to 982 in volume 3 of the exhibit before the tribunal in evidence to support the argument of this applicant. See also Professor Jha in objective dialogue based on transcultural psychiatry with Justice Lander in page 179 that mattered the applicant’s specific culture and value system in T-5 of the exhibit material. In Japan, the Samurai warriors committed suicide in not living up to one’s family expectation. However, the applicant could not committed such suicide as he believes as a Hindu such acts will make him a ghost. Thus, the applicant has posttraumatic stress and adjustment problems ongoing.
Trevor Markesteyn, MA has written ‘The Psychological Impact of Non Sexual Criminal Offenses on Victim’ for the Corrections Branch, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. See http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/199221-e.asp
The executive summary indicates that, “This report is a review of the psychological harm caused by “serious” non-sexual criminal offenses. It covers the crimes of robbery, nondomestic assault, domestic assault, physical child abuse, kidnapping and murder. A review of the psychological consequences of sexual offenses has already been conducted for the Solicitor General of Canada (see Hanson, 1989; contract No. 1512-HA01300-8901/824). This report is a continuation of that work.” At page 2 of the article in fourth paragraph four it says’ “The research literature indicates the psychological harm is not qualitatively dissimilar for victims of different criminal offenses, but rather is a matter of degree. In other words, although the psychological sequelae experienced by victims of sexual assault, robbery, burglary, and kidnapping vary in intensity, the nature of their distress is similar….” This is contrary to what Professor Goldney indicated sexual penetration is required for maximum stress as a contributing factor of a psychiatric condition. However, the Military Police report in the Veterans’ Review Board has recorded the applicant being burglarized by a Gunner in Kapooka, has been victim of sexual and physical assault and other abuses in a regular basis.
The applicant has gained some insight about his paranoid schizophrenia and his horrible time in Army. See:
787 F.2d 1309
20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 744
Stanley F. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 84-3764.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 5, 1985.
Decided April 18, 1986.
Allan R. Wales and David G. Laidman, Hayes & Wales, Seattle, Wash., for
plaintiff-appellee.
George C. Inman, Jr., Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before WRIGHT, KENNEDY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:
1
Stanley Taylor, a former employee of Burlington Northern Railroad, brought this action
under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. Secs. 51-60 (1982), alleging
that harassment by Burlington's foreman caused him to suffer paranoid schizophrenia.
Burlington appeals from the jury verdict awarding Taylor $504,000, and we reverse the
judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
2
Burlington hired Taylor in June 1977 as a section laborer. Born in 1953, he is borderline
mentally retarded, and, at least at the time he was hired, he was quite obese. The
foreman on two of the section gangs on which Taylor worked was Prentice Bradford.
Although Bradford did not have a high regard for Taylor, there was no trouble between
them initially.
3
Taylor's problems apparently began in November 1978. Taylor had a fight with a coworker
who followed him home one evening and pistol-whipped him; as a result, Taylor lost an
eye. He spent a month with his family in Portland and several months with his brother in
Chicago. During this period, his family thought he was acting differently, and he was
delusional.
4
When Taylor returned to work in April 1979, Bradford began harassing and mistreating him
on a regular basis. Bradford claimed that constant criticism was necessary because Taylor
was a poor worker who used drugs and prostitutes and was involved in fights. Bradford
used sexual and, although both men are black, racial epithets against Taylor, threatened
him with a knife, pulled him around by his beard, and cut off a portion of his beard on
one occasion. Other employees confirmed these allegations at trial. Taylor testified,
however, that Bradford never cut, scraped, or bruised him. Taylor reported Bradford's use
of a knife to Burlington's roadmaster and Bradford's supervisor, Ken Pellens, but Pellens
did not conduct a formal investigation. In late 1979, Taylor transferred to another
section, ostensibly to escape from Bradford. According to Taylor, however, Bradford
visited him there in order to continue the harassment.
5
In April 1981, Taylor was involved in a fight with a coworker and left work out of fear.
After a six-week disappearance, his father found him in a muddy field in Vancouver. Soon
after Taylor returned to his family in Portland, he was committed to a mental hospital
and diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia. He was released in July 1981 but received
injections of an antipsychotic drug on an outpatient basis. He returned to work on a
section gang in Oregon, but Burlington terminated him in March 1982 for insubordination
and failure to work. He was committed again.
6
At trial several expert witnesses testified that Bradford's abusive conduct contributed
to Taylor's paranoid schizophrenia. Burlington also introduced evidence suggesting that
fights with fellow crew members, the loss of an eye in one such fight, and substance
abuse contributed to his psychosis….
Further, the applicant has found this review useful of his argument:
Book reviews
Late Onset Schizophrenia
Felix Post
Bethlem & Maudsley NHS Trust, Monks Orchard Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3BX
EDITED BY SIDNEY CROWN and ALAN LEE
Edited by Robert Howard, Peter V. Rabins & David J. Castle. Petersfield and Philadelphia, Wrightson Biomedical. 1999.
275 pp. £43.00 (hb). ISBN 1-871816-39-4
In contrast to the dementias and the affective illnesses, psychoses characterised mainly by paranoid delusions and hallucinations, but without evidence, during initial assessment and later course, of structural cerebral changes or of an affective psychosis with paranoid symptoms, are diagnosed in only 1-2% of psychogeriatric patients, and have, understandably, engaged only a small number of researchers. Twenty of them were joined by two researchers in less focused aspects of schizophrenia at a meeting of the International Late Onset Schizophrenia Group. With two members from the host country (UK), attenders came from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, India, Japan, Spain, Switzerland and the USA. Their papers and a consensus statement are presented in this book, which appeared less than 1 year after the meeting, a cause of congratulations to both editors and contributors. The volume contains all that is known or is being discussed on the subject of late-life psychoses and their management. It is required reading for both researchers and clinicians in psychogeriatrics.
The applicant also notes in fasting high end of 5 in glucose reading (normal being 3 to 5.6). This was recorded in 28/8/1981. This is in volume 1 in page 139. No follow-up was done with Army. In page 188, in the same volume mild eosinophilia was detected in terms of toxoplasmosis gondii that Professor Jha has out in his differential diagnosis. The applicant was allergic to Army cats and infested with parasites. There is significant correlation between schizophrenia and toxoplasmosis gondii. The date shows 7/12/1981. Like from this article below a link to the development of paranoid schizophrenia of the applicant was emerging via his urban living, migration and his ethnicity being minority being abused. See below:
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 11, 4th Quarter 1996
Schizophrenia: An Update of the Selenium Deficiency Hypothesis
James S. Brown, Jr., M.D.1 and Harold D. Foster, Ph.D. Download The Full Text Article in (PDF)
Back to 1996 archives
Back To Archive Home Page
Subscribe to the JOM
Abstract
The nine Bradford Hill criteria are used to further assess the possibility that selenium deficiency may be a risk factor in schizophrenia. This hypothesis appears compatible with the known link between industrialization and schizophrenia since air pollution increases soil acidity, reducing selenium’sbioavailability. Several feasible biological mechanisms for a selenium deficiency–schizophrenia association are also identified, including prostaglandin imbalances, viral mutation and excess 12-HPETE production. Evidence of a strong negative correlation between activity of the selenoenzyme glutathione peroxidase and schizophrenic brain atrophy is also reviewed. Nine surveys, conducted between 1880 and 1963 indicate a continuing negative relationship between selenium levels in fodder crops and United States schizophrenia prevalence. Such variations in the prevalence of schizophrenia in state and county mental hospitals suggest a selenium related relative risk of 1.77:1. International similarities in the spatial distributions of schizophrenia and celiac disease, cancer of the esophagus and multiple sclerosis (all of which appear to involve selenium inadequacy as either a cause or an effect) further support a role for selenium deficiency in schizophrenia. It is concluded that the available evidence warrants the careful testing of selenium supplementation in the prevention and possible treatment of schizophrenia.
The applicant has provided evidence that other factors that the respondent has raised is not operational, and Professor Goldney has used it highly in a prejudicial matter as being more than the Army related alleged abuses. It is his exaggerated version to oversimplify to suit his Bradford criteria assumptions based temporality and causality. His theory fails because it is based on his fabricated assumptions, which is further not believable arising his moral turpitude, and illegality that matters the stealing of the applicant’s data and selling it to the respondent without the applicant’s permission.
The tribunal has erred by not allowing the applicant present the Military Police report as fresh evidence to illustrate sexual abuse on him by Private Jenkins. Thus, the applicant applies the wisdom of Lord Diplock at 362 of Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 had indicated “by providing a relatively low standard for the admission of fresh appeal on appeal; by empowering the standard fro the admission of fresh evidence on appeal….” In contrast, the tribunal had the improper view of applying Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade [1991] 102 ALR 487 at 489-91, which was suggested that this formulation for applicable legal principles for fresh evidence was set too high a threshold, which denied the applicant natural justice of procedural fairness. Thus, the decision of the tribunal contains an error of law.
In sum, there is significant doubt about what Dr. Stevenson and Professor Goldney has to say about the paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes type two and his Army service as horrible experience. The applicant will use constructivism and Derida Deconstruction theories to discredit Professor Goldney and Dr. Stevenson in terms of theirs’ reliance on Bradford criteria for the applicant’s exclusion. They use these criteria in the Veterans’ Entitlement Act related matter. This is not the appropriate forum to use this outdated epidemiology theory as a global utility tool to aid rational minded decision makers for specific context and content of the applicant’s suffering.
The applicant puts his view of Professor Goldney’s ethical and illegal errors as submission:
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
ADELAIDE REGISTRY No.
Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana
Applicant
-and-
Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Commission
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND CONTENTIONS ABOUT PROFESSOR ROBERT GOLDNEY
1. Professor Robert Goldney has violated the terms of our memorandum of understanding. Thus, he has misled or deceived this Tribunal by use of the log and letterhead of The University of Adelaide. The particulars are:
Professor Goldney has disparaged and/or adversely commented on me contrary to clause 10.1 based on the deed of settlement which indicated:
“Except as required by law, in the event of any request for references or other information on Mr Rana made by other universities or institutions, the University shall limit its responses to the provision of academic transcript and information and shall not disparage or otherwise adversely comment on Mr Rana”
This deed was subject of myself and the lawyers of the respondent and the signature authority who signed the deed. The report bears the logo and the University of Adelaide and represents the view of the reporter’s employer.
The applicant argues per estoppel against statute that the respondent relies upon as they compelled me to have an assessment by Professor Goldney. The deed of settlement is a judgment in the Federal Court.
The prior judgment can extinguish a statutory right of the respondent by way of res judicata like this case. See Chamberlin v DCT (1988) 164 CLR 502.
The Tribunal can apply Anshun estoppel to preclude reliance on a statutory defence, which ought to reasonably have been raised earlier proceedings between the parties. See Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 300.
Statutory requirements prescribing formalities for proof of transactions have not prevented the recognition of interests arising by way of estoppel, See Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd [1964] AC 993 at 1015-16.
2. Professor Goldney has not accounted for my taking of anti-psychotic drugs in 1981 per Royal Adelaide Hospital summary discharge of Professor I. Pillowsky and accounted for concerning Haloperidol by AAT of 2004 “but for” having an adverse reaction to it in Royal Adelaide Hospital. I was not provided with a copy of Military Police report between 1982 until 2004. Thus, many contemporaneous doctors did not account for my instability, and consequent symptoms of poor concentration, poor memory and violent mood swings and bizarre behaviour with religious hallucinations at Buddha House and Hare Krishna temple accounted for by Dr. Pasquale and transcripts of AAT 1988 and 2004 proceedings of Dr. Kutlaca inclusive. I was excluded from Hare Krishna temple and Buddha House (they apologized to me at SA Equal Opportunity Commission in 1991).
3. I find it bizarre that Professor Goldney indicated that I provided to him only peripheral matters and failed to account for Drs. Hoff, Kutlaca, Cotton, De Pasquale and entire hospital discharge summaries dating back from 1981 until now. I had taken it to Adelaide University Security and asked them to send it to Professor Goldney on 3/1/2008. I have received a letter from Minter Ellison indicating a bundle of documents turned out in theirs’ mail slot etc “…We suspect they were done so inadvertently. They have no relevance to the University’s affairs….” I will be tendering this letter as a reference to the blatant interference by the University and it’s employee in my “best interest” not being served and that Professor Goldney’s erroneous claim of me being restrained by a restraining order so that he could not assess me in the University’s grounds. He cited wrong names and wrong politicians and I gave him the evidence being such names like Andrew Southcott, Natasha Stott Despoja and much more. There is no evidence of such restraining order and he has erred in fact that he must have been confused after talking with Nina’s parents or University via Anthony Long had attempted to take one “but for” Andrew Long fraudulently claimed being a JP and the case collapsed in 2002. I had correctly showed Professor Goldney the terms of the deed of settlement, that was my evidence as to why I could not see him in University grounds, and that he could not use its logo and or letterheads etc. Thus, his construction that I tried to attempt “scientific fraud” or act out per the allegation of VET Board, and such bizarre claims that I did not have symptom history recorded of poor concentration, memory and medications is not supported by evidence if all my box of data was excluded by his employer. Moreover, all those doctors and hospital had comprehensively accounted for what he has failed to account for like Dr. Bal Jha has done. The particulars are:
The letter of Minter Ellison dated 18/1/2008
The deed of settlement and all the evidence concerning my non-compliance by SA Police to subpoena (all affidavits on the matter) will be relied in the final hearing. All affidavits covers my deed of settlement with Australian Federal Police and Queensland Police Special Branch matter relating to my complaint of sexual abuse
dating back to 1981 and the destruction of such evidence. This the Professor has failed to account for in his assessment by use of selective memory and reporting
4. The Professor has not accounted for that I was not given access to psychiatric assessment done by Dr. Desh Raj Kunwar in Nepal after I turned up in British Embassy AWOL in 1981. I was denied discovery of this fact by AAT of 1988 and 2004. There are very important documents concerning communications between Nepalese Army Hospital, British Embassy In Kathmandu with Australian High Commission in New Delhi. I was seeing Dr. Desh Raj Kunwar for severe mental disturbance. No wonder Dr. Tony Davis and Professor Goldney erred to account for the confession of Private Jenkins and sexual abuse against me. The professor agreed that like De Pasquale, that sexual penetration was required against me and that paranoid personality disorder was deemed latent homosexuality enjoyment that I had with any sexual abuses from my childhood and nothing with my experience with the Army. I find his construction very offensive and insult to my suffering. It was not my recent construction of memory to bolster the construction of paranoid ideation. I will be seeking discovery of all the documents that was denied to me.
5. Professor Goldney has not accounted for the letter of Dr. Kutlaca wrote to Dr. Fellner about what he could do about my constant need for more compensation related support as he had already assessed that it was going to be cut off as being tied with being time based ala “adjustment disorder” per from 1981 until 1985 and no more. Thus, Professor Goldney fails to account for that I was not fit to work as the Army accepted liability on these dates and there was compelling ground to amend the discharge papers being that even I was an administrative liability, and that it could be changed to that I had ground to be discharged on psychiatric grounds. Professor Goldney failed to account the report of Dr. Fellner who was seeing me from 1986 until now in this regard and who was also interviewed by Military Police with abuse related evidence of Jenkins in 1986. I need further discovery from the Military Police and need clarification from Dr. Fellner about his conference with my solicitor Nicholas Isles and the representative of the Military Police. I base this on discovery of evidence.
6. Professor Goldney in his report at page 7 indicated having difficulty understanding me. I was indicating him that being in disability pension from 1992 with Centrelink and having a psychiatric disability rating on or over 20% in the appropriately used rating. This was initially approved by Dr. Cotton and then renewed several times by Dr. Pasquale. I indicated to him that I wanted to be transferred with Department of Veterans Department via change of discharge records as I had asked the VET Board and they had erred in fact findings, as they were not supported by evidence. I guess the Professor is also not supported by evidence “but for” selective reporting to arrive at adverse comments and disparagement that he has made contrary to the deed of settlement by misrepresenting his employer. His biased report must be excluded, as I will rely on the deed of settlement and estoppel of representation and estoppel on the crown.
7. Professor Goldney’s construction of his page 8 per Queensland Police and AFP is not supported by evidence: I showed AFP’s recent deed of settlement as how Kevin Zucaato had been monitoring me about being a sexual predator on false accusation of Nina Gregurev and SA Police. He was the Director of Australian High Tech Crime Unit of AFP. He alleged that I was stalking white leggy blonde women in Russia by being a member of the Hookah Dookah Islamic Terrorist Bandit Mafia. I showed the deed of settlement I had with AFP, How they destroyed evidence of Australian Army soldiers confession with AFP and Queensland Police Special Branch. Professor Goldney indicated to me it was reasonable practice and indicated to me that it was not significant issue that even sexual penetration was involved against me, he concurred with Drs Pasquale and Davis that I by this time a latent homosexual to enjoy it all.
I found his assessment very offensive as my body being defied and he told me that after many years, I should get used to it, and I was suitable for job market from 1981. I was being so pestering, and malingering against the good and benevolent system for long. I was in the extreme, and very unreasonable, and such unfathomable by him, and his intelligence in terms of the construction of all the materials given to him by the AGS, for his assessment of me by him as a professional a scientist for this forensic purpose.
8. I do not understand at page 10 of the report what Dr. Goldney is getting at. There is no evidence that Army accepted such liability in 15/7/2002 and terminated in 15/4/1985. It is just so unreasonable to accept as just being simple typographical error for the notorious hanging Professor of Psychiatry of Adelaide contrary to the deed of settlement per the above-cited clause.
9. At page 12 of his report, Dr. Goldney accounts for my emails that mattered Nina Gregurev, her mother, SA police and Adelaide University, where Nina studied and now University of SA. He indicated as my paranoid ideation. I have not sent any emails as I am precluded from doing by the deed. It is Nina, who has been doing this since she has been interviewed by http://mainenewstoday.com as one can see her famous interview. I saw it in early October 2007 after watching in Good Morning America. Then I also watched it using the Google. I have the copy of the Google. I sent a post card saying about seeing Nina in USA. The police and specially Sergeant Robert is fabricating it to mislead or deceive this Court to support the affidavit of the stupid claim of SA Police Commissioner for “public interest immunity” in the AAT to allegedly to protect Nina from alleged violence per meeting the threshold test of s. 99 (1) (a) of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). None of the facts presented by Phil Chandler, Sergeant Robert, Mark Gregurev and Police Commissioner in confidence (public interest immunity) meets this test “but for” concocted fantasizes. See Skoldovic v SA Police (unreported, SC (SA) Perry J, No. 4790 of 1994, 4/10/1994 BC….)
10. The applicant has a genuine forensic purpose to investigate as the Gregurevs’ have contacted my psychiatrists. I have evidence to link them to Dr. Goldney and police. Thus, I am not entitled to pension or such compensation benefits. Dr. Goldney using the logo and name of Adelaide University has embellished his reputation to proffer his opinion that I have a chronic underlying paranoid personality disorder, and that Dr. Goldney prescribes that the proposition because of this personality disorder it is probable the Gregurevs have been the victim of me. He qualifies this without any shred of evidence. At page 13, he records evidence of violence allegedly against my ex-wife and yet the police never took out any restraining orders. The current AAT Registrar, Catherine Cashen in the Family Court based on the fraudulent and secretive information to the Australian Federal Police did take an injunction against me. The particulars are about my top model daughter Maya:
Not remove her from Australia
Not molest, interfere, harass or intimidate my ex wife and Maya
Not enter her residence or place of work and much more
11. The applicant did not contest that through his lawyer now Judge of the District Court His Honour Peter Herriman. It still exists.
12. Dr. Goldney alleges falsely and without evidence that I contacted herpes in Hong Kong in 1981.
13. Dr. Goldney at page 13, did note the opinion of Dr. F Lane as being “…grounds for a psychiatric discharge” from the Army “but for” I was transferred from there to Repat Hospital to ward that direction and that I was being made ready for more torture.
14. At page 17, Dr. Goldney is not supported by evidence to his preference of Dr. Davis. I had told Dr. Pasquale about abuse and military police reports. I am surprised that Dr. Goldney like Dr. Davis has not read the 250-page report. All of that report accounts my suffering in the Army from physical to sexual abuse as confessed by few soldiers including Jenkins per the decision of VET Board. They were contemporaneous evidence dating back to 1984/85. Even before the report of Dr. Kutlaca of 1985. That report was made available to me only in 2004. Drs. Pasquale and Bal Jha have read about them more than any other doctors have. Thus, Dr. Goldney’s proposition of “retrospective reconstruction to attempt to crate reality and meaning to a paranoid person’s experiences” is not supported by contemporaneous evidence.
15. Dr. Goldney was provided by me all clinical notes of all of my doctors and he has not accounted this. Dr. Goldney has failed to account that I had poor concentration in 1981/82 as observed by Dr. Carmine Des Pasquale about an incident where I dropped the rifle in front of the public, while doing a military parade. Dr. Pasquale’s reports have recorded this symptom in several of his reports dating back to 1986.
16. Dr. Goldney commented in his report erroneously about my sustaining venereal herpes in Hong Kong and the reality was Bangkok. He also comments about my ex-wife within the quotation mark. He refers to this manifestation of my behaviour being within a personality disorder and that not being within a psychiatric illness. It is unreasonable of Dr. Goldney to indicate that personality disorder is not a psychiatric illness. In fact, AAT of 1988 and Dr. Kutlaca had found that my Army service had contributed to an aggravation of this personality disorder. Whereas Dr. Hoff was indicating that I had an element of personality disorder and chronic reactive depression that had hospitalized me contemporaneously on few occasions. Thus, Dr. Hoff indicating that my departure from the service was inevitable. My evidence was that I had remained under the observation of Dr. Desh Raj Kunwar, a Royal Nepalese Army psychiatrist, as I was being very depressed losing job, wife and daughter. The AAT of 1988 and 2004 refused me discovery from Australian High Commission in India.
17. In the summary and conclusions, of Dr. Goldney the chronology concerning Dr. Davis opinion being accepted by Veterans’ Review Board and AAT of 2004 being rather chaotic. There is no evidence that the Veteran’s Review Board accepted the opinion first and then the AAT later. It should had been the other way around. Dr. Goldney indicated that I was found of false charges in the Army “but for” that in the Army one is found guilty first and then one has to prove on is innocent. I was not given time out to collect evidence to prove my innocence whatever the charges were no matter how small. This is his significant unfairness to me by not understanding the Army culture and to demonize me of having or being within personality disorder (i.e. being manipulative and impulsive). If I can get the report of Dr. Desh Raj Kunwar from Nepal going back to 1982, I know he had indicated that I was having a reactive psychotic illness. He had prescribed me an antipsychotic drug that reacted and I had my tongue coming out involuntarily.
In his reply to specific questions in matter (a), Dr. Goldney justifies that my discharge did not warrant based on my emotional condition. However, Dr. Hoff had indicated that I had mild personality disorder and chronic reactive depression and Dr. Kutlaca had concurred with Dr. Hoff and that I was suffering from ‘adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features’ in the higher chronic range, and he recommended for a compensation from the Army going back to mid July 1982 until April 1985. However, Dr. Goldney asks the reader to discount my claims as what I am saying is the construction tinted with dishonesty to gain compensation as I am suffering now with paranoid ideation and perceptual disorder.
The logic used by Dr. Goldney when he cannot recall the chronology accurately is of unreasonable dimension. Thus, his assessment what is probable to that being possible is questionable, as he has relied on preference to Dr. Davis in the highest priority. Dr. Goldney lacked this chronology about the observations of Drs Cantor, Murphy and Jaggerman in terms of me having psychosis in Brisbane and Adelaide. Those doctors did not have all materials like he has now supplied to him by my employer. Had they be given the contemporaneous materials like in his possession they would be in disagreement with Dr. Goldney. In fact, Dr. Davis also had not been given all the materials provided to him.
The reply to question (b) and his use of the word minimal and time limited. This is not the fact and shown per the acceptance of liability by the Army. The longitudinal issue that involved incapacity relating to concentration and disturbance associated with adjustment disorder and compromising to carry out military duties related opinion by Dr. Goldney are not supported by evidence. Dr. Pasquale’s observation about me dropping the rifle and being unsatisfactory in my duties as a store man in making many mistakes that mattered concentration and memory has been recorded in the AAT 1988 transcripts. My then work supervisor Warrant Officer Whitman elaborated taking over direct supervision as my work to perform Army duties had worsened. That is why I was given a warning for discharge from the Army. This is the most significant piece of evidence Dr. Goldney has failed to note in the chaotic chronology that he has developed.
Dr. Goldney’s opinion about personality disorder and my Army duties is a curious one. In one hand, he says it affected me with reaction of anxiety, depression or inappropriate behaviour. However, he has indicated above personality disorder is not a mental illness like other psychiatric illness. This is unreasonable and illogical conclusion.
18. Dr. Goldney has erred to read the fact about my relationship with Gopi Roka that is per the brief provided by AGS. Roka was convicted of over dozen dishonesty charges. I was there for him to ask Judge Kitchen not to send him to jail. His travel agency was closed.
19. The AGS has alleged to Dr. Goldney that most of these interpersonal conflicts are directly related to my alleged paranoid personality disorder. The fact remains that I have told all doctors of my racial, mental, sexual, emotional and physical abuses to Military Police and at the time of my service to doctors. Those doctors whom I had consulted did not record those facts that it was their’s poor record maintenance. I had also told the Queensland Police about it 1983 and now they have destroyed all such records. I had also told Australian Federal Police (AFP) about the same abuses in detail. I had to go to the High Court after they told various tribunal and higher courts that they did not have it or did not exist. I did a deed of settlement with AFP as they had been monitoring me for many years that I was a dangerous money laundering Russian Mafia in the internet as the “Hookah Dookah” Komrade. I had incurred over A$30000 and was threatened with bankruptcy. In the end, I signed a deed of settlement not to pursue Federal Agent Kevin Zuccato of AFP for damages arising false allegations made against me by him in the Australian High Tech Crime Centre in Canberra. The AFP were happy to forgo all the money I had owed them all the way to the High Court. Dr. Goldney saw the deed of settlement and has not accounted for it to discount its link to my alleged personality disorder and arising stress and not linked to Army service and/or the impact on Army contribution to the question asked by AGS to him.
20. Dr. Goldney has failed to read the time and statements of Military Police report in its contemporaneous setting that recorded the abuses that I had endured between 1980 until 1982. The statements of John Bruno was taken in 26/8/1985, Peter Kiss in 28/8/ 1985, Andrew Jenkins in 8/8/1985. Jenkins had confessed “As to the allegations of sexual harassment, people in the store and workshop used to stir each other. This could entail pinching people on the backside and cracking jokes that someone was homosexual, or had weird sexual preferences. We all did it and all received it. It was all done in good humor, there was no serious implications. PTE Rana would have been included in this skylarking. He definitely wasn’t singled out in any way.”
Dr. Goldney told me that he agreed with Dr. Kutlaca that all my suffering was time based and Dr. Kutlaca had not even seen the Military Police report as it was not made available to me until 2004 ending. Dr. Tony Davis saw me about 2004 just before the AAT hearing. Such conduct was highly offensive to me and I find sex dirty now and have not had sex for many years. The statement of my work supervisor D. Whitman was taken in 8/8/1985. The statement of G.L Francis in12/8/1985. the statement of John Baxter in 26/8/1985, The statement of M.J. O’Neill in 6/8/1985, The statement of B.T. Fallance in 24/9/1985, The statement of W. Kruize in 16/9/1985, The statement of R. K. Aldous in 26/8/1985, the statement of T. McKerron in 23/8/1985, the statement of K.J. Devereux in19/8/1985. These major incidents occurred in my life with Australian Army.
Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister of Defence wrote me a letter in 26/11/1985 about acceptance of liability and termination of it as of 12/4/1985 for “adjustment disorder”. He indicated all the statements proved good old way that Australian do skylarking. I do not agree about my suffering to be time based.
The cumulating effect of my time from Kapooka to Bandiana and then finally Woodside in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia was not fully recorded by Dr. Hoff and the hospitals in detail. Thus, the history of my suffering has tarnished and the respondent alleges that I am trying to construct such symptoms via feigning. They alleged that I have long history of dishonesty in the Army and after in Queensland. I have accurately told the circumstances in the Army and to other AAT hearings of my life with Queensland Police. The application of such negativity is an abuse of my human rights and dignity. This coincidence and /or tendency evidence being used against me contrary to ss. 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) and ‘picked up’ by s. 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
21. Dr. Hoff indicated that I had elements of a personality disorder and some reactive depression at page 184 of the transcript in the hearing date 16.12. 1987. At page 188, Dr. Hoff indicated that in 1981 my reactive depression was acute. I was sent to see this doctor after my problems as accurately described by my work supervisor D. Whitman.
22. Dr. C.D. Pasquale reported about my capacity to work at page 209 starting in the transcript dated 16/12/1987.
23. My concentration was bad and memory was not good. D. Whitman starts at page 514 of the transcript. This page is about my punctuality and reliability. Those details of him go until page 528. The day of the hearing was 528. He describes about my poor paper work as my concentration and memory was impaired. I was given a warning for discharge. I wanted discharge as I did not like the Army life. I started to new career as a patient of mental hospitals due to relief it provided me from abuses related stresses in the Army. I just had to go to Nepal as things became unbearable to me.
24. I had reported an incident to Dr. Pasquale about dropping of rifle in a parade. My concentration was not good performing my duties. This appears at page starting 416 of the hearing on 10/2/1988.
25. Dr. Goldney’s observations that I did not have symptoms history contemporaneously is just not supported by any evidence in terms of my performance of Army duties.
26. Dr. Kutlaca accounted for all those factors and that liability was accepted “but for” being time based.
27. I could not perform my civil duties or rehabilitate myself via studies due to poor concentration and poor memory too. The reports of Drs. Jaggerman, Cotton, Pasquale, Newcombe and others from various TAFE and Universities will prove him that he has not done his work right in the history of symptoms that I had accurately that affected my Army duties based on the development of a psychotic disorder that Dr. Jha proferred.
28. The plethora of court actions I had to take was based of my prosecution by the racist SA Police, Housing Trust, AAT member Hastwell and others. All these details my personal problems with unstable people that I encountered in universities and other institutions, as Dr. Goldney says are linked to my severe personality disorder and nothing to do with Army. However, Dr. Hoff had placed any personality disorder in the low end of spectrum and that as old age would make it to be mature out. Dr. Goldney does not agree with it after seeing me for two hours. Dr. Goldney alleges that I am constructing ‘poor memory and concentration’ linking with psychosis by reading medical journals and feigning symptoms arising paranoid ideation of recent origin. Thus, Dr. Goldney’s opinion lacks credibility to be preferred.
29. I have always been a good litigator and negotiator with proven success and have several deeds of settlements with various universities and never been legally declared as a vexatious litigant. The Australian Government Solicitor has misrepresented Dr. Goldney. I never have been excluded from various universities arising misconduct. This is not true. I had significant concentration and memory problems and wanted to be exempt from group activities. The universities did not do so and I went to courts claiming disability discrimination. They paid me to go and study in another university and that is what I am doing. I got better marks alone as it improved my concentration.
30. Dr. Goldney has not accounted for my days with Hare Krishna and Buddha House both monasteries for Hindus and Buddhists from 1986 until 1990. I could not stay there as I had poor memory and concentration to read Holy Scriptures and recite them verbatim. Thus, my performance suffered as what was required.
31. The incident about Justice Besanko and University of South Australia’s breach of the clause for non disparagement and adverse comment is currently before the High Court and Federal Court for disability discrimination. This justice should had never sat in the case after what he did to me in the Federal Police matter concerning databases (I now have deed of settlement). The University of South Australia is also proposing a deed of settlement with me and I am considering it.
32. Most of the police cases against me has collapsed and I am suing them. Now the police are seeking “public interest immunity” to take restraining order on behalf of Nina Greguev, a sister of a serving police officer. Nina and her family suffer psychotic disorders.
33. I had two car accidents and now I do not drive due to poor concentration after living the Army between 1985 and 1988.
34. I have had money and as I have poor concentration and memory recall since the Army service, I have not restarted my commercial pilot’s training since 1980.
35. I cannot concentrate in even simple job with people as it stresses me out and Dr. Pasquale and others put me in sickness benefit from 1987 until 1992. Dr. Cotton put me in disability support pension since 1992 after one incident with work training in a store. I could not concentrate and did things wrong. Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services supported me for the training after the recommendation by Psychologist of CRS. The Australian Government was involved.
36. I have taken several dozen litigations and do not owe anyone any money.
37. I had falling out with John Mellowship as he tried to bring a young girl under the care of my family this caused me embarrassment. That and his son physically assaulting me were the reasons.
38. I cannot recall all other gory details of my life due to memory recall. They may be true but I will not say anything until police returns my personal diaries of many years ago.
39. I was evicted by Lion Hotel trying to talk to my friends from University of South Australia’ Wine Marketing Group. I was not drunk and a crazy eyed bouncer called Andrew Daft (now known as organizer to Michael Brander and Fink motor biker and hated Asians) tried to eyeball me. Then I was assault and thrown out. I have never been banned as the brief from Australian Government Solicitor to Dr. Goldney says. I reported to Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. From there I got several documents and found the fraudulent banning document. I passed on to Commissioner of Liquor and Gaming. The Commissioner took action against the Lion Hotel in terms of cautioning them. I was satisfied and took no further action. However, Peter Kurko, Inspector of Casino for the Liquor Commissioner, approached me and a clerk called Shane. They called in the police that I was imitating to be a Marc Gregurev via emails, when my computer was with the police, and one Detective Stendt interviewed me and I denied any such accusations. The return path of that email linked to Anthony Long to Adelaide University’s server.
As a result of this incident the police also went and told SA Library that I may be using theirs’ computers and claiming to be Marc Gregurev to harass Nina Gregurev. I was banned for one year. I appealed to the Supreme Court via judicial review and own to remove the ban. I was compensated A$30 for the cost.
40. I have now received Dr. Goldney’s report and along came letter of Greg Camilos, well known friend of George K, a property developer. I have had very disturbing comments about Greg via my friend from University of South Australia, She is Amelia Giannoupoulous (granddaughter of former Honorary Thai Consul-General in Adelaide). I do not like her mother who had done certain things to my friend Patrick Burt (a Barrister). I now know many things where the wind is blowing and why police have taken restraining order concerning Nina Gregurev and wish to just release one page of the order like they did in pending assault matter. I already had that and they did not had included the release before claiming “public interest immunity”.
The most amazing thing is that on the second and third last pages of the second brief is all the lists of restraining orders that the police have not complied with the subpoena. I will ask the AAT to account for them at once. I need them for proper forensic analysis in terms of rebuttal by my psychiatrist.
I think the “public interest immunity” claim will spectacularly fail.
I also will seek the release of all materials that they have relied on the two matters that occurred in Phil Chandler’s “public interest immunity” claim. For example, I was not given the affidavit that the police relied to link me being violent to Nina Gregurev. I have never been violent to her. In fact, the same day I got summons from Elizabeth Police concerning this restraining order I got an electronic greeting card from Nina and family with the masked head of her father Frank. This just does not make sense.
About my complaint to Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) about Richmond Hotel incident of 13/10/2006, I have found out that the original owner have sold it to a new management/owner. I am welcomed back and the bouncer who falsely claimed that I assaulted him has been told not to appear there. Not all the records of the bouncer have been produced to date. The HREOC was directed to contact KPMG, who managed a unit trust. I contacted them for the relevant documents and was told that he does not act for them. My and HREOC investigation has been forwarded to the old owner of Richmond Hotel and to this date no response has come. The police has not respondent to all materials for trial or pre-trial conference by the police. My lawyer Tim Dibden has pitched for withdrawal of all charges without cost. The police are considering it. So far, they have only produced my arrival in the watch house video tape and interview. The charge in law concerning other than assault is not known in law. Such is the farcical episode of my dealing with police.
They have laid the basis of restraining order based on this assault generated by Phil Chandler. My genuine anger that he has drilled down only the database to make me look like a stalker and Indian rapist Rajaratnam. The police also received a false report from the Security of University of South Australia and that email is before DP Jarvis in the last hearing. The police were told:
I have threatened to rape Nina Gregurev
Dr. T. Tafari detained me for similar threats in Adelaide Parklands after Housing Trust received it on 6/6/2007.
I have been monitoring and watching Nina
I have been communicating and following her etc….
40. I received a letter on 18/1/2008 from Tom Martin of Minter Ellison that indicated return of documents. Those documents were stolen by Gary Heath of State Library on 3/1/2008. The Court in Elizabeth granted police temporary restraining order that now I contest. HOT STUFF FROM THE PRESS.
I have used an anti police spyware developed by Nathan (Phd student in Adelaide University and a friend of late Keith Meyers Brown, who both went to see Dr.Carmine De Pasquale for disability support pension as it paid better than other allowances) called “Hookah Dookah Bandit”. I have tracked Phil Chandler and based on his opinion the threat assessment was made that I am going to digitally rape and cyber stalk Nina and have been watching Nina in the virtual reality like her visit to New York for 9/11. Thus, restraining order was made by police with such foolish haste and “public interest immunity” sought by the most high Commissioner of Police. Yet, Nina has been sending me electronic greetings and love with the head of her masked dad with love just like the real Zorro! What does Phil Chandler make up next?
41. I had taken complaint to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal about Buddha House of 3 Nelson Street, Parkside for racial discrimination. It was about false complaints of Dr. Yvonne Dawson of Adelaide University, who wanted me to travel with her in Asia for Tibetan Studies. I declined her request and she went to police of domestic violence and harassment. That is why restraining order stood. I did not want to continue with her studies arising my poor concentration and memory recall. There is a complaint file at that Tribunal entered in early 1990s. The Buddha House apologized to me and I withdrew the matter. I have not gone back since, as I am not interested in memorizing the scripts.
42. I took restraining order against Manu Tamang as he came to Hare Krishna temple, when it was located in Belair Road, Kingswood in 1986s. He used to drink and come to visit me and that disturbed my scripture memorizing there. I became involved in private restraining order, other Nepalese came in numbers, and so that really had a profound impact in my concentration. Manu Tamang wanted to borrow few thousand dollars from me after I had compensation from the Army. That restraining order still stands.
43. I agree that there was some problems I had with Nepalese police and I cannot recall the fine details that occurred in 1982. I was not convicted and I have no conviction in Nepal or Asia.
44. I have told all that is to ASIO, Queensland Police, Ananda Marg and Boggo Road jail.
45. I agree with paragraph 20 of the second brief on page about sexual assaults and molestation on page 5 by various people in Australia and in Nepal prior to my migration. That does not make me a latent homosexual to enjoy as proposed by Dr. Pasquale. I find his comments offensive.
46. I agree with paragraph 21 about the glass panel that fell in my left leg, an assault by an invalid in public bus. They were all dealt in Dr. Hoff’s report between 190-1992.
47. I do not have any stress from my marital breakdown and access disputes. I have by Nepalese custom accepted what my eldest daughter wanted. It was the best decision and today she is a top model wanted all over. I have no problem with my ex defacto or my second daughter. I see Roka now and then. Nina Gregurev took a restraining order as Anthony Long being the JP. I exposed that he was not and the case collapsed. He has done similar things illegally on my behalf. Now Nina has been represented by Phil Chandler after he has become frightened for Nina. He has contacted Nina’s brother and family to complain to Elizabeth Police and now the restraining order has been taken against me after it has allegedly met the threshold test. Phil Chandler has told the police in Elizabeth he has sufficient knowledge about me that I have been watching Nina and following her. This he has linked with an email I provided the AAT and in that are malicious content about me circulated by a Maori security from University of South Australia, and that he claims that I am the Botanical Garden bandit, he seized my property and had forwarded a copy of that email to police.
48. I have deed of settlement from all three universities and they have paid me to study at Deakin.
49. I was told by Keith that Short’s signature was in the folio of the documents that tried to link me with AAT of 2004. Keith has been involved with cases like Peter Giancaspro and John Manderson, and Short was always against Keith. Short was in the dirty deal and I know what he is and I have sued him before too. I have a case against the Casino and Short did dirty on me via Manderson case. My case in local court was stopped in track arising “security for costs”. Short used the same print out that was given to the brief writer, Camilos at page 21 by Thomson Playford. Short lied to the local court that I was an Asian going to Asia and had no property here. He told the court it did not matter that I was a soldier in Australian Army “but for” I am an Asian. The matter is now in the High Court. Thomson Playford used the same printout in the Federal Magistrates Court and the application for “security for costs” was dismissed. Now Camilos is doing the same knowing the precedent in the Federal Court what Short had used falsity to succeed.
50. The matter of glass panel door falling, I being attacked by walking stick proves that my reaction was slow as a result of poor concentration too in the early 1990s. The sexual molestation/assault, failure in interpersonal relationships also proves that as my memory was poor and recall too. My choices of people were not right and I had failed to learn from the past. If the police in Queensland and Nepal had assaulted me then as a result of poor memory I had failed to successfully avoid them too. It seems that my marital breakdown/access and defacto was also linked with poor memory and not being able to learn from my past mistakes. It is a pity that is the reality and points to paranoid schizophrenia related development from August 1981.
51. I assisted Keith for 4 years in Giancaspro case. I made legal history in that and told Keith stop taking other people’s cases for money. He did that with Francis, the solicitor whose signature appears in all of my deed of settlement. I assisted him to win his case against Workcover in late 1990s. Keith took John Manderson’s case just before he died and almost ruined his life and I had to tidy things. Due to long involvement and that money was just not there and Keith started to “bully” me for money related to my deeds.
52. Both of the briefs have significant shortfalls that matter the truthful facts. I have tried to correct them to the best of my ability. I need to check with my diaries further.
53. I find the allegations of Dr. Goldney very offensive in terms of him telling me that I have been feigning poor concentration and poor memory in recent times. This is the worst case of malingering against an employer he has ever seen. The particulars for why he is wring as follows:
In the Army while I was training in Kapooka, NSW and this was first week of December 1981. Sergeant Bruno called out my name and threw a kilo of orange juice to be cut. I had poor concentration arising Army stresses and it hit me in the face. This incident has been recorded in AAT of 1988.
The brief to Dr. Goldney by Australian Government Solicitor has significant flaws in that as it has alleged that I failed to attend my ex brother-in laws wedding, and instead went out with Gopi Roka. In fact, I never went out with Gopi Roka. I had bad memory and poor concentration and that I had forgotten the said wedding and forgot to ask holiday from the Army. I was too stressed out by Army related abuses in Woodside. This was just before my split with my ex-wife in August 1981 and then I got suicidal and was admitted to the hospital.
Dr. Goldney alleged that he agreed with VET decision that I had embellished my symptoms by reading a lot psychiatric materials in the internet at particular site like where I alleged Nina’s mother confessed in http://www.chovil.com
Dr. Goldney was not spot on and he placed time of me seeing and the confession of alleged Nina’s mother confessing was significant and that Dr. Pasquale started giving me anti-psychotic drugs to accuse Army service was spectacular failure. He alleged that I was feigning all psychotic symptoms from this http://www.chovil.com website.
The most important matter about my work performance just before I was discharge from the Army was given by my then work supervisor. He was Warrant Officer Don Whitman in AAT 1987/88 (1987/88 Tribunal hearing). He has not said anything about it in Military Police report in 1985. At the Tribunal, he indicated that I had committed several misconduct at work and they were minor. They were about me not being punctual and not obeying commands from superiors. I could not prove them as I said earlier that in the Army one is guilty until proven innocent. I was not allowed to seek reports from Dr. Hoff about my concentration and memory. The Army had already punished me for using Army psychiatrist as a clutch to my advantage arising from alleged my personality disorder.
Whitman had indicated my performance was okay in Woodside and my standard fell to unsatisfactory level after I had returned back from Nepal in July 1981. All my paper works as a store man was being in errors, and he had to directly take the supervision of me. This caused others to rework the papers.
I was admitted to Royal Adelaide Hospital from August 1981 and given Haloperidol and that reacted very badly. The RMO there had opined that there might be grounds for my discharge from the Army. Then I was suddenly transferred to Repatriation General Hospital for “control”.
I was also referred to see Dr. Hoff as an outpatient of his.
While I was being discharged by the Army I just could not remain in the holding cell at Keswick Barrack folding blankets in the warehouse. My concentration was so poor that I made folding full of errors, and I was abused more. I just could not tolerate such existence and went to Nepal (absent without leave).
I was also consuming alcohol heavily to dull the abuse and that caused me to have poor recall and concentrate.
The history of depression and anxiety has caused me from 1980 after I joined the Army to have poor concentration and poor memory and has affected me in my Army job performance, academic performance and civil job performance and interpersonal relationships that mattered emotional intelligence and utilization of appropriate behaviour. Thus, the names situational disturbance, adjustment disorder and reactive depression, major affective disorder, paranoid disorder and paranoid schizophrenia have links with this history of symptoms. This dates to August 1981 and is currently in operation.
I lost many things and the military police report was not given to me until 2004. Most of the incidents have been reported contemporaneously.
The adjustment of my “poor memory and poor concentration” has not occurred and so the time based conclusion of Dr. Kutlaca and supported by Drs. Davis, Cotton, Hoff, and Goldney all from Adelaide University establishment is pro employer stuff to benefit them.
Dr. Goldney has not properly accounted for what Dr. Alan Cotton’s observation was that I do not have any tendencies or propensities for violence. In fact, not all the psychiatrists and psychologists I have seen have never found me to be violent or dangerous. The fact that some psychiatric nurse in the former Hillcrest and/or Glenside Hospital false reported that I made specific threats to murder my family and a John Mellowship resulted police to visit me several times. Then, I got a letter of apology that this person had contacted a wrong John Mellowship and caused them serious anxiety. I found out this person to be a school friend of my ex wife.
Dr. Goldney had not even read one page of all materials supplied to him in day one. The first brief was faxed to him and me in that interview. Dr. Goldney remained silent when I asked him if he had read all materials in the second interview. The most important matters that I wanted to tell him in Army about my symptoms he indicated that he did not understood me. He has basically rubber stamped what the brief wanted him to find along the lines of personality disorder that mattered mostly being the case even if I had psychosis and that was of recent origin and the symptoms of it to 1981 was feigned like having no “scientific” value.
Dr. Goldney did not wanted me to start how and why my Army duties were being affected and by what reasons. He wanted to take notes of my entire history and I just was not given time to tell him ‘history of symptoms’ that was in August 1981 until now that mattered poor concentration and poor memory arising from my neurotic depression and/or psychotic depression in terms of my adjustment to normal life now. He told me Dr. Kutlaca had done a wonderful job to advocate my case that was just time based.
54. I have a letter from Andrew Schatz dated 17/12/2007 and ref. no. 05054921:AS. In this letter was about my permission clarification on a). Queensland Corrective Services (no criminal records). (b). Commissioner of Police (I agree what have been said in the brief) and my concern has been I was convicted due to situation living amidst the corrupt police and the conviction was in 1983, and has been spent under that state’s and federal laws. However, the lawyer using it as being my tendencies to be a perpetual criminal to brief Dr. Goldney was actually breach of the relevant acts. (c) Two items that the SA Police database manager (Phil Chandler) opposing the release of details to me (i) the incident relating to Richmond Hotel in 13/10/2006. (ii) a restraining order with 07/D91243 taken out in October 2006 (which matched the date of the slander of Darda Gregurev in 31/10/2006 in my mate’s website http://www.nepalhomepage.com
Based in Nepal.
I had a letter from Minter Ellison lawyers of University of South Australia relating to the Justice Besanko matters declining my proposition to settle all litigations. This was dated 21/12/2007.
On that same day in City East Campus, I had gone to apply for a cross institutional studies for 4 subjects to be done at Magill Campus. I was leaving the gates and a Maori Security grabbed me and detained me forcefully for being the Botanical Park rapist. He took all my paper works that had all my psychiatric reports and matters of police database printout.
I have been making inquiries of that secretive restraining order as police had not complied with a long list of such restraining orders. I was just puzzled. I went to Adelaide Police Station and inquired by the given number in a document by Phil Chandler. The Station Sergeant gave me a specific number to contact Elizabeth Police’s Criminal Justice Section. I did that and was contacted by a Sergeant Robert. He was not happy learning who I was and told me it was a complaint by Nina Gregurev being harassed by me and was under investigation and the matter could not be discussed. That meant the threshold test of the relevant law was not met. I alleged had to do two or more things before he could take me to court. I told him that Nina had been ringing me and writing to me many times over and me the same. He was not happy about that and I told him that he should file the matter or charge me. Such matter lying in the database did not make me look good and in fact was deceptive or misleading matter about me the person. I was told to shut up as he need not talk with me and hung up as I was telling him that he ought to be cross-examined.
Similar discussion took place with Phil Chandler as I saw for the first time in the police narratives in the matter Nina Gregurev alleging with the support of a Lawrie that I may have been an Indian rapist, Dr. Rajaratnam of Parramatta. I told him such was a libel and that he can be sued as, he had not corrected the matter. He hung on me the phone conversation.
In the last (11/1/2008) hearing before AAT (Tribunal) the lawyer of Chandler asked, me if I had threatened her client and I said with his attitude that I am a dangerous (medico) victim-drugging rapist from India was the threshold of my tolerance. How psychotic can the database and its manager be?
On 18/1/2008, I got a letter from Minter Ellison that the documents that were seized by the Security had been returned, as it served no purpose of the University. My Federal Court documents were missing that involved Nina Gregurev’s name and allegation that I was going to rape her missing. It was an email to me from Hellen McIver of University of South Australia and with a return path dated 21/12/2007 to Annabel Mansfield. (daughter of Federal Judge of the Federal Court of Australia) Justice Mansfield, who is a Marketing Manager (a friend of Nina Gregurev).
I notice that the Elizabeth Police’s CIB were trying to contact me from 21/12/2007 until 16/1/2008. I did not respond as I was knowing that “public interest immunity” sought by Police Commissioner was a farce and that he needed a face saving and I was not play to his music.
I was served by police on 23/1/2008 restraining order papers with a list of orders and that was filed in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court on 17/1/2008. That took me back to the last hearing before DP Jarvis in the AAT. I heard Phil Chandler ringing action plan to save Nina as he was convinced that I was a dangerous lunatic and a sexual predator online and in real life.
By inference, what the Security of University of South Australia did was to have forwarded those emails to the police, and that had all those violence elements, following and so forth. These chain of events are now heading to the farce of public interest immunity showdown.
Like last time the police will produce the documents that I have already given to AAT, just the charge sheet outlining the orders but not the evidentiary materials. This is grand manipulation by Phil Chandler to make me look in the eyes of Dr. Goldney that I am an obsessed psychopath (anti social personality disorder) who has harmed others like Nina and her family. His way of saying, I do not deserve anything better.
This is also to show that fear do not muck with us. I have sued the Commissioner of Police in the Federal Magistrates Court for disability discrimination in housing and the tort of false imprisonment, the tort of malicious prosecution and negligence. This related to an incident when they falsely detained me under SA Mental Health Act. Phil Chandler has not produced this detention also in terms of compliance to the AAT subpoena. Police with the Housing Manager brought a psychiatrist Dr. T. Tafari along. I had done nothing and was doing my Hindu prayers and just about to prepare my lunch. They detained me based on being dangerous to the public (like Nina Gregurev) and self (bizarre to do yoga and meditation). The psychiatric liaison social worker told me that the psychiatrist had access to the police information on 6/6/2007, and those were the two matters that Phil Chandler had opposed under “public interest immunity” and FOI Act of SA (just out of this planet).
The question is am I stressed out by police burden as a dangerous schizophrenic. Definitely not is my answer. Am I a stalker? Definitely not is my reply. Do the police have any shred of evidence to satisfy a court? No. The proof is that I have received cards, emails, and others with love from Nina.
55. I do not have any time and money to give to Nina as I did baby sit her at the height of her being mentally ill in 1991/92, when she was being detained under the state mental health act to protect her mother from harm. She was at Woodleigh House in Modbury Hospital. In addition, was not certain about life, she proposed marriage to me and all sorts of girlie thing being in the high. I as her only friend had to go along for therapeutic benefit related support to not reject her. She wanted to come and live with me and I declined that. I supported and gave her idea how to get housing trust accommodation. By 1995, she was doing strange things and I got sick of her and her mental illness as I became burnt from her constant crazy ideas that are list after list. She was suffering from schizoaffective disorder.
In 1996, my eldest daughter was getting at Adelaide University and was also working in Rundle Mall then called Good Girl Bad Girl women clothing. I used to see Maya my daughter at Hyatt or Hilton or State Library Café. Nina came there without our invitation. If I asked her to go away, she started incessantly and made my daughter scared. My daughter also told me that Nina was in her lecturers and tried to bully her by asking her sex life. I dropped Nina from start of February 1996. I stopped seeing her with her SA Mental Health friends, who wanted to arrange dates for me other mentally ill girls and I declined. I stopped giving Nina flowers, chocolates, money, taking her to eat out in fancy places and buying her shoes and clothes. She then went on to police that I was stalking her and her friend identified as Lawrie alleged that I was Indian rapist Dr. Rajaratnam Vicekswaran of Paramatta on bail, who drugged women in his clinic. The police prosecution collapsed.
In 1993, I introduced Gopi Roka to Frank Gregurev as he is a travel agent and Gopi had lots still being supported by his former Yeti Travels clients. He recently inherited lots of money from a client for his good service. The connection of Roka with Frank Gregurev appears in the Supreme Court of SA index within http://www.austlii.com
Nina tried to take restraining order when I was trying to fathom what she was telling Adelaide University and University of South Australia’s security in her paranoid extreme mood swing. Then A. Long the self-styled Holocaust Remembrance Eternal Flame Knight got involved as a JP to take restraint order on Nina’s behalf. He coached Nina what to say about me from my files that he found and sold it to Adelaide University to get the current job. Nina has not been well as she was inquiring about Maya and her success. I refused to give her more details as I know she would stalk her apart from known facts in the internet. Now she felt I again rejected her and has gone to police with allegations that I watched her in the internet after she came back from USA and much more the same stuff her brother provided what A. Long with A. Short (false lunatic fuses) have couched Nina with long and short narratives concerning me. I have been temporarily restrained for calling out “justice delayed is justice denied”.
56. I am seeking all the documents that SA Police has collected from Nina Gregurev and her family including all medical records on me. I seek the AAT to ask the police to provide the materials that they find offensive and/of offensive for the hearing and for Dr. Goldney to have a look to form an opinion. I know I gave Darda Gregurev genuine documents in my possession after A. Long and A. Short circulated the doctored version to persuade her that I had not concocted about her daughter and her mental illness. Some of those documents like Dr Hoff’s several reports cover car accident, assaults, falling window panels, assault by walking sticks and so on. Those reports are vital for this case to show I was rather clumsy like “Mr. Bean.”
The clumsiness was linked to my neurotic or psychotic depression. Even if my neurotic depression was adjusted per Dr. Kutlaca, then certainly my psychotic depression was has not adjusted until now. Thus, those reports link my poor concentration and poor memory to being not able to perform my Army or civilian duties properly. I have impairment and in TAFE and Universities, I was given adjustment and I have succeeded in gaining those degrees. In AAT 1988 and 2004, I was not allowed to subpoena my health files from them by DP Jarvis. I am now waiting those files under subpoena. About my car accident a psychologist Gibb had indicated I was a walking accident. I also seek subpoena from Australian Federal Police as AGS has done from other police in similar terms. Nevertheless, I find Dr. Goldneys’ remark that I feign about my memory and concentration in recent times as very offensive and thus have violated the disparagement and adverse comment clause of Adelaide University and me in the deed of settlement. Such has occurred, as Repatriation Commission is a third party. I will seek relief in due course based on: The prior judgment can extinguish a statutory right of the respondent by way of res judicata like this case. See Chamberlin v DCT (1988) 164 CLR 502.
57. This time I am using the “scientific” techniques of successful Barristers to attack the hired psychiatrist of the employer. This time I have marshaled to nail down vast errors made by the so-called Professor of Psychiatry of Adelaide University. In my previous AAT 1988 and 2004 matters, I never knew what materials the employer’s psychiatric experts read to counter them. This time is different line by line the stories of my suffering that no one can “construct” it for me.
The second brief in the last page has cases that I even do not know factually. The respondent’s lawyers in my matter before Lander J had several print outs on Rana matter (there are Rana of Spanish, Italian and Lebanese origins too) printed from search inside http://www.austlii.edu.au
I had to correct the errors of the respondent that I was never involved in immigration matters and Australian Customs matter. I had to correct several cases that the respondent alleged that it was me and has sought security for cost as I am an Asian trying to go and live in Asia, who has no property here and has no ties here. Based on the falsities the Dr. Goldney has commented about my alleged disordered personality and me in disparaging terms and has made adverse comments.
The hand of Adelaide University is everywhere like Leslie Hastwell, who initially sat in this case and had to disqualify herself as she is the sister of Flat 58/40 Park Terrace, Gilberton, SA 5081. She contacted A. Short, Dr. Hoff (both are members of the SA Guardianship Board), Annabel Mansfield (daughter of Justice Mansfield), Darda Gregurev, EACIS, SA Police, Housing Trust of SA and made them contact my doctors and friends. When I used to go to State Library of SA and through A. Short the Head of Security there, (Gray Heath) has stolen my personal items and handed them to A. Short and SA Police to stitch me being a sexual pervert of Nina and other girls. Adelaide University has wishes to assist Nina Greguev a student of that place. I am grateful to have been under Justices Lander and David, and in AAT DP Forgie.
Summary and conclusion: The report is very ambiguous as Dr Goldney takes each way bet with my suffering per paranoid schizophrenia v paranoid delusional disorder and/or either of them with alleged my suffering with paranoid personality disorder. He fluctuates between possibility with probability and then qualifies not being absolutely certain. A rather ranting and rambling document has been bolstered with Adelaide University logo (he was forbidden to do so prior to taking his commission). He has indicated that by his observations of all materials (has not read my AAT 1988 Tribunal evidence of Army work Supervisor D. Whitman and how my poor concentration affected Army duties) supplied to him and limited interview with me and the particulars are:
The history of poor concentration and recall is recent of origin
Antipsychotic medicine was prescribed recently
The history of dishonesty is more persistent as being in the realms of personality disorder
The history of interpersonal conflict and causing harm and hurt on others is more greater than to self via manipulation of situation and impulsiveness
Personality disorder did not warranted discharge my discharge from Army service in 1982, as personality disorder is not a psychiatric illness like neurosis and psychosis???????
Most migrants blame on the problems they have on the native people
The history of concentration and poor memory did not affect discharge from Army in 1982
Date:
………………………………………
Applicant Ranjit Rana
Cc: * Registrar Administration Appeals Tribunal
* Australian Government Solicitor
* Anthony Keane C/o Crown Solicitor’s Office
The applicant also submits here below the observations of the applicant in the three volumes:
Comments of Ranjit Rana as to his evidence to link army abuses with his psychiatric conditions (comorbidity). This is for the first time linking the abuses that he suffered with medical treatment in the army (as it appears with brief to Dr. Jha):
1. Dating 19 December 1980 at Regimental Aid Post (RAP) of the 1st Recruit Training Battalion (1 RTB) in Kapooka, New South Wales. Blow to left eye from a can thrown by then Sergeant Bruno.
2. 2 January 1981 at 1 RTB “Acid” stomach…many…problem due to harassment in lines.” Ranjit Rana had told the AAT of 1988 and 2004 in specific terms and was not believed that no racial or other harassment existed with contemporaneous evidence. This is the first time this medical complaint has been brought to the AAT’s attention.
3. 20 November 1980 in 1 RTB. Head injury pain and also records been hit on head. I remember this incident related to Baxter, when he stole laundry keys from my desk and without my approval.
4. 2 Januray 1981 at 1 RTB. For emotional problem that I suffered arising name calling and harassment that increased my stress level. I think the Regimental Police was aware of my personal problems and their records have not been provided to me so far, and AAT of 2004 was highly critical about me for being unsatisfactory witness. Yet, they would not issue subpoena to the army for production of the record.
5. 22 January 1980 was again review to the blow to my left eye by Sergeant Bruno throwing a 1000 ml of juice can as indicate above to me in the bush.
6. 1 Jaunary 1981 at 1 RTB about acidy taste and vomiting due to stress arising from various assaults and racial name-calling.
7. 11 August 1981 at 16 Air Defence Regiment review by Army doctor for personal problems like sexual harassment and indecent assault by Private Andrew Jenkins and for assaults by other and including Jenkins regularly with name-calling with sexual and racial references, which I objected.
8. 12 August 1981, I was admitted to RAP 3 RAR Medical Ward for depression and headache with many personal and army problems.
9. 10 November 1981, chipped bone in right thumb arising being injured when I was assaulted by Jenkins and this resulted as I was defending myself.
10. 10 February 1981, I was feeling tired and inadequate in 16 Air Defence Regiment with personal and army induced depression.
11. I had ringing of my ear and loss of memory and was off to see Dr. Hoff arising army related abuses I was seen on 28/2/1982 by the Regimental Medical Officer and was confined to barracks and was not fit for duty until 3/3/1982.
12. From central medical files that Orme had access to number 82/Box 221. I have located a report of Dr. A. N. Goss. It said I was having muscle spasm arising an effect of depression in 13/2/1987.
13. I have the reasoning of the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board and related pages of the Military Police investigations at pages 21 to 23.
14. I have a literature on adjustment disorders, which shows adjustment disorder is reactive depression and transient situational disturbance. Orme indicated at the time of my discharge I did not have adjustment disorder and only had reactive depression, which is not a psychiatric condition like personality disorder. I have evidence to link from hospital records of 1981 at Repatriation General Hospital I was actually suffering from adjustment disorder and transient situational crisis contrary to Brigadier Orme, Armys’ head of personnel.
15. I found two more medical notes from Army very catastrophic. They are:
Dated 10 March 1982 very catastrophic, while on duty Private Jenkins attack me from the back and inserted broom up my anus. I could not tell others and had significant pain. This is noted bursting of hemorrhoids. I think there were witnesses like Privates Bradley, Mudie and Golding. I was in pain and was not believed.
Dated 10 November 1981. It records 2-chipped bones as a result of being assaulted by Private Jenkins in Kangaroo 1981 exercise in Queensland, It said restricted duty and no use of right arm. The Commanding Officers did not take action against the attacker.
These two will be attached with this brief Dr. Jha.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Doctor Bal Jha has been seeing me since end of 2004. He has read all the documents provided to Dr. Goldney and Dr. Davis of the teaching staff at Adelaide University. So far, what Professor Jha has said to His Honour Lander J, and all the case notes he has on me was subpoenaed by the Australian Government Solicitors, and a copy exists at the AAT registry, and a copy of those notes I have provided to Dr Goldney in January of this year. If necessary, I will tender the case notes from the registry to the trial judge. Professor Jha made positive statements about me: where he described me how the psychiatric conditions actually works based on my army service related various abuses, his statements can be tested and probably refuted from the attacks of Drs. Goldney, Davis and Carmine De Pasquale, who are connected institutionally to Adelaide University.
Professor Jha’s assessments of me are objective and not subjective like the ones from Drs. Goldney, Davis and Pasquale. Professor Jha’s statements are consistent with the evidences so far I have collected and compiled at the AAT registry from my suffering “poor memory” and “poor concentration” as a child and up to now in various places like the army, university and other settings. I have performed okay in universities arising ‘reasonable adjustments’ to my ongoing impairment related to my psychiatric disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). I have not performed well like in the army and other settings, as I have not been given reasonable adjustment. To link what Professor Jha has said to His Honour Lander J, I have also now compiled all the defined physical assaults, indecent assaults and racial name-calling against me by various army personnel and at various locations between 1980 and mid 1982. Those documents also link physical injuries and/or psychiatric distress I suffered arising those causes in the army to be significant, and it is so as the type of personality disorder I suffered even before joining the army I had it and was of a soft nature and got aggravated by the stresses of being abused in the army.
Of all things being equal, Drs. Goldney, Davis and Pasquale do not agree, “what is” being said about me by Professor Jha, which can be proven and can be tested by comparing to them to facts. On the other hand, the respondents’ psychiatrists has made normative statements about me, which is ‘what ought to be’ about my army service and the psychiatric conditions as diagnosed by Professor Jha. They claim I do not have paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes, and only fabrication done scientifically by me to obtain money from the respondents. The respondents’ psychiatrists have made opinions on subjective basis as they relied on personal values, and such opinions of them cannot be tested, in contrasted to the careful observations and measurements of Professor Jha.
The models developed by Drs. Goldney, Davis and Pasquale are based on false assumptions about me as “Romei Subramanium” and much more as I will spill the beans at trial. Theirs’ model has some description about my psychiatric conditions related world. In actual testing of it by Geoff Camilos and Shashi Raj Maharaj’s theories, the prediction and forecasting is unsatisfactory and unreliable. I will explain, Professor Jha addresses his model and theory specifically with various scientifically proven facts of abuses to me and links to the army service of my and ongoing effects in operation by those psychiatric comorbidities. I never had a closure as the Military Police report was given to me in 2004 and no one did proper analysis of it in specific terms like Dr. Jha. The respondents have used generalizations of false theories to summarise what they think that they understand about me from the real world like involved in fraud and dishonesty and personality disorder means being an immoral insane person or an evil one, which is not scientifically linked to the known facts. They are trying to bolster theirs’ a fantasy model with a false theory as a firm and sound bridge between theirs’ knowledge about me to my actual real world of suffering.
In sum, “other things being equal” theirs’ assumption to concentrate on the effect of a change in a single variable that is my significant suffering from army even now in isolation from all others are false and Professor Jha’s is the preferable one. Because, the respondent’s assumptions about me are false in making the model, and the logic used to arrive at conclusions are irrational. The way they have used the logic to help spot and eliminate fallacies in reasoning, such as the fallacy of composition and the post hoc fallacy has not been eliminated. In terms of the first fallacy, the respondent’s statements about me that is what is true of the parts is true of the whole or what is true of the whole is true of the parts is not correct. Likewise for the latter fallacy, the respondent’s errors or reasoning about me that a first event (my abuses in the army specifically) causes a second event (my ongoing psychiatric and diabetes conditions) because the first occurred before the second. How can reasonable person prefer such fallacies?
I have received statements of my former bosses and Private Golding. I also have received a report of Dr. Goldney dated 4 August 2008. The most important thing is that he does not think that being sexually assaulted by Private Jenkins and other abuses that is recorded by the Military Police is “catastrophic”. Given I was molested in early age and am hypersensitive by others touching me by others, which is inappropriate to a Hindu man. They think it is a joke that was played on me to toughen me up. The last boss I had was an Asian (Japanese) and did not think I suffered from any psychiatric condition and was just a malingerer, lazy, slack and “me no nothing” to avoid job ahead and brought the moral down and became a liability, and was contrary to the mission of the Army.
I find the disregard to my diabetes as being feigned and a malingerer. I was alcoholic and was contributed by Army culture. I was an alcoholic psychotic and they were right that I had some grandeur as alcohol provided an escape for Army and me considered me to be a liability. I was charged for going without leave arising drunkenness issue. This is now backed up by Private Golding.
The Japanese boss Major Watts considered I was not suffering from depression, when in fact he had reports from Dr. Hoff between early August 1981 until March 1982. The Japanese do not believe in psychiatry and allege that mental illness is for the lazy.
Sergeant Liebenau was also not telling the truth. He used to visit me in hospitals to pay me my wages on more than three or four occasions. He did so when I was admitted to Royal Adelaide Hospital and Repatriation General Hospital. He visited me in the psychiatric wards.
Lieutenant Colonel Blackwell also knew that I was depressed and had reports of the Regimental Doctor, Bickmore and Dr. Hoff reports. He had visited my ex-wife with Dr. Bickmore to sort few matters. They were well aware like Watts and Liebenau that I was assaulted and abused but did a “me no have” evidence cover up to protect the white boys.
I have never acknowledged anything as suggested by Warrant Officer (Second Class) Don Whitman, that all racial remarks and pinching in the back side, and physical pushing and shoving was by my permission, and was not abuses, it was Aussie banter for fun and frolics of youth. I find such comments very offensive and brings flood of sweat and bad memories. It is remarkable that he indicated that my worked doing paper work had deteriorated as I had poor concentration and poor memory. The Japanese boss of his and mine had told him that to treat depression/laziness was to ignore it and try to sack me without any benefits. Both considered me evil and morally insane. All of them knew as he was the one who after talking with me suggested to the former earlier boss Blackwell to send me to see the “shrink” Dr. Hoff.
I refute being a malingerer and that is not backed by Drs Bickmore and Hoff’s diagnosis. This is my rebuttal to Private Golding. I agree that the Army made me an alcoholic and do not refute what he has to say about it. I also know he was the one always complaining that my paper work was bad. I also know he reported me dropping a rifle on parade. I find all of these peoples’ now comments are sanitized version to be used by Dr. Goldney in a certain way to defeat my claims.
I notice that Dr. Davis found like a judge that I am a fraud and have never read the Army Police’s file about me being assaulted physically and sexually by Private Jenkins (he confessed). Dr. Davis was not provided the same sets of files in same volumes (to the quantity to Dr. Goldney) to what was provided by the people who have retained Dr. Goldney. Same also applies to Drs. Hoff and Pasquale.
I note that now Dr. Goldney appears to be concurring with me that I was suffering adjustment disorder. However, Brigadier Craig Orme said I did not suffer it when I was in the Army. In page 4 of his report, Dr. Goldney says that I did suffer adjustment disorder or reactive depression and was time limited such as reaction to contemporaneous stressors, such as interpersonal/marital difficulties and improperly rejects the Military Police reports of my abuse and the findings from that file by the Veterans’ Review Board. However, Dr. Hoff in AAT of 1988 indicated that in that contemporaneous time, I was suffering from chronic reactive depression. I was paid liability from 16 July 1982 until 1985 by the Army. This is fact, Dr. Goldney seems to be divorced from facts, and preferring his subjective view of the world what should have been. It is a normative opinion and not positive one that can be proven by the admittance of liability by the Army based on Dr. Kutlaca’s report.
Dr. Goldney says he has considered all materials and has failed to reply including the Military Police report and what I have provided recently to the Tribunal and the Diabetes report of Dr. Miller. He has used selective materials and has failed to answer specifically to what I am proposing to you.
At page 5, the question on reply at the end of it “whether thee was any clinical worsening of any schizophrenia suffered by the applicant on or before 13 August 1982, and if yes, the date of such worsening; and” is very ambiguous. The reasons are:
I was bleeding as recorded for burst of hemorrhoids as I have indicated above from the broom of Private Jenkins, I was alcoholically psychotic, I had glandular fever, suicidal and much more. I went to Nepal around mid of April 1982, absent without leave to seek protection and peace. I was very ill in Nepal. I was told by letter of Group captain Gillard, Australian Military Attaché, in Australian Embassy, New Delhi, that I would be given all post administrative follow ups like being paid my superannuation (which occurred, but to this day no full medical board).
I was treated for glandular fever and suicidal matters in August 1981 with haloperidol and benzotropine. The same was used for me in Nepal after I was diagnosed of suffering from toxoplasma gondii and being psychotic from alcohol and toxoplasma.
The Army never provided me all records and evidence of my abuse until 2004.
The Army went quite to give me full medical board in Nepal or India or Australia in 1982 and even now.
I came back to Australia in end of 1982 and suffered another bout of psychosis in 1983/4 in Queensland.
In page page 6, Dr. Goldney says the question prior to e as “not applicable”.
In page 6, Dr. Goldney makes of story that I did not have aggravation of personality disorder from a catastrophic experience. He did not want to take the military police file that I had, and told me he was provided by his retainers and makes no account of it. He asked me I must had enjoyed the army banters and such are pain and pleasure of life. I found it very offensive at his suggestion that I actually enjoyed sadomasochistic epistles in the Army, and thus he confirmed that “paranoid schizophrenia” means one who is a cupboard homosexual deviant. No accounting for what I told him about the abuses, no accounting of military police files” and just cooks up story that I feigned diabetes, abuses and “poor symptoms and poor memories” recently. What about my hospitalization and diagnosis of Drs. Newman, and others from the pain clinic and my adjustments in universities? He says I did not have depression, no poor memories, and no poor concentration in 2003. There was evidence that I had poor memory and poor concentration from the data of university records and Dr. Goldney is silent to say it is all feigned. It was given by Dr. Pasquale to University of Adelaide in 2002 with the words “poor memory and poor concentration”. Why has he failed to account them?
It is amazing to the litanies of lies of the Dr. Goldney. The AAT of 1988 records in transcript that Dr. Hoff indicated I was suffering from chronic reactive depression and so did Drs. Kutlaca and Pasquale. Based on such severity I was paid workers’ compensation for aggravation of personality disorder and adjustment disorder from 16 July 1982 until 15 April 1985. This is fact and not psychotic utopian speculation by Dr. Goldney and Davis.
Dr. Goldney does not answer the long questions at pages 8 and 9 and simply fobs off with his considerations are at question 2d.
There are several assumptions that I am a fraud. Doctor Goldney refers such issues are legal ones and not psychiatric one. The doctor did not consider the entire military police files and the findings by the Veterans’ Review Board and has used selective data to benefit his financial masters.
About minor issues, he only replies to haloperidol and remains selectively silent to benztropine. He does not want to reply that it was given to me for glandular fever and toxoplasma induced and alcohol induced psychosis in 1981, while I was in the army.
He made many errors 2002 now become 1982, that there is no basis of liability.
He alleges that I gave him a lie about my own dad’s death. I know it was October 1981.
He made another error that I caught venereal illness in Hong Kong and he claims it should had been Bangkok.
He indicated that the appropriate diagnosis is schizophrenia and that the diagnosis gone beyond paranoid personality disorder.
Finally, I provide you with the AAT T-37 documents, decision of the Vererans’ Review Board and your transcript before His Honour Lander J.
Ranjit Rana
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Ranjit S.J.B. Rana
Unit 1/25 Hackney Road
Hackney SA 5069
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Registrar
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Grenfell Street
Adelaide SA 5000
Re: The basis of my appeal claim in this matter
Dear Madam,
Dr. Robert Goldney and Dr. Tony Davis have told me for the respondents my claim has failed based on theirs’ assessment of my entire case history. They have provided a bizarre result saying the diagnosis of paranoid and/or any other psychosis in not the result of what may have occurred to me in the Australian Army between 1980 and 1982. It is related to other causes and such they are significant and major contributors of the disease being aggravated. Likewise, concerning my diabetes Dr. Stevenson has the opinion that schizophrenia sufferers are probably more likely than not getting diabetes type 2 and there is no link with Army matters after so long. I do not agree with theirs’ assessment about my case after consulting with my doctors.
Firstly, I will do a collateral attack on the epistemology, ontology and methodology used by them to prove that fatal errors of assessment of my psychiatric case. They have claimed that there is just not sufficient and/or no symptoms history of paranoid schizophrenia with Army abuses that transpired so long ago. It is unreasonable of them to say that all the psychiatrists and hospitals I have been has not recorded of my history of presenting complaint (detailed patient’s central problem and related symptoms in a chronological order). So most of the clinicians have identified my common psychiatric symptoms like depressive, psychotic, anxiety etc. However, the respondent’s doctors claim there were no logical sequences from those data for them to comment on relevant negative as well as positive symptoms. I argue this is an absurd and unreasonable hypothesis. In other words, they failed to identify common psychiatric symptoms. They did not properly read all the three volumes of the data before the AAT as evidence. They only read the brief of selected briefs and summary provided by the respondent that was highly selective and inferred from them opinions that was normative, descriptive, and subjective. The analysis lacked proper rigor. They have even failed to provide differential diagnosis.
They have failed to comment on impact of illness on my life, there is no consideration about work, social relations and self-care. Further, they failed to record information on who administered my treatment when and where previously, what the treatment was (and preferably the dose and duration of treatment and my response to such treatments. Again, they did not consider the relationship between my psychiatric state and concurrent medical conditions properly from 1981 as of current. I have done this deconstruction of my history of presenting complaints that encompasses the three volumes and more.
They have not organized the notes that are the three volumes, in terms of my general appearance and behaviour, speech, affect and mood, quality, range, appropriateness, depersonalization and derealization, thought (stream, form and content), perception, cognition, judgment, insight and rapport. Thus, no proper analysis has taken place for this tribunal to be so satisfied via their reports in terms of fairness to me and being reasonable.
They also have failed to examine me physically and emphasize signs to my presenting and chronic problems, and there are no signs of long-term psychotropic drug use. There is further no identification sign of presence/absence of conditions that may present to me with psychiatric complications like endocrine disorders and so on.
In the summary and diagnosis, there is no synthesis of signs and symptoms containing the three volumes to identify the core problems (of cause and effect). Thus, there is no explication in theirs’ reasoning for drawing the links between sign and symptoms and diagnostic decision-making like done by Dr. Jha. In other words, what important aspects in the history, mental state examination and physical examination led them to making provisional diagnosis. They failed to pick out relevant pieces of these sections and make links with the final diagnosis (and differential diagnoses). There is no brief indication of why the problems arose (precipitating factors), how the problems arose (predisposing factors) and factors influencing progression/the course of the problems (perpetuating and protective factors).
In the formulation structure, they did not explore in more depth the aetiology of my illness like Dr. Jha. Dr. Goldney just says in normative statement that paranoid schizophrenia has no known aetiology and it is obvious that he has not read the three volumes before the AAT and the set of documents given to him in another matter. It applies to Dr. Davis and others. Thus, they have failed to draw on the precipitating, predisposing and perpetuating factors identified earlier in theirs’ summary to define, the biological, psychological and social forces that have contributed towards (i) the development of my paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes, and (ii) their response to my illness and/or disease. A major difference between a summary and a formulation is that the latter seeks to link the pieces of information as opposed to listing them. Thus, it was inevitable that they erred to draw on relevant pieces of information from earlier parts of reports on the three volumes; that contains my presenting problems in the context of my history of chronic illness. They have not integrated evidence and concepts from the wider literature; however, theirs statements lacks an understanding of me, and more focus is on the literature-based theories if any.
They have not based on the formulations have outlined appropriate management plans including investigations, short-term goals and long-term goals. In other words, they lacked management structure of my illness.
Second part will explore the three volumes and the Military Police Report that was before the AAT of 2004 for specific findings that this tribunal has to make in terms of sexual and physical abuses and others in proper definitions and the gravity of the cumulative impacts on me after so many years.
All of the respondent’s psychiatrists have claimed that psychosis cannot be a traumatic event. There are similarities between the reaction to psychosis and PTSD: I got Army abuses image or feelings of what happened there in 1980s. I often get distracted by and go quiet in the middle of a conversation…it drew me like the voices did, wanting me to listen harder and closer. I find and in literatures in first episode suffer found similar levels of PTSD symptomatology (intrusion and avoidance) in survivors like me. See Shaw, K., McFarlane, A., Bookless, C and Air, T. (2002). ‘The aietology of post psychotic posttraumatic stress disorder following a psychotic episode.’ Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 39-47. Professor McFarlane destroys the hypothesis if Dr. Goldney in all respect of his reports so far. I can lay claim that after seeing many respondent’s doctors I was suffering PTSD arising stress due by theirs’ rejection of my trauma.
I do not understand how the respondent’s psychiatrists claim my abuse in Army cannot be defines as a trauma and such psychosis emerged as a reaction to it after so many years. I have been telling about being sexually abuse in my childhood, and this has caused me to be hypersensitive. The proof is that there is only one person Dr. Deepak Pant, who is currently President of Nepalese Association of Victoria. I might have to call him as a witness about my sexual abuse in Nepal via phone hookup. I have been hearing voices while in the Army for physical and interpersonal violence and did not tell others. The auditory hallucinations also occurred to me in the Army after any trauma and Army doctors did not accept it.
Read, J. (1997) states “…it seems reasonable to conclude that there may indeed be relationships between childhood abuse and adult psychosis, and, more specifically, between childhood abuse and schizophrenia.” See at p. 450 in ‘Child abuse and psychosis: A literature review and implications for professional practice.’ Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 448-456.
Psychotic symptoms have long been observed in the aftermath of a range of traumatic life events: for example, lifetime exposure to interpersonal violence just like in my case and for people with severe mental illness varies between 48 and 81% (Jacobson, A., and Richardson, B. (1987). ‘Assault experience of 100 psychiatric inpatients: Evidence of the need for routine enquiry.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 908-913).
Further evidence that trauma can lead to psychotic states can be found by examining studies of concentration-camp survivors. Eitenger (1964, 1967) studied survivors in Norway and Israel and found that a core group of patients, particularly those in Israel, clearly met the schizophrenia criteria for that time, and he attributed this to the trauma they had experienced in the concentration camps. Klein, Zellermayer, and Shanan (1963) and von Baeyer (1977) described psychosis among some Nazi-concentration camp victims. Beebe (1975), describing a long-term follow-up of Pacific Theater prisoners of World War II, found a marked increase in schizophrenia in those prisoners who had experienced the most severe traumas. Most recently, Kinzie and Boehnlein (1989), in a study of Cambodian refugees who suffered trauma as a consequences\ of the Pol Pot regime, concluded that the symptoms of PTSD and psychosis coexist in this population. Whilst there is some support for the view that traumatic events such as combat may be associated with the development of psychosis. See at page 336 of Anthony P. Morrison, Lucy Frame and warren Larkin (2003). ‘Relationships between trauma and psychosis: A review and integration’. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 331-353.
It should be noted that the briefs provided to Drs. Goldney, Davis and others are not precisely matching the summaries of my psychiatric episodes. The brief has been constructed to suit the needs of the respondent, and data has been highly selective for the doctors to interpret it to the benefit of the respondent. It is not objective and scientific methodology is lacking. They claim yet it is critical and based on symptoms based analysis for them to conclude my paranoid schizophrenia lacks symptoms to link the events of so long ago in my Army service. They claim the analysis of Dr. Jha is based on lack of symptoms and that is patently false. He has used all symptoms from various mental state analysis I had to under go from 1981 until now. He has used a problem solving approach and they do not agree with it. None of the respondent’s psychiatrists has done so far differential diagnosis like Professor Bal Jha in a very rigorous, objective, and integrated perspective. The tribunal should give no weight to the respondent’s psychiatrists.
Manfred Bleuler in ‘Die spatschizoprenen krankheits-bilder. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 1943; 15: 259-90’ had indicated about the systematic examination of late onset patients and defined late schizophrenia as follows:
Onset after the age 40.
Symptomatology that does not differ from that of schizophrenia occurring early in life (or if it does differ, it should not do so in a clear or radical way).
It should not be possible to attribute the illness to a neuropathological disorder because of the presence of an amenesic syndrome or associated signs of organic brain disease.
He later confirmed that while onset of schizophrenia after the age of 40 was unusual, onset after 60 should be considered even rarer.
An association between the presence of extremely life-threatening experience needs to be present like in my case (Dr. Hoff indicated that personality disorder sufferers like me are more prone to stressors than the normal cohorts of the population). This Army abuse experience has caused a paranoid and delusional pathology to develop in me later in life. The risk of developing paranoid psychosis to be doubled in immigrants who were escaping war or political unrest, compared with those who had moved for economic reasons. This type of analogy can also be made out in my case. Thus, the period during which a personality may be rendered sensitive to the later development of paranoid psychosis by exposure to trauma is presumably not limited to early childhood. See Cervantes, RC., Salgado-Snyder VN and Padilla AM. (1989). ‘Post-traumatic stress in immigrants from Central America and Mexico.’ Hosp Community Psychiatry; 40: 615-18.
Exactly how important abnormalities in personality functioning are in aetiology and onset of late-life paranoid psychosis is unclear. Whilst there is evidence linking social or early adult life to the later development of psychosis, it is perhaps more plausible to view the abnormal premorbid personality as an early marker of impending psychosis rather than to regard the psychosis as an indication of earlier personality dysfunction. See in page 346 by Robert Howard (2001). ‘Late-onset schizophrenia and very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis.’ Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. 11; 337-352.
I now turn in to the report of Dr. Stevenson about my diabetes. Gaston, R L., George, M and Azhahan, N. (2008). ‘Diabetic control and atypical antipsychotic a case report.’ Journal of Medical case Reports. 2. 155 (May 14, 2008) has reported that introduction people with schizophrenia are at increased risk of developing metabolic disturbances. This risk may be further exacerbated by the use of antipsychotic agents. Research is still ongoing to determine the metabolic impact of antipsychotic medication on glucose regulation. This article deals with a 50-year-old man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia that developed type 2 diabetes mellitus whilst on treatment with second-generation antipsychotic drug.
In ‘Association between antipsychotic drugs and diabetes’ from Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. 8. 2006, 125-135. Richard, I. G. Hold and Robert C. Peveler provide the abstract that, the link between atypical antipsychotic drugs and development of diabetes has been hotly debated in the literature. In this review, they have attempted to classify the various types of data published and presented in a hierarchical basis. Case reports and retrospective studies suggest that both conventional and atypical antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased risk of glucose abnormalities or diabetes. They do not agree with this approach. One wonders if they are in the payroll of the drug companies.
Lambert, BL., Cunningham, FE., Miller, DR, Dalack, GW and Hur. K. (2006). ‘Diabetes Risk Associated with Use of Olanzapine, Quetiapine, and Risperidone in Veterans Health Administration patients with Schozophrenia.’ American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol 164. No. 7: 672-681. The authors studied 15,767 patients who initiated use of olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or haloperidol in 1999-2001 after at least 3 months with no antipsychotic prescriptions. Assuming that the observed associations are casual, approximately one third new cases of diabetes may be attributed to use of olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine in patients taking these medicines.
I agree with Dr. Stevenson that people who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia have higher chances of probability getting diabetes type 2. The issue of antipsychotic drugs and worsening of my diabetes we may need to argue for a long time.
Doctor Goldney has explained that I do not have problems with concentration and memory, and has alleged that I have faked all the symptoms of psychosis from day one. However, I am going to persuade the tribunal from my childhood days I had problem controlling my impulses and had poor memory and concentration. Thus, I have failed to accomplish many things I started and remain my unfinished business in life. I finished my universities arising reasonable accommodation under the Federal Disability Discrimination Act. I will lead the evidence at the hearing by tendering such materials in a relevant and timely manner.
I will again tender Military Police report that was A26 exhibit material in AAT of 2004. I will deal with them in specific terms as DP Forgie had said no specific findings were made from it. I will explain how Private Jenkins sexually and indecently assaulted me in regular basis. How he regularly sexually harassed me, physically assaulted me and racially abused much more and me. Definition is required to understand the impacts it had cumulatively and remains an obsession with me for a closure.
I like the tribunal to note pages 16, 19, 24, 28 (see paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 10), 30 32, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 49, 53 and 197 of the Military Police report which was given to me only in 2004.
Concerning the three volumes provided by the respondent to the tribunal. I ask the tribunal to note pages 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 33, 54, 56, 60, 62, 69, 70, 80, 76, 88, 89-90, 91, 95 to 103, 104, 107, 108, 111, 131, 155, 180, 181, 183, 184, 189, 204, 211, 221, 223, 224, 225, 230, 231, 232, 246, 249, 256, 290, 296, 310, 316, 320, 322, 324, 338, 346, 348, 374, 393, 407, 438, 450, 451, 457, 459, 461, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 480, 490, 496, 511, 518, 524 527, 541, 542, 557, 558, 570, 612, 622, 644, 672, 720, 724, 784, 890, 918, 937, 940, 954, 973, 975, 985, 990, 1003, 1004, 1013, 1016, 1052, 1084, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1100, 1108, 1117, 1120, 1121, 1123, 1173, 1201, 1214, 1237, 1242, 1246, 1250, 1259, 1266, 1276, 1332, 1358, 1363, 1365, 1378.
I vigorously oppose the reports of Drs Goldney and Davis. They have not seen me in person for the recent reports. I saw Dr. Goldney in December 2007 and January 2008. I saw Dr. Davis in 2003. The tribunal should note this and give them no weight. Further, all the documents given to them are not the same as of 2003 and in Repatriation Commission matter.
I have been opposing theirs’ report, as they have not asked permission from me to write about me and pass on my confidential and private information to others. In lieu of that, I have a court action against Dr. Goldney and Australian Government Solicitors and others in the federal court in civil wrongs done against me. I will explain the implication of that to the tribunal in the hearing.
I have now outlined the thrust of my central argument that my symptoms history of pre paranoid schizophrenia and late onset of it was there from August 1981 and up to now. This was via various people investigating my mental history and state of the mind from neurosis, personality disorder to psychosis now. The most important symptom that has been with me from my childhood days are impulsiveness, poor concentration and memory that has impaired my Army and other employments opportunities. Most of the other factors have faded but Army related matters remain my obsession and has negatively affected my inability to find employment.
The counter argument that is headed by the hanging psychiatrist and an evil narcissistic one who has violated the terms of my agreement to see him says: (i) Army abuses has never been a significant factor about my suffering if any psychiatric and/or diabetes condition. (ii) He puts my case in the worse Baron Munchausen Syndrome by proxy he has ever seen. He says that all the brief materials that is on me and scientifically he has examined makes him feel that there are several multifactor stressors at play and the Army related issues had faded away as Dr. Kutlaca indicated in 1985 (time based). All that is occurring now is just what Dr. Kutlaca predicted that I was the man going to be from my birth until I die manipulating and being a vexatious litigant at great cost to the society. (iii) I was tried to be made into a space goat in the Army in my last days, as higher officers were involved in fraud and theft at the stores of electronic parts. See page 181 of the Military Police report on Major Blackwell having fraud conviction and much more. I was asked by others to steal missile guidance part and so on that put me under tremendous stress and my drinking escalated. I just wanted to quit the Army, as it did not make me happy. It reminded me when my father in Nepal was Master General of Ordinance, that erupted into a bribery scandal involving the Royal family, and my father lost his job. I argue that my Army life is still appearing to me and I have become obsessed with it for a closure. Drs. Miller and Jha are spot on about me.
What about the past two tribunals? Well, I was not experienced in litigation and the respondent did not provide me with Military Police files until 2004. Without specific finding from it, no one really can understand the impacts that I suffer. I am grateful to DP Forgie for being the most fairest legal mind I have ever come across. In the first tribunal, I just could not articulate the volumes of documents, and the Military Police files were not given to me. In 2004 hearing, all came together and I just did not have time to digest and synthesize them in a holistic way. This time I have everything together and I am not interested winning or losing. I just want to have a damn closure in my life as to why my journey in life has been the man I have come to become. I was obsessed with finding the truth, and now I have come to accept the reality as there is no such thing as truth ultimately. What I have come to understand in this journey is just perspectives of me seen from my own filters, beacons and lenses. I guess all do the same in this life. Thus, there are theories for someone and for some purpose. These theories are as good as it is based on assumptions. They are bad as it tumbles if those assumptions are bad. This is what computer age is all about “garbage in garbage out.”
Dr. Goldney has not importantly understood the historical development about my psychiatric history. He has brought in Adelaide University politics in my present claim to add that significantly other stressors are operative in me and Army service related stressors are non existent as his underling principle assumption that is his “ideas shape the course of history” theorem as propounded by normative economic rationalist John Maynard Keynes. Then again, Dr. Goldney and Dr. Davis well known lecturers of Adelaide University and always from the perspectives of the employers and captains of the industries. They have value-laden view of theirs’ view of the world, which is not grounded in empirical data. They have subjective approach to blunt claims of psychiatric alleged malingerers like me via theirs’ expertise in normative critical theories to be role model to stop the compensation claims.
There is universal understanding of what is the focus of Drs Goldney and Davis’s psychiatric theory of traumatization of victims as on ongoing basis and late onset development of psychosis. There is well founded and rich data of the sufferings of victims of holocaust, Cambodian genocide and much more and its parameters are contested. No wonder I have been attacked by the purchasing power of my so called model employer litigants (for the purpose of stopping precedent to develop). Psychiatry is not pure science and so it remains in development stages when pure science was probably in the 17th century. There are vast and legitimate differences what the study of ants entails by analogy to my psychotic conditions if any linked to my Army service so long ago. Thus, no wonder the psychiatric agents of my former employer, and my own psychiatric agent as scholars have differences over what is important or what should be the focus of the final assessment.
Professor Bal Jha has reported with no value laden assumption and has exhaustively done DSM 4TR related differential diagnosis, which has encompassed all of my life history from the past to now and future in a holistic way. In contrast, Drs.Goldney and Davies has not seen me in almost a year and much longer period of time for scientific empirical generalization. They have relied on brief of the respondent that have erroneous facts and assumptions built, and the doctors have not asked me permission to release my personal data to my former employer legally. I have put them on notice and they have not taken any notice about it. It will be significant issue of subjective approach and mine to impeach them concerning theirs’ value laden. They have claimed to apply the best psychiatric theory as a key way to simplify and organize reality. They claim to bring certain factors to the foreground (as being more significant than what Professor Jha has done as a rebuttal). In a sense they claim that theirs’ theory of psychiatry is like glasses as it will help the tribunal to ‘see better’ by concentrating on particular factors or concepts. This they further claim is important because of the size and complexity of my matters as alleged by the respondents via internet research and manipulations of fake symptoms over many decades to defraud the Commonwealth of Australia.
Indeed, I argue that Drs. Goldney and Davies like everyone pro employer’s perspectives subconsciously focus on some things and some facts. Facts rarely exist or have meaning without assumptions holding in place. The only way to be aware of this is to self conscious about it. As such, I disagree with the old school master in Charles Dicken’s ‘Hard Times’ ‘Teach those children facts and facts alone—weed everything else out’.
At practical level, theory helps you keep ahead of changing facts – avoids being to be outdated by changes in world of political psychiatry of pro employer psychiatrists.
I have raised my own theory to help me see the assumptions of my former employers. Thus, various theories and my own reflection have helped me to develop my own perspective in this matter. My own psychiatric theory has helped me to spell out my own assumptions about how I think since suffering in the Australian Army. It has helped me to think about myself. As Lord Byron claimed: “Those who will not reason are bigots; those who cannot are fools; and those who dare not are slaves”.
Ultimately. My own new found psychiatric theory (organized claims or assumptions) has enabled me to develop my own voice and perspective about the world of political psychiatry. It has helped me to think about myself and world about and around me. It has provided me and assisted me in setting out a method of research, which has permitted me a deeper understanding of political psychiatry – may be by guiding me how I have been excluded in this society, and now seeking ways and means to get out of it by asking questions or to test a theory by looking at particular case study like holocaust survivors and so on.
I now turn to the question of what factors have influenced the discipline of psychiatry. The position of psychiatry among other disciplines is contested. It has been agreed that psychiatrists are not neutral scientific observers or were they indelibly shaped by their intellectual and political environment? Thus, there are no common agreement of psychiatric theory as to epistemology, methodology and ontology of the discipline.
The tussle between Professor Jha and Doctors Goldney and Davies are “great debates” over epistemology and methodology” within the discipline of psychiatry.
Professor Jha has used positivism, which holds that the goal of psychiatry is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible and unscientific. The goal is to find laws relating to the physical and social world to enable us to predict future events. In sum, Professor Jha claims : (i) he has provided objective truth – the Truth is out there!. (ii) he has applied empiricism – the idea that observation and measurement through experiments or tests is the core of the scientific endeavor. (iii) the observer like him is neutral – there is a distinction between subject and object a distinction between facts and values.
In contrast, Drs. Goldney and Davies have applied critical theory, which rejects positivism. They claim: (i) there is no objective truths in psychiatry – the Truth is not out there! (ii) the idea that observation and measurement through experiments is problematic. (iii) the observer is part of the subject material – there is no way the observer can be neutral, theory is constitutive of political economical psychiatry, and there is no clear distinction between subject and object or between facts and values. (iv) the point of psychiatric theory is not just to understand political life of the compensation claimant for money, but to transform him/her to a condition where they are emancipated from such obsessive and excessive constraints.
I was refused by previous tribunals about my presentation of determination of statement pf principles developed by Repatriation Medical Authority. This time I present it again concerning schizophrenia and diabetes mellitus. I have now shown these instruments to Professor Bal Jha. The factors described at paragraph 5 in terms of schizophrenia (instrument no. 133 of 1996) that is applicable for me is 5 (a) which is “experiencing an event perceived as a severe psychological stressor within 30 days immediately before the clinical worsening of schizophrenia.” Further 5 (d) which is “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management of schizophrenia.” Professor Jha has indicated in his report my paranoid schizophrenia was probably the principal cause to my Army service. The contribution by (my) employment to the contraction of the disease or the aggravation, or acceleration, or recurrence of the disease was replied by him to be significant and substantial. The severe psychosocial stressors I am proving is per the A26 exhibit at AAT of 2004, and again I will resubmit it for specific analysis. By definition, this time I will classify them as sexual assault (the confession of Private Jenkins as corroborated by Private Golding)), physical assaults and racial and sexual harassments. I will elaborate later on. My suffering also fits the instrument no. 133 of 1996. From losing Army service, divorce, major financial problem and many legal problems that are continuing as I have not been able to provide for my children. Professor Jha has considered my condition is likely to continue indefinitely.
The issue of my diabetes is based per instrument no. 12 of 2004 that is statement of principles concerning diabetes mellitus under Veterans’’ Entitlements Act 1986. Drs. David Miller and Stevenson has agreed that I do have this condition. I feel the factors as set out in paragraph 5 is per (o) which says “being treated with a drug reported to have caused hyperglycemia, for a condition for which the drug cannot be ceased or substituted, at the time of the clinical onset of diabetes mellitus.” I also the paragraph 5 (t) which is “in relation to type 2 diabetes mellitus, an inability to undertake any physical activity greater than 3 METs for at least 10 years immediately before the clinical onset of diabetes mellitus (felt very lethargic and depressed). I feel the paragraphs 5 (zi), (zk) and (zl) may apply to me. I suffered severe stress in the Army and did not know for a long time that I was suffering from either diabetes stress or actually diabetes mellitus until recently. On reflection, I was called lazy as I did suffered frequently glandular fever and depression and never found out the source of my lethargy and excessive need for drinking and smoking.
In the past, various tribunals never considered to account per s. 5B (2) (a) to (e) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Professor Jha and Drs. Miller and Stevenson felt the injury/diseases that I have was based on my predisposition and prior to me joining the Australian Army. The respondent’s document volume 1 at page 402 in paragraph 1 show the opinion of Dr. Kutlaca, where he says, “…was sufficient to demonstrate at the very least significant paranoid traits.” This he said it in 1985. At page 404 of the same volume 1, Dr. Kutlaca noted in the first paragraph about my history of difficulty in concentration and mild depression. There was a qualification about the influence of intense therapeutic alliance, to be transient as seen to be beneficial and/or via counter transference, to the patient via the role model influence of the alleged normal doctor in the mind of the abnormal patient. This puts notice about the detection by the so-called Professor of Psychiatry Robert Goldney that I have committed a grand scientific fraud on the Commonwealth of Australia by faking the theme of “poor memory and poor concentration.” In fact, I will show my poor concentration and poor memory complaints started after the Army and are in the record at my various postings. They relate to me being abused at those time frames and will betaken page by page of the volumes. Professor Jha has indicated in his report that I had predisposition to paranoid personality disorder, and it got aggravated by my experience in the Army service via various forms of accumulated abuses (ie. extreme psychosocial stressors of catastrophic consequences to my basic human rights. Even now, I have suffered at the hands of the Chief of Army as he made me a bankrupt through use of non- psychiatrist who did not understand the differences between adjustment disorder and reactive depression). I am told by Professor Jha that I was to get paranoid schizophrenia gradually arising the extreme psychosocial stressors (which was late onset) significantly contributed by my Army service. See my argument before the High Court about the fraud Chief of Army has done to me in the appendix of this case brief.
In trial I will re-tendered the Military Police report again as it has not been dealt specifically and I never had closure, and I need to deal with it as being relevant and reasonable, which falls within the ruling by DP Forgie. I will go page by page that matters 250 pages of it. It was produced after 20 years being suppressed from any sunlight getting to it. I ask the tribunal to accept A26, which was the AAT of 2004 exhibit material and they only did a quasi-judicial analysis saying it was regrettable that it was not produced earlier and contained no evidence of sexual abuses to support the link to paranoid disorder.
I will explain that such abuses were improperly overlooked. The pages 16, 19, 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 57, 49, 53 and 197 speak for themselves. It is not a record of young soldiers skylarking as noted by the Minister assisting the Defense Minister, Mr. Brown and by Dr. Hoff and other regular members of the Australian Army. These events are couched in language of and definition in legal terms to fit sexual assault or indecent assault, physical assaults, racial and sexual harassments and much more. Finally, I have linked all of my nightmares with my root cause of suffering and illness. Now I can have closure after so long, I feel such a relief and will be eternally grateful to DP Forgie for all she has done to me.
On balance, the perspectives of Drs. Golney and Davies are flawed and this tribunal should give no weight to theirs’ opinion in terms of probative expert evidence.
Yours sincerely
Ranjit Rana
PS: I have not worked full time from 1982 and part time from 1987, as it fits one of the factors for the diabetes mellitus per the SOP (statement of principles) outlined above
PPS: The assessment of Dr. Jagermann dated 15/4/1985 for Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre (CRC). Accounted of my past and factored in the psychosis in Queensland (I had just returned in from there in early 1985). He refers to my ongoing Army related litigation related depression and stress too. He also indicated how another psychotic disturbance could not be ruled out and so it tarnished the prognosis. Thus, I was not deemed worthy for sponsorship by CRC. Dr. Kutlaca saw me last on 15/4/1985 and noted I was fit to work on part time basis. Department of Defence gave me compensation from the day I was discharged from the Army to this date Dr. Kutlaca saw me. Thus, there is significant doubt about the integrity of Dr. Kutlaca’s report in terms of conflict with Dr. Jagermann. My compensation was cut off arbitrarily because Army related factors were not operational. See pages 404-406 and pages 330 and 374, 371 and 377 in volume one before the tribunal requires further analysis about the inconsistencies between Drs. Kutlaca and Jagermann.
Appendix of my argument before the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. of 2008
ADELAIDE REGISTRY
BETWEEN:
Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana
Plaintiff
Justices Spender, Tracy and Graham
(Federal Court of Australia)
1st Defendants
Justice Lander
(Federal Court of Australia)
2nd Defendant
Commonwealth of Australia
(Australian Defence Force)
3st Defendant
Chief of Army (delegate Brigadier Orme)
4rd Defendant
OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION
1. This is per the plaintiff’s ground 1 of the writ to show cause concerning the error as the 1st defendants’’ applied the wrong test. The plaintiff argues that the fresh evidence before them was two types. The first was actually being ‘fresh’ per Professor Bal Jha’s report dated 8/9/2008. It was obtained and paid for by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as the plaintiff could not afford it. In pages 1 to 2 he has accounted the materials he had regard to, in pages 2 to 4 he has provided some background information about the plaintiff, in page 5 he has made for the first time an appropriate scientific diagnosis according to DSM IV as follows: Axis 1: Principle diagnosis adjustment disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. Axis II: Personality disorder….Axis III: Physical disorders: …Diabetes II …. At pages 5 to 6 he has made specific comments. Further he has replied additional questions asked by the tribunal from pages 1 to 3 concerning his assessment about the plaintiff. This is referred to in the exhibit “E” in the affidavit of this plaintiff before this Court. This was not additional affidavit that was considered by previous Courts like the transcript of the AAT like exhibits “M” and “N” before this Court, which were opinions of Drs. Hoff and Carmine De Pasquale.
The opinion of Hoff was about the plaintiff suffering from ‘reactive depression’ and ‘elements of personality depression’. The former being aggravated by the plaintiff’s Army service, where he suffered racial harassment and so on. He also indicated the level of chronic stage in earlier period and at the time of his testimony the reactive depression of the plaintiff was moderate. Lastly, he agreed with the assessment of Dr. Kutlaca’s assessment that the plaintiff suffered ‘adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features’, from the time of the plaintiff was discharged from the Army in 15 July 1982 till 11 April 1985. Moreover, the plaintiff argued that Dr. Miller for the 3rd and 4th respondents had misrepresented the fact that at the time of the plaintiff discharge there was no contemporaneous evidence that ‘adjustment disorder’ was established at the time of discharge by Dr. Hoff. Further, by inference Brigadier Craig Orme misled or misrepresented the same fact of Dr. Miller. This was collaborated by Dr. Hoff’s additional/fresh evidence recently dated 21/8/2008, which is exhibit “J” in the plaintiff’s affidavit now before this Court, and at paragraphs 15, 19 to 21.
The exhibits “M”, “N” and “O” in the plaintiff’s affidavit are additional materials and the full court erred as being rehashed evidence not being relevant in other courts in the guise of ‘fresh evidence’. Thus, they erred to apply the proper test additionally to the recent fresh evidence of Professor Jha and Dr. Hoff (exhibits “E” and “J”). This test indicated that the fresh evidence could not have been obtained for the original hearing before Brigadier Orme in 2004, and before Mansfield J in 2005 with reasonable diligence, as it was not known to the plaintiff. For example, he did not know about the diagnosis of his paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes until recently. Even if he had known he could not afford to pay the psychiatrist thousands of dollars for the reports.
The respondents via Shashi Raj Maharaj QC has been opposing the ‘fresh evidence’ as being irrelevant and/or as being ‘additional evidence’ properly rejected by prior courts citing the precedent of Smith v New South Wales bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256 at 266-267 per Brennan, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. This was additional misrepresentation by the learned Senior Counsel to hide the untruths of Dr. Miller and by inference of Brigadier Craig Orme. For example, at paragraphs 20 of the reasons of Mansfield J and the full court above him the Counsel misled the Court that the transcript material or exhibits “M” and “N” was before Mansfield J, and further Dr. Carmine De Pasquale had accounted for “reactive depression” in 1998, which was not contemporaneous to be fresh or additional evidence. The Courts erred by finding for Dr. Miller and Orme, which was not supported by evidence. In fact, at paragraph 22 of the affidavit of this plaintiff before this Court and exhibit “N” shows just for additional evidence that the diagnosis of Dr. Carmine De Pasquale was “reactive anxiety depression”. It is note worthy that Orme in his reasons of his two decisions had hidden the fact that Dr. Carmine De Pasquale had only made assessment that the plaintiff had non-psychiatric personality disorder. See Rana v Chief of Army Staff [2006] FCAFC 63 at [8]. It is clear from the fresh evidence and additional evidence that Orme lied about Drs. Hoff and Pasquale. The particulars are:
1. Concerning Dr. Hoff and Pasquale this is what Orme has said:
At paragraph, four in the above cited case. “Further, I am strongly guided by the evidence of Dr. Hoff as late as 8 March 82 that ‘the diagnosis of aggravation of adjustment order with emotional features was not established during Mr Rana’s service.”
The plaintiff argues that the Courts have overlooked this misrepresentation to oppress the compelling case of fraud of Orme to deny any pension to the plaintiff and to change his Army records.
At paragraph five of the above cited case. “Additional issues that firm my view not to accept Mr Rana’s case I note the inference that Mr Rana ‘may well have suffered from an aggravation of a psychiatric condition as a result of his Army service’: but not to warrant to the extent to warrant discharge. Further I note the comment in S86/207, which is based upon Dr De Pasquale’s consultation with Mr Rana over three meetings in 1986, ‘Dr De Pasquale did not consider that the applicant was suffering from a psychiatric personality disorder.’ It was noted that Mr Rana suffered from a personality problem, which was aggravated by events, such as marital difficulties being a contributing factor. It is acknowledged these events occurred during his Army service.”
The plaintiff will argue that the additional material showed that the plaintiff was suffering from “reactive anxiety depression” per exhibit “N” in this affidavit. Further it will show that it was ongoing and aggravated by the plaintiff’s Army service and marital issue was one of the factors. The issue noted by the Full Court consisting Spender, Tracey and Graham in Rana v Chief of Army Staff [2006] FCAFC 63 at [20] noted Dr. Miller’s observations concerning Dr. Hoff. It is amazing how a psychiatrist erred to note that ‘adjustment disorder and reactive depression’ is not the same thing. Dr. Miller errs likewise the Court at [21] by inference that “Dr Miller was of the view that the reports indicated the presence of psychiatric conditions. There was however no contemporaneous evidence to support their existence at the time of his discharge….”
The plaintiff will argue that concerning Dr. De Pasquale at [20] in Rana v Chief of Army Staff [2006] FCAFC 63 at [20]. Here again the Court and Dr. Miller erred in fact. There was at [26] item 21 submitted by the plaintiff, which was a schedule of questions signed by Dr. De Pasquale (this is exhibit “P” in the affidavit before this Court), which had diagnosis made in 1998 that the plaintiff was suffering from paranoid disorder, reactive depression and post traumatic stress disorder. This showed the consistency of Dr. Pasquale what he had said in 1987/88 to the AAT and again in 1998, which the plaintiff was suffering from ‘adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.’ Again, at [21] of Rana v Chief of Army Staff [2006] FCAFC 63 the Court and Dr. Miller erred in fact by indicating: “With respect to the remaining documents tendered by the appellant, Dr. Miller considered that they had no particular value in respect of the issue in the matter….”
It can be said about the difference between additional evidence and fresh evidence that plaintiff was trying to make, yet the Court erred by rana v Chief of Army [2005] FCA 1283. I told the Court the AAT transcripts or exhibits “M” and “N” were before other Courts. However, I was presenting them as additional evidence as the AAT of 1988 had erred in not recording the proper diagnosis and chronic stages of the plaintiff’s reactive depression and concerning Dr. Hoff’s agreement with Dr. Kutlaca about his diagnosis of the plaintiff’s “adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.” See also the exhibit “L” the literature from British Journal of Psychiatry, which shows that adjustment disorder, reactive depression, reactive anxiety depression and transient situational crisis are the same, and it is note worthy to find that Dr. Miller is an incompetent medico in not understanding basic terminologies of changing world of psychiatry. Thus, the plaintiff argues that he has been discriminated by Orme and the Courts above him based on his disability.
It is note worthy to see the plaintiff’s case in SAN and COMCARE [2004] AATA 445 at [128]-[133]. This accounts for what Dr. De Pasquale has been saying to the AAT in 1987/88 until 2004. The exhibit “P” is referred as exhibit A1 in the AAT of 2004 decision. It is totally contrary to what Dr. Miller and Orme has inferred and has misled the Courts. Thus, there is ample evidence that the Court erred in not accepting fresh evidence and additional evidence in accumulation to arrive at the optimal threshold that is required by law. Moreover, the plaintiff had met all the three tests of fresh evidence “but for” the first defendants. There is reasonable basis the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed.
Now, the plaintiff turns on the fresh evidence of Professor Goldney, Drs. Miller and Stevenson for diabetes type two and relation to the plaintiff’s paranoid schizophrenia, adjustment disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. The exhibit “G” in this affidavit dated 16/1/2008 has at pages 2 to 11 about the interview with the plaintiff, at pages 11 to 12 are his mental examination of the plaintiff, in pages 12 to 19 are his comets on appended documents, in pages 19 to 25 are his summary and conclusions. For the first time questions that Orme said was not asked was proposed to Professor Goldney and he replied with agreement with Dr. Kutlaca and Dr. Davies. However, he is not consistent with Dr. Kutlaca’s and Dr. Hoff’s assessment that the plaintiff was suffering from chronic reactive depression/adjustment disorder. See the exhibits “M” and “N” above. However, Professor Bal Jha in exhibit “E” does not agree with Professor Goldney.
The plaintiff now argues that exhibit “H”, which with exhibit “G” was tendered as fresh evidence before the 1st defendants, which was rejected as additional evidence that was rejected by other Courts. This was not supported by any shred of evidence. This exhibit “H” is dated 4/8/2008. In page 2, are comments on additional documents. Again, in pages 2 to 13 are medical issues to address in supplementary report. In page 3, Professor Goldney addressed the same terminology that adjustment disorder and reactive depression being the same, which Dr. Miller for the 3rd and 4th respondents had indicated was not the same, which has never been supported by evidence, it was unreasonable and unfair to the plaintiff, further Dr. Miller overlooked his own capacity that he was not a psychiatrist, and so he was not an expert in the field. This is so manifestly clear that his reasons at [22]-[23] in Rana v Chief of Army Staff [2006] FCAFC 63 the Court found to be confusing in the terminology between invalidity and mental and physical incapacity. However, the Court erred by not going further to find him unreasonable, irrational and illogical in his expertise as incapable in comprehending the sameness between adjustment disorder and reactive depression and similar terminologies that have been replaced like in reactive anxiety depression and transient situational crisis. Thus, the 1st defendants erred in law, fact and discretion by overlooking the proper test about fresh evidence. Moreover, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed.
The plaintiff turns to exhibit “F” that is Dr. David Miller, an expert on the plaintiff’s diabetes. His reports are dated 23/1/2007, 8/7/2008, 10/7/2008, and 11/8/2008. There is additional letter about diabetes from Dr. Miller’s files by Dr. P. P Leonello dated 19/11/2007.
The plaintiff turns to exhibit “” that is Dr. Stevenson’s report dated 8/10/2008. The report is self-explanatory about diabetes and paranoid schizophrenia and issues of medicines. The plaintiff argues that he may have suffered diabetes in the Army and was not known until recently and after the hearings by Orme and Mansfield J in 2005. The reports of Drs. Miller and Stevenson could be accepted as fresh or additional evidence after the hearing, which was improperly opposed by the 3rd and 4th respondents as being irrelevant.
The plaintiff argues that the exhibits “IA” and “K” are the same that has been accounted for by Dr. Hoff in exhibit “J” in the plaintiff’s affidavit before this Court. British Psychiatry Journal, which shows the history of adjustment disorder name changes over the years, is exhibit “L” in the affidavit before this Court. Lastly, the exhibit “O” in the affidavit is the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board, which shows the actual physical and sexual assaults suffered by the plaintiff with other racial harassment and much more. This is to show the accounting by Dr. Hoff not to be an accurate record. Further, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission erred in fact and law by considering it as being decided by Brigadier Orme. The first respondents overlooked the legal error of Lander J about this issue as he was also led into error, as the plaintiff was asking him to allow him to amend his statement of claim arising this legal error, which was not supported by evidence. The issue will be advanced below in other grounds. The exhibit “Q” in the plaintiff’s affidavit before this Court is the erroneous letter of termination by Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The plaintiff has argued as to why the reports of professors Jha and Goldney, Drs. Miller and Stevenson was not available at the hearing before Brigadier Orme and Mansfield J with due diligence per the first test for fresh evidence. (ii) the fresh evidence must be credible per the fresh evidence test. The plaintiff argues that the reports of Professors Jha and Goldney and Drs. Miller and Stevenson are credible as fresh and additional evidence, and (iii) there must be a high probability of a different verdict if the fresh evidence had been available at the hearing before Orme and above him (the final test for fresh evidence). Lastly, the plaintiff argues that the reports of Professors Jha, Goldney, and Drs. Miller and Stevenson meets the last high test of fresh evidence as laid out in the parameters of ground one. The 1st defendants applied the unreasonable Quade law based high and stringent fresh evidence test by overlooking exhibit “SA” in the affidavit of the plaintiff, which was a final rebuttal to the defendants. Thus, the 1st defendants made jurisdictional and/or factual error by considering mistaken facts about fresh and/or additional evidence, did misconstruction of legislations about s. 46 P of the HREOC Act and much more. In sum, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed.
In the alternative, per ground two of the writ to show cause. The plaintiff will argue that the 1st defendants improperly overlooked the ‘fresh evidence’ that is the reports of Professors Jha and Goldney, which are exhibits “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, and “I” in the affidavit of the plaintiff, which is before this Court. They are “fresh evidence” by definition factually and legally. The plaintiff will further argue in the alternative all of these reports are additional evidence per Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256 at 266-267 according to Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ to reopen on the basis that new or additional evidence is available. In sum, these evidences meet the stringent test of the acceptance of fresh evidence. Thus, the analysis of the 1st respondents to summarily dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal was denial of natural justice of procedural fairness, which was not supported by evidence, it was unreasonable, and they further applied misconstruction of the Disability Discrimination Act or any relevant legislation.
The AAT of 1988 which is cited as per the plaintiff’s case is No. S. 86/207 Re: Mr R And Commonwealth of Australia, which was decided in 22 April 1988. For example, at [98] concerning Dr Carmine De Pasquale’s opinion is misrepresented by the tribunal by the erroneous finding what he had said. Orme was provided the additional documents like exhibit “P”, and he had access to the transcript like the exhibit “N”. From there either Orme or via Dr. Miller he could had actually found that Dr. carmine De Pasquale had actually given me also the diagnosis of “reactive anxiety depression” in page 205 of the transcript dated 16/12/1987 in paragraph 5, which was a reply to the question of the Deputy President Layton. Likewise, concerning exhibit “M” or the opinion of Dr. Hoff about his agreement that the plaintiff suffered adjustment disorder with Dr. Kutlaca is in page 194 of the transcript at paragraph 2, which was dated 16/12/1987. In terms of chronic stages of reactive depression/adjustment disorder, this Dr. Hoff provided the opinion in page 188 and at paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and over the next page about various factors. Thus, the plaintiff has argued that these transcripts were never part of fresh evidence that the 1st defendants has applied to be. It was before Orme and Mansfield J to correct the erroneous findings of the AAT. Thus, it was reasonable description as helpful additional evidence that should had been accepted by the 1st defendants as being relevant and ‘in the interest of justice.’
Thus, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed based on jurisdictional and/or factual error.
The test for jurisdictional and/or factual error is per these cases: See per Mason CJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 359-360 and Detsongjarus v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 21 ALD 139 at 141.
The test for jurisdictional error test see in Public Service Association of South Australia v Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia, South Australia Branch (1991) 173 CLR 132 at 151 and 165 per McHugh J.
The plaintiff has argued that the 1st defendants overlooked certain facts and principles of law or legislation in many occasions above. Thus, the plaintiff is constructing the precise legal term that is an error of law, which means the 1st defendants did nor had relevant considerations per the wisdom of French J in Sharp v Wakefield [1891] AC 173 at 179. Emphasis added. See also Othman v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Unreported, Federal Court, 26 September 1991.
In the alternative, per ground three of the writ to show cause. The 1st defendants did not allow the plaintiff to conduct his oral argument. They solidly controlled the half day hearing and dismissed the appeal within half an hour on the grounds that fresh evidence test was not met. They made jurisdictional and/or factual error by misconstruction of additional evidence that were exhibits “M” and “N” or transcript materials of 1988 AAT, which involved opinions of Drs. Hoff and Carmine De Pasquale. They failed to properly consider relevant materials like the reports of Drs. Jha and Goldney as being irrelevant and improper materials for the meeting of the threshold test of fresh evidence. Thus, the plaintiff was denied natural justice of procedural fairness.
The 3rd and 4th defendants improperly raised that reports of Professor Jha and Dr. Miller was not admitted as fresh evidence by Mansfiled J at [10] of Rana v Goldney (No 2) [2008] FCA 1553. They further argued that the 1st defendants did properly apply the correct test, which the plaintiff vigorously rejects it. The plaintiff relied on the wisdom of McTiernan ACJ, Menzies, Gibbs and Mason JJ at 482 of Clough and Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481. this plaintiff had raised fraud or improper concealment by Brigadier Orme the diagnosis of Dr. Carmine De Pasquale that the plaintiff had suffered ‘reactive anxiety depression’ and about Dr. Hoff’s opinion that the plaintiff had suffered ‘adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and much more outlines above. The plaintiff had also argued before the 1st defendants and 2nd defendant the precedent of National Australia Bank Ltd v Nobile(1988) 100 ALR 227 at 235-236 per Davies J, which was further and improperly overlooked and was the basis of further factual and/or jurisdictional error. Thus, the decision of the 1st and 2nd defendants should be quashed.
In the alternative, per ground four of the writ to show cause. The plaintiff argues that there were 11 grounds of appeal per the amended notice of appeal, and the 1st defendants improperly overlooked them all. They first wanted to give priority to the fresh evidence issue, and if it failed to meet the test then the appeal had no prospect of success was the attitude. The 1st defendants logic can be deduced from the matter at [11] in Rana v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 1667. the die had already been set, they had made up theirs’ mind, and become the advocates of the 3rd and 4th defendants, and without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff in conducting his oral arguments. Thus, by analogy the horses had bolted before the cart could be tied to them for the long drive west. Theirs’ solution was like to the holder of a hammer the solution was in hitting the nails and nothing else. The amended notice of appeal is exhibit “R” and the substituted outline of submission is exhibit “S”, which are self-explanatory. There were serious misconstruction of legislations and other errors of law by the 2nd defendant, which was overlooked by the 1st defendants for an improper purpose and have fallen into factual and/or jurisdictional error. Thus, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed.
In the alternative, per ground five of the writ to show cause.
The plaintiff argues in ground 5 (a) that Lord Diplock at 362 of Hunter v Chief
Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 had indicated “by providing a relatively low standard for the admission of fresh appeal on appeal; by empowering the standard fro the admission of fresh evidence on appeal….” In contrast, the 1st defendants had the improper view of applying Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade [1991] 102 ALR 487 at 489-91, which was suggested that this formulation for applicable legal principles for fresh evidence was set too high a threshold, which denied the plaintiff natural justice of procedural fairness. Thus, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed.
Grounds (b), (c) and (e) are self-explanatory, which the 3rd and 4th defendants got it wrong. The plaintiff argues that the 1st defendants were in error of facts, law and discretion and fell in jurisdictional and/or factual error.
Ground (d) is also self-explanatory. The appeal was not interlocutory in nature “but for” right of appeal.
In sum, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed arising to the plaintiff denial of natural justice of procedural fairness by the 1st defendants.
Conclusion
The plaintiff argues that the 1st defendants overall has erred in law, discretion and
fact. Thus, the decision of the 1st defendants should be quashed. The Court should give this plaintiff the constitutional relief he has sought.
Date:
…………………………..
Plaintiff Ranjit Rana
The address of the plaintiff is Unit 1/25 Hackney Road, Hackney, SA 5069
PS: Australian Government Solicitor who has been sued with Dr. Goldney in High Court has now asked the Official Trustee to discontinue this action even when the applicant can sue per s. 60 (4) of the Bankrptcy Act 1966.
In the final analysis, the applicant must be entitled to compensation.
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008
………………………………..
Applicant Ranjit Rana
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)