Foreword

How is it possible for a country's legal system to degenerate to the point of signing court orders on the pretext of protecting a person from violence whereas in fact the opposite too often takes place. In Australia the court orders in question are known as AVOs and in the words of one Supreme court judge "all you claim is that you are afraid of someone." In the words of one Parramatta local court magistrate "AVOs are signed as a matter of routine." [In other countries these are usually known as "restraining orders"]. The actual queues of lawyers waiting to have their AVOs signed in local courts has to be seen to be believed.

These can be used to protect child sexual abuse and to isolate executors of a legal Will of a person with brain damage and engineer a new Will leaving all to oneself. This appears a boom industry in its own right - walk into what are known as "direction hearings" in the NSW Supreme Court and you will see a room full of siblings cheated out of their inheritance by a psychopath sibling (such are likely to emerge from the closet the moment a parent has dementia or other brain damage), or a long lost cousin whom no one had seen for decades, or anyone who knows about this type of scam. [These AVOs can name a third party or parties as protected and on the AVOs that I have seen there is absolutely no explanation as to the reason].

These AVOs cause "psycholegeal shock" in victims and family members and even friends. The typical person, naive about the courts, thinks "surely this must be so else why would a court issue such against so and so." It is court sanctioned defamation of innocent people with the motive usually so clear to any rational and intelligent person.

The AVOs in question are not the ones applied for by the police. The latter are likely to be the result of "genuine concern" because, as I understand, police need physical evidence of assault before they apply for such. The AVOs in question are the ones obtained through legal firms usually to aid whatever case their client has. Because these are under criminal law, to have one of these is instant loss of credibility (in the legal state of mind of courts) and hence the advantage of these is tremendous in divorce cases, property cases, and all manner of other civil cases. Once an AVO is obtained, then, to continue legal harrassment and intimidation of this kind, financial records can be subpoenad of people not even remotely connected to the case but who may have an influence on the direct victim of an AVO. This action in itself results in psycholegalshock which will in time pass into the unconscious, but the next time a psycholegalshock takes place, the previous shock emerges again and the intensity keeps on building. Because of this compound effect, even incidental legal decisions can result in the complete shock resurfacing causing a complete state of mind and loss of perspective in the victim and family members or friends. [In this regard, experienced police officers are also trained observers and may be better at spotting signs of assault then even medical doctors. Hence if police arrive on a scene of someone claming to have been assaulted, and find nothing that suggests this and leave, that, at least in my opinion, ought to be viewed as "expert evidence" that no assaut had taken place. This needs to be mentioned because a psychopath type may stage an incident and claim to be assaulted - this in order to obtain an AVO to isolate a sibling who is the exectuor of a Will from a parent with dementia or brain damage.]

The nature of psycholegalschock is the main thrust of this treatise. However, it is impossible to truly understand such without understanding the legal state of mind. Not all aspects of that shock are covered, or known about at this time, in this treatise. Hence it seems vital to doument as much as possible about a legal state of mind because doctors, or psychiatrists, may be able to understand such shocks in different circumstances not mentioned in this document.

To understand the true nature of psycholegalshock, what needs to be clear, and this is also what this treatise is designed to do, to appreciate that the "legal state of mind" is not "natural legal thinking." The benchmark for the latter has been identified. Legal thinking inside a legal state of mind would come under a "thought disorder" had psychiatrists truly studied this type of thinking. It is simply not normal or natural as will become clear.

While it is the Australian "Anglo-Saxon" legal state of mind that is the subject of this study - it is unlikely there is much difference in any other culture. Specific differences that may present are mentioned in this treatise.

“...contrary to what politicians and lawyers, and indeed what many people and yours truly believed prior to this research, the legal state of mind is not a fine thinking process or intellect – it is in fact a destructive mental process. The changes the elastic brain undergoes are enormous and become “hard-wired”. No one who practises law in any shape should be considered as “normal” after five years unless this is proven to be the case by a battery of psychiatric diagnostic tests...this is vital to understand because treatments can then be found that can reduce or negate the destructive effect..alcohol appears a common problem in lawyers and similar and this can become destructive..”

“...the case study that revealed so much, more or less ended with the Supreme Court of NSW hearing in 2011. Case number 2010/83570. The defendant at this hearing was a lawyer with a psychopath personality. The methods of psychopaths have been well studied and documented but not in such who is also a lawyer.  This person has shown, in this case study, the ability to project delusions into the target. (This is not all that surprising because brain studies of what causes delusions are not inconsistent with how legal brains learn to think - refer appropriate section). How does a psychiatrist or a clinically minded person make a call on this? Here is an associate justice who admits on record that he is satisfied with invented evidence. The CMPL, with its strict diagnostic criteria, would diagnose “delusional thinking”. Except this could be an exceptional situation. In any other situation this associate justice might be as normal and rational as any other justice. It is a touch entertaining too in that the fabricated evidence consisted of a bank statement of a deceased person. There is no lawyer, certainly not in Australia, who knows how to cross-examine a corpse in relation to a bank statement...”

"...the first victory for a young lawyer in a court of law is a mind changing experience...an experience which is far too often a one way journey to a modified brain which will no longer resemble the normal brain and its natural ego state..."

"....the belief system that forms in the state of mind of lawyers and such, forms from the typical "2-dimensions of perceptions only" left brain, is also interesting to understand. This becomes a very predictable belief system because it lacks the capacity to "believe" in more than 2-dimensions of perception. A case study of the Legal Servics Commissioner of NSW (OLSC) is an example. According to a submission by OLSC to what is known as the Law Reform Commission in 2000, this office "dismisses" claims because it can not find independent witnesses and hence, so it says, has no choice but to dismiss genuine complains. That is, a complaint is made against a lawyer, the lawyer denies the allegation, and that is the end of the matter as far as the OLSC is concerned and  OLSC blames this on the legislation in place in this regard. So what if we arrange a case and name 4 impartial witnesses including 2 lawyers? The end result is the same "there are no independent witnesses" - this in the face of such being named but never approached. The left side of the brain learns "patterns" of "dismissing" or "accepting" complaints. It does not think  in the same way the total brain thinks. It learns three techniques how to dismiss claims: (a) find a simple 2-dimensional belief system which satisfies the facts; (b) ignore genuine witnesses; and (c) develop a complex view of "credibility" with simple states of credibility which can be explained as "one state, the highest credibility, is associated with the legal state of mind and everyone else tends to fall into the third state of belief which is: he or she is a "nobody" and "not credible". To ignore "belief" and learn to think and reason in an analytical way, or to contact witnesses which may disturb the "comfort" zone of the "simple believer", is not an option for the legal state of mind in certain positions....the amount of money that a person risks loosing in these money-hungry systems called courts of law, is such that the ego of the OLSC is extremely well adjusted in that it knows very well it can dismiass claims on nonsense or invented grounds and no normal intelligent person is going to take the matter to court because of the costs involved and the inability to find lawyers willing to take the OLSC to court or to account....it is as yet another Twilight Zone which costs taxpayes money and pretends to do so many things but when a genuine test case is submitted, the end result is predictable and exactly the same...or to use perhaps a favourite expression of these officials which must surely give these people a thrill when they use it - "no joy". (to the person making the complaint). Happiness is of course now known to be the result of the typical left brain - and this brain must be overjoyed each time it can dismiss a claim based on absurd reasons such as "no independent witnesses" when such were named but not contacted..." [this needs to be explained in depth in a chapter because these officials, whether such are the Ombudsman or the Legal Services Commissioner or the Judicial Review Commission, all end up contributing to psycholegalschock. At this point these bodies appear to be there for the "show", so politicians can claim they have a process in place - it is stilly a mystery what these people who claim to be busy all the time actually do...What such groups explain on their official web sites that they do, does not seem to be the case when a case study is designed and submitted to some such groups. As I had at one time explained to a group of students "forget the law....it does not matter what the law is, what matters is how it is implemented and enforced and how many ways there are to bypass, using precedents or two-dimensional arguments, the intent of the law. Understand this well, and you are likely to succeed in law and be both very wealthy and very happy. Fail to understand this and seriously delude yourself that courts of law are about justice and truth and the law as intended, and you may end up with an alcohol problem not long after you begin your legal career.]

"....but how to draw a clinical cline between what is normal "legal thinking" and "abnormal"? How about this scenario tested in ordinary life: in a class of around 12 adults studying for an accreditation known as Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, I reproduce and use a "legal state of mind" to argue some of the scenarios this class has to study and discuss. Many of these case studies are "legal thinking"  but not by lawyers. The end results is this: anytime the legal state of mind is used, the rest of the class considers it a silly and stupid approach which thinks too deeply and hence looses natural understanding. That, in a nutshell, is perhaps the most correct view of the legal state of mind and the mark of what is normal and what is abnormal when it comes to legal thinking....but, the legal state of mind uses typically only the typical left 2-dimensional perception brain, thus this becomes an "alien" state of mind and not a normal human state of mind...the word areas of the brain are language areas, regardless of the nature of the languague...even deaf people are known to use these areas to store and understand sign language...thus the modification of these areas takes place with the notions of evidence, credibility, simple views or beliefs, and this in turn forms a "unique language" of its own which simply comes across as natural language...in fact it is not, it is an "alien" language to those not trained in this style of "dismissing" complaints or accepting crediblity not on facts but based on what a person does or how much money he or she earns or what their position and status in life is... it is ever so easy for this state of mind to form simple primitive beliefs and be satisfied by these and be convinced beyond a doubt that such a simple 2-dimensional view of human dynamics is the "truth" and "reality" which then is in turn forced on others by courts of law and their precedents and is defined in thick legal books which attempt to map this simple view of life onto legal terms which explain all aspects of human behaviour using that simple 2-dimensional perception model developed by the legal state of mind..."

"...however, ultimately what makes control and domination of society possible are people called the police, sold to he public as community heroes....their roles in true crime, as distinct from court orders such as AVOs explained herein which fall  under criminal law in Australia but are literally sold through legal firms to anyone inventing a reason and paying top money to a legal firm....is certainly invaluable...but these people are "conditioned", not taught, conditioned by for example being placed in the back of police stations to watch human beings arrested, for say not paying a traffic fine, being put into metal cages not fit for pigs...this type of conditioning modifies the brain in way we have not studied but which are likely to remove any true notion of ethics and morals and natural justice and humanity and compassion and all such normal human values from such a person....with a typical IQ of 75, this based on some clinical studies of soldiers, this low IQ is unlikely to have any natural resistance to traditional conditioning methods....as Hitler and Stalin had demonstrated, these types can be conditioned to kill women and children "in the name of the law".. or, as the Australian experience in 70s shows, these types will arrest and imprison young people who were not willing to conscript into the army and participate in the slaughter of an estimated 6 million children in Vietnam...this is not an "intelligent" type of entity, it is a machine and this is something all school children should be taught from an early age. These types are conditioned to "respect" the law meaning orders of courts regardless whether such court orders are used to protect child sexual abuse or steal property from people through legal scams..surely the subconscious of these types becomes so modified that a clinical field of its own may need to address the "special needs" of such people when their psyche breaks down and cracks..." [note: whether the subject matter in this paragraph will be detailed and clarified in the final treatise is not as yet finalised.]


Part 1 – Mostly Background and Painting the Picture as a Whole
Part 2 – Our Frame of Reference and Conscious Development of this Frame-of-Reference
Part 3 – Insights into Psycholegalanalysis
Part 4 – A Dysfunctional Brain


Part 1 – Mostly Background and Painting the Picture as a Whole

Background to the Research

1.0 Perhaps like many a scientific discovery, this began innocently enough. Having developed a medical diagnosis expert system, 5GL-Doctor, I set about planning an extension (or a different highly specific version of 5GL-Doctor) and including psychiatric conditions in much detail. For perhaps a year my head was entwining together knowledge of psychiatry in order to put all such into a framework from which I could design an expert system for this speciality. As I was doing research on this, a legal situation came to my attention. The following morning a diagnosis popped into my head. Exactly how I knew that it was a “diagnosis”, that was a mystery at the time. Years later it became clear that medical diagnosis areas in my brain had began to diagnose in their own way certain traits of lawyers. Having a brother who was a lawyer, I could understand the reason for this. And it went from there. I took more and more interest in exploring the legal state of mind using, sometimes, some devious means in the form of letters or complaints to various legal forums. Then a situation arose which gave me a clear clinical path – I was now faced with a psychopath who was a lawyer and as far as I know no study had ever been done on such a personality who is a lawyer.

1.1 Eventually, in about late 2010, as explained in the CMPL, over a period of three weeks my unconscious projected diagnosis after diagnosis, these are referred to as “conclusions”, in regards to a great many aspects to do with the legal state of mind.

1.2 This of course is a brief condensed summary of the background. The CMPL expands a touch on this (not the free edition so much but the commercial edition).


The Ultimate Evidence

2.0 The ultimate evidence for the accuracy of this study are court orders which in Australia are known as AVOs (at least in New South Wales which is a State of Australia but I am pretty certain they are known by the same acronym in all States). These are “restraining orders”. These are supposed to protect a person from violence. These are likely appropriate when applied for by police which, as I understand, need physical evidence of assault. These can be also obtained through legal firms. No evidence is required. A third person can also be named on such a court order, be such an elderly demented parent or a young pretty female child. Such a person is named as “protected”.

2.1 In the words of one Supreme Court justice “all you need to claim is that you are afraid of someone.” (caught on record in one court case)

2.2 In the words of one magistrate in Parramatta court “AVOs are signed as a matter of routine.”

2.3 The four lawyers asked about these produced much the same response along the lines “Draconian legislation. Can be used for any reason and can be obtained for any reason. Should never be in place.”

2.4 These court orders a boom industry. They can be used to aid all manner of legal scams including protection of child sexual abuse. A medical fact sheet for Australian doctors in this regard has been available for a number of years from our medical web sites.

2.5 How does a rational legal system degenerate to the point of signing such court orders as a matter of routine? Without any thought of the consequences?

2.6 This is but one example. Walk into the Supreme Court of NSW on what are called direction hearings to do with what is known as the family provisions act, and you hear tale after tale of “Will fraud” engineered in such a way as to leave all to the one person who knew how to run this type of scam.

2.7 What about the law? That is a good question! In Australia medical reports, for example, that are for a court of law must be provided by a medico-legal firm. That is the theory and the law. In practise legal firms go shopping around to find an inappropriate medical specialist to provide “opinions” which are then used as the basis of passing a Last Will and Testament engineered by deception through probate.

2.8 But this is the tip of the iceberg! A case study of what is known as the Guardianship Tribunal of NSW demonstrated that these people compared a person with 90% of their thinking brain destroyed by Alzheimer’s, to a person with two legs – and using this incredible “magical thinking” came to the conclusion that the person in question had “testament capacity”.

2.9 One letter that came to my attention was from a woman who had become terrified of the legal scam so much she was afraid to go to her father’s funeral. It seems a distant cousin whom no one had seen for 37 years suddenly had a Will in his hand signed by the deceased parent with vast brain damage.

2.10 Another person who came to my attention was a very distressed father who suddenly had an AVO presented to him to stop him seeing his young attractive daughters. He somehow found information about these on our web sites, and rang most concerned about this. His situation was a touch problematic in that in his younger life he had assaulted someone – but that was long ago and he had not done anything like that since so why suddenly an AVO by his ex?

2.11 Legal scams do not start or end with AVOs. Subponeas can be obtained by any lawyer for any reason however remote such a reason is from a case in question. These are used to terrify people. I spoke to a barrister once about these. He did not see what the big deal was because lawyers do this all the time. No big deal to lawyers who do this all the time - but to an ordinary decent human being this is not only embarrassing – when their work is ordered by the court to produce financial documents – but it also the beginning, in some cases, of “psycholegalshock”. In the case study mentioned herein, what is fascinating is the person so subpoeanaed had no direct relationship to the matter.


This Treatise in Perspective

3.1 This treatise is not about piling rubbish on the Australian legal system. There is no need to do this because ask any Australian not into law what they think and chances are “It is shit. It stinks.” Whether this is a qualified opinion is debatable, however, regularly on the media a story comes through about a legal firm who obtained compensation for a client, which can be automatic when a work injury is clear, and charged themselves $100,000 for writing one letter. Such extreme costs of legal services in some situations are well known about and give the system a poor image. The perceived inability of lawyers or courts of law of being able to understand or talk normal language is another reason for the poor perception of this occupational group.

3.2 Neither is this treaty about stressing mistakes made by the legal system. Goodness, when developing 5GL-Doctor there was a period during which I was looking through a very thick book which was a case study of some medical mistakes. At first I was putting all these warnings into the software. One day I wrote a warning “Warning: if you are a surgeon about to amputate a leg with gangrene, make sure it is the correct leg as such a mistake had been made in the past.” This is when I decided against putting such warnings in. This just seemed, to me, as so silly that I could not get my head around this. So I decided to include only warnings to do with, relatively common, misdiagnosis of medical emergency conditions.

3.3 It is also important to mention that anytime you come across a word or term such as “common” or “rare” or “extremely rare”, it is safe to assume that I do not understand what I am talking about. The problem has come about from close to two decades of working on 5GL-Doctor and often enough trying to make sense of how to state the “relative incidence” of a disease. What is a “relatively common” skin condition to a dermatologist may be a condition the family physician only comes across once a year. Obtaining data in this regard from World Health Organization records had not proved of much use because the information was intended to aid the software to form short lists when it was not clear which condition to put toward the top of the short list. So an internal system of “relative incidence” was developed. My brain now uses such “relative incidence” concepts but rarely consciously explains what is the relative frame that I am using.

3.4 This treatise is about Psycholegalshock. This is defined as a trauma which is psychological and emotional and is mainly caused by poor legal decisions or legal scams. Having a chance to observe members of an extended family, of various ages, over a number of years, I have put together much of what the effects of this type of shock are. Chances are extremely high that a spouse of a direct victim of a legal scam of such a shock, will be herself so shocked she will choose to separate or divorce in order to isolate herself from the legal system. This is a shocking consequence of psycholegalshock and affects a great many members and friends of a large family group. Exactly how such recover, is what I personally had a chance to observe over a number of years.

3.5 However, for a psychiatrist or similar to understand this in its complexity, the legal state of mind has to be understood. For example. What might seem as “no big deal” to lawyers, such as a subpoena, can cause mass stress and embarrassment to a normal decent law abiding person. The human unconscious is 90% automatic recognition of actions and speeches of others. Only an estimated 10% is conscious understanding. Psycholegalshock is mainly experienced by the unconscious which attempts to “rationalise” the situation.

3.6 This treatise is also about analysing the actions of the one person in the case study who has a psychopath personality and is a lawyer (solicitor in Australia). Is this acquired or inherited? It is about understanding how and at which point this person began to plan what is defined as the Alzheimer’s Scam (refer Appendix or the commercial version of the Alzheimer’s Scam report). Perhaps the first clinical sign that this person was a psychopath and intent on the path of the Alzheimer’s Scam came about two years after his mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Out of the blue this person produced this printout which contained images of his mother – but the way these were arranged and their size and certain effects reminded a person of something you would place on a coffin or in a coffin. This gave some family members a shiver. This then, in hindsight, was the first stirring of the desire of the unconscious now ready, and knowing this is achievable, to make the conscious aware of the devious plan the unconscious devised. A plan which had to wait until his mother no longer understood what she read or signed and signed anything asked of her. The next stages after this incident was to more and more isolate himself from other family members. Anytime a family member arrived (he lived with this mother even though he had his own legal business - but this is a touch tricky to understand because over a period of six months while another family member stayed in the house looking after the mother, he was almost never there at night) he would quickly leave. As one family member observed correctly, and in hindsight this was spot on, “he thinks he owns the house and we are unwelcome guests.” Thus a “sense of detachment” is probably the second clinical sign.

3.7 However, it is not clinically prudent or correct to try and separate too much the three main angles of this study: (a) psycholegal shock; (b) a psychopath who is a lawyer; and (c) the legal state of mind. The human psyche by its nature is an “integrated” component. For clinical reasons we may need to identify and work with single components but overall in the brain the integrated component exists together and that is what we come face to face with.


Our Journey into the Legal State of Mind Begins

4.0 When you or I, not being lawyers or similar, pass a road sign which limits the speed we usually slow down to comply. We may not, depending on the situation, but if we don’t then we know we are breaking the law. On the other hand, the experienced magistrate or judge or lawyer when he or she comes across such a sign does not consciously recall the law but unconsciously recalls the ten, or twenty, or hundred ways that this law can be bypassed. Indeed, there was a situation in Australia in which a most senior judge was caught speeding on camera. He refused to pay the meagre fine (meagre relative to his salary) and denied it was him under oath, explaining that an American friend was driving. Who is going to accuse a senior judge of the Supreme Court of lying under oath? All went well, the charge was dismissed – until someone in the police came across the name of the judge’s friend in America and noticed she had passed away well before that incident. Eventually, with the aid of the media, this person was found guilty of perjury and ended up in prison.

4.1 Magistrates and judges are close to impossible to remove in Australia and perhaps other countries. The reason for this is not solely the process itself but also other factors. I have come across a situation in which the volume of complaints against a magistrate from lawyers became so much that a recommendation was made to Parliament to have that person removed. This magistrate was not about to let this happen. This was a cosy and lucrative career he was in. He obtained reports from psychiatrists that he was now “all right” and his new medication was working well and lodged a claim in the Supreme Court to stop that action of having him dismissed.

4.2 At this point the clinically astute person will appreciate that any person who needs medication to maintain mental well balance, may not be reliable in a most senior or vital community role. (In very responsible positions, an airline pilot for example, if you are diagnosed with diabetes that is likely the end of your flying career no matter how many medical opinions you come up with saying your diabetes is controlled by medication). Medication itself in such situation is unlikely to be 100% reliable. The clinically minded person is likely to point out “why take a risk when so many others can be found to replace this magistrate?” That is of course common sense and practical sense. [And of course, as psychiatrists will point out, psychiatric drugs introduce dysfunctions into the brain.]

4.3 This is not how courts of law think or reason. Given this person presented reports from psychiatrists that he is now all right – the court has “no evidence” which it can use to allow the dismissal to go ahead.

4.4 One of the difficulties with this particular study is that it reflects a particular legal mindset which we can define as the “Anglican Anglo-Saxon mindset.”  This is important to stress because it is no longer what we loosely define as the Australian mindset. To what extent are the findings of this study a reflection of lawyers in other countries? Common sense suggests there is likely a high correlation and the findings apply across the board. There would be specific differences such as the “superego of law” which may model itself on a country’s Constitution – or religion in some cases. Such Constitutions or religions may be different and reinforce or introduce certain values. However, it is not the superego which is the focus of this study into the legal mindset, but more the ego. It is unlikely, I think, that this would alter much in any lawyer party to any legal system.

4.5 Let us be clear on how a natural brain, as distinct from a legal brain, understands reality and truth. Evidence to a court of law is what they base their reality on. Common sense may be something lawyers talk off but in my research I have not observed any of that. What is acceptable as evidence is in accordance with what they define as “rules of evidence”. This varies between different groups – by that I mean that other occupations may use the term “rules of evidence” but these are usually defined relative to that occupation.

4.5.1 The CMPL defines magical thinking, delusional thinking, and senile thinking in those into law. There is an exact and precise, and rather narrow at this time, diagnostic criteria. The CMPL also defines the “I AM GOD AND I KNOW BETTER” syndrome. This treatise is not about these exceptions but the typical legal mindset. (And if by chance you don’t like the name of that syndrome and think it unscientific – do think again by looking at existing definitions of certain psychiatric symptoms or expressions. One clinical mind which expanded on Freud’s theories developed concepts which included “IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER”. So, which is a better name? Ours or his? Both may sound silly to people not familiar with elements of psychiatry. Both may be “identical” in one sense but the frame of reference is not the same.

4.6 Our journey, then, into the legal mindset begins with being clear on how these people perceive reality – based on evidence as they understand evidence. This begins to be conditioned into the brain the moment a young smart person begins a law degree. However, at this point it is more “imaginary” knowledge and no threat to the psyche. Only in real life situations of a court room, or similar, does the true effect of this approach begin. Only in the presence of “actions and consequences” does the brain truly begin to understand the nature of what “evidence” is. At this point the brain begins a journey of its own and begins modifying aspects of its own ego (our “reality principle”).

4.7 If we were to, take a “stab in the dark” at this point in time as to which parts of the brain first begin this process, perhaps we can learn something from a well know case of a judge in the USA. He suffered a stroke but insisted he still had the right to sit on the bench and preside over hearings. It soon became clear that this person could no longer weight evidence in a sensible manner. Sometimes he would release murderers, and at other times he would sentence extremely minor offenders to life-long prison sentences. Eventually dismissed – but while puzzled why anyone would dismiss him, he was most happy in his retirement.

4.8 The state of happiness is known to be produced by the typical left brain (left cerebral hemisphere). Since a typical brain results in right hand dominance, we assume he had a typical brain configuration. Our first stab as to which area of the brain is “an area in the right frontal lobe”. In particular we may be inclined to suspect considerable damage to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. This is an area of the brain which manipulates “in the mind” plans and concepts and makes decisions based on whatever is being manipulated in the mind. Thus it is likely also this area is largely responsible for deciding what weight to give evidence. Damage in this area is likely to produce unpredictable decisions by the rest of the brain. In addition, judging by the fact that this judge wanted to remain on the bench suggests his anterior cingulate cortex was largely spared. (well, such is responsible for more than self-willed decisions of course so possibly not in parts).

4.9.1 It would have been fascinating, from a clinical point of view, to listen and hear this judge. What we would be looking for are “confabulations”. To an ordinary person this means lies or inventions. To the clinical mind “confabulations” are the brain’s attempt to “plug” holes that form while the brain is forming thoughts. Understanding these well can unravel the process of how a brain may have become dysfunctional – however, in small amounts, which is more likely to come across in usual situations, spotting such would only arouse our index of suspicion that perhaps there is a problem in the brain or mind. Of course, we need to bear in mind pseudodemetia. This is a phenomenon in typically older people who have experienced a shock and the result may come across as dementia. Thus we would need to be clear on the medical history of a person if we notice confabulations in minor forms – before we could assume such are related to internal brain damage (not always apparent physical damage but damage in the sense of dysfunction and psychological or emotional blockages).

4.9.2 However, in relation to the above, and to provide some clinical insight, allow me to tell a story. Once I worked for a bank and had this manager who fascinated me. He was fond of telling someone off in the presence of a meeting and when he did his facial expressions acquired such remarkable resemblance to the words he was using that I was totally fascinated. Eventually I formed a conclusion that this person had an accident that caused damage to parts of the corpus callosum. This was the only way I could work out how this person could form these incredible expression during these phases of telling a person off. My conclusion was based on the fact that facial nerves innervate both brains and it is known that these are used as “replacement communication paths” in cases when there is damage to the corpus callosum. One day he told a story about himself. He had worked for a warehouse and one day pushed this trolley very very fast and jumped on it. The trolley hit an obstacle and came to a rapid halt and he went over the trolley into the air and landed on his head. He ended up in hospital for some time due to bone fractures – but that told me all I suspected! That fall must have – I could not find another explanation – caused a tear in parts of the corpus callosum and his facial nerves took over in certain situations. (This is known to sometimes take place after a serious head accident).

4.10 EVIDENCE then begins to shape and twist and contour the mind of those who begin to study law. As long as this is only in the mind it remains an intellectual skill. A skill no different to say philosophy. The moment this is applied in situations which are against ethics, morals, common sense or public decency, the brain has to make hard decision what to do in order to “survive”.

4.11 In that regard there is little choice for courts of law. They have specific rules which they adhere to. There are not only rules but precedents. Some of such may have been set by judges who may have been tired or prone to delusional or similar thinking. But once set such remain as the law others must follow. Thus a pedaphille who has served his time and is declared as “safe” moves into a neighbourhood and the moment people around learn what he was convicted of – they are terrified and start keeping a closer eye on their children. To courts of law this is nonsense because “on the available evidence there is nothing to fear.” That is not how normal people look at such situations – it is only how courts of law and those into law perceive reality. Thus a divergence begins between the “reality of normality” and the “reality of the legal mindset”.

4.12 We can attempt to map how associations begin to form in the brain. Thus we have “credible evidence” and “reliable evidence” and “expert evidence” and “qualified evidence” (or vice versa). The young lawyer interested in a career and success soon learns that if he or she can persuade a court in such a way as to believe that “credible evidence” (of the opposition) is not so credible, then he has every chance of winning a case and making a name for himself and earning promotions.

4.12 There is evidence which simply can not be disputed – but with most evidence the experienced legal mind can play around how best to either enhance or discredit the evidence. Discrediting evidence can be done very quickly in the right situation – or it is a consistent subtle attack on credibility and the like which more and more reduces the quality of the evidence in the mind of the judicial officer.

4.13 The next anchor in this new evolving mind of the young lawyer is to know what is “qualified evidence” from sources courts accept as reliable. This does not have to reflect reality or truth. For example. In Australia we have free public hospital geriatric specialists producing opinions about the “testament capacity” of brain damaged person. What has a geriatric specialist to do with this? It could be argued, perhaps not totally fairly, that the local mechanic may know as much about the brain as a geriatric specialist. That is not what such a speciality is about. But point this out in a court of law and chances are the opposition will reply with, “your honour, in a judgment of Smith vs Jones, the court ruled that the opinion of a geriatric specialist in such matters is qualified evidence beyond dispute.” This is an example of ignorance set in law and passed on from case to case.

4.14 Reality, facts, common sense, truth, all such things, slowly begin to erode in the psyche of the young lawyer. The brain begins to learn, and modifies itself, not to worry so much about what evidence is or what the law is, but how to bypass a law and how to discredit evidence or how to produce the kind of evidence which legal precedents accept as “infalllible”. Slowly to the young brain, and often in an invisible way, the inside of courts of law become Twilight Zones which the brain begins to adapt to work with. Truth, science, merit, facts, all such, remain outside the court building but inside the hearing rooms it becomes a Twilight Zone in which, in some situations, the most bizarre of evidence can be sold as evidence.

4.15 Some brains are likely to be immune from these effects – perhaps in the same way that a psychiatrist learns the skill of disassociation. Some brains will learn this skill relative to law without knowing that is what they learnt. The vast majority, however, are unlikely to be immune.

4.16 Another aspect that begins to form in the brain of a young lawyer are what may be called case studies in law. What is the point of spending months reading thick books when the law can be changed by the government at any notice? The government may change it, but the mind of those with decades of experience can not let go of the past – slowly over time any new law, by the setting of precedents, becomes in the image of the stale old world because that is what the brain has spent so much time studying and had learnt how to argue using those case studies. The prime example of this are the inheritance laws of the state of NSW. Evidence is clear that various State governments had tried to put such laws in place that could not be “corrupted” by the use of precedents. To no avail. Eventually the government put in place what is known as the family provisions act – to overcome some of these short comings of these inheritance laws (as “modified” by courts and their precedents) - because they could not change the way of thinking of old in the courts.

4.17 Thus ignorance, extreme ignorance really when you reflect and come to understand that some precedents set even 400 years ago by the Privy Council in England are still “valid” precedents, keeps on perpertuating itself from one generation of lawyers to another (if not “valid precedents anymore” then they are still a learning resource for lawyers and in Sydney you will find legal chambers with wall after wall of legal precedents dating back to prehistory  ).

At this time we have two key elements which shape the legal mindset: (a) notions of evidence (b) ignorance (passed through (a) precedents, some ancient by modern standards – that is not to say some precedents of the past are not still as valid today as they were then, but such may be few and far between; and (b) the inertia of the brain in attempting to modify its approach to accept and understand new laws which are in conflict with the way the brain had learnt to do in the past.) Of course, and clearly, some legal precedents are “timeless”. Such are often embodied in a Constitution. The corridors of thick books which I mentioned in some Sydney legal firms are, in my humble opinion, simply a fire hazard and not timeless legal precedents. Why would you want to keep cases in regards to working horses on a busy major city street and whether trams or horses had the right of way in certain situations?  I fail to see a relationship, no matter how removed, between the traffic of 150 years ago and modern Sydney traffic.

4.18 This “inertia” is understood. It is said that the brain of a baby will adapt even if most of the left or right hemisphere is damaged. It is claimed the other undamaged brain will take over most of the functions. These arguments come from reputable neuroscientists but even so they do not sit easily in the light of evidence that in children from abused backgrounds the brain develops poorly in parts. Thus while no doubt the brain is most elastic in the very early days, and becomes more rigid as we become older, even so those arguments about the one brain in an infant able to modify most of itself to take over from the other brain do seem a touch speculative. Whatever the truth in that regard, the fact which every educator of adults knows is that the older brain becomes more and more rigid in its views and has a lot of “baggage” that can block learning new things. Chances are high, unless a government becomes most inventive, that any new law which replaces the old is resisted by the brain’s inertia and slowly begins to be modified, by precedents, to come close to how it was in the past. An obvious example of this is what is known as the Family Provisions Act (NSW). It is no longer even called this in legislation! Except it is in the Supreme Court of NSW and if you mention the new name chances are lawyers will look at you blankly. (But this can happen in medicine too – I once mentioned a name of a particular disease to a family physician who looked at me blankly – because he was familiar with another name and the name I used meant nothing to him. Of course, this is natural in all of us as we age. I keep using the name of a car which has not been called that for some years and my son gives me this blank look telling me it has not been called that for years. If we bear in mind that at least a million neurons needs to fire in order to form a simple thought – then the brain’s inertia about modifying itself in some respects as we age does become understandable.) [Think carefully at this point. Here is a Supreme Court which does not appear to know that a law has a new name and is no longer called the Family Provisions Act. This court likes that name and is not about to change. What are the odds that the judges of this court don’t even know the changes that came into effect when the said Act was replaced? They are using precedents not law as their arguments – why do they need to know changes?]


Part 2 – Our Frame of Reference and Conscious Development of this Frame-of-Reference

5.1 Our frame of reference is not exactly a legal system or our study of a psychopath who is a lawyer or psycholegalshock per se – it is psycholegalanalysis. This is a powerful unconscious process that produces conclusions, diagnosis, of certain states of mind it finds in those into law.

The CMPL contains conclusions which are a “diagnosis” of certain conditions in the legal state of mind. Psycholegalanalysis can also produce conclusions which are not diagnosis in that sense but which are valid conclusions. Hence the term “conclusions” and “diagnosis” is interchangeable when referring to CMPL, but else they are not the same and a conclusion is not the same as a diagnosis defined in the CMPL. A CMPL conclusion is brief and precise and straight to the point. Other conclusions can be long winded conclusions that the conscious is trying to decipher from the unconscious psycholegalanalytical process. But this is not the same as a “conclusion pattern” as explained in the CMPL. A “conclusion patterns” is typically cryptic and hard to make sense. Other conclusions are the conscious able to decipher the unconscious process and form a reasonably articulate explanation of the conclusion. We could spend a few days just trying to put this into perspective.

The information below in regards to the ego (in the legal state of mind in particular but this is likely the case for all of us) are psycholegalanalytical conclusions - the "cryptic kind". Except these are more in the form of something like “...ego...normal...typical....modified...mature....immature states...” Our job is to put this into perspective using our conscious thinking ability. This is a continual challenge when working with psycholegalanalysis. Sometimes psycholegalanalysis  produces these “top level” conclusions which we then need to break up into a framework or conceptual model with which our reason can work with.

5.2 Until we are in a position to completely translate this unconscious process into a conscious model, we can not be certain what the true limitations or applications of psycholegalanalysis are.

5.3 To achieve this, we need definitions directly related to our frame of reference. We also must bear in mind that even when we use traditional terms and concepts of psychiatry, these may not fit perfectly into our frame of reference. For example “magical thinking”. While it is the same as what psychiatrists understand by that term, the exact and precise diagnostic criteria is defined in the CMPL – not in the DSM or any other psychiatric source. However, the nature of “magical thinking” in the legal mindset may differ or even take on “alien” dimensions.


The Ego

5.4 This is our “reality principle”. It is that part of the psyche that allows a person to judge and understand reality in a given situation. It is reality relative to self and relative to others and relative to what is happening. In some situations an individual ego may not be all that good at this. In a stress situation some egos maintain a “cool head” while others go to pieces and do not know what to do. The ego forms from components of the mind. It can only be as good at its job as the components are. If it has a faulty or inferior component to work with, it has to adapt to cope with that component. There is probably no such thing as a “perfect ego”.


Normal Ego

5.5 This is not the same as a “typical ego” defined below. A normal healthy ego is rare. It is rare because most people don’t need a “normal ego” and instead operate using a “typical ego”.

5.6 I once worked with an Islamic person. This man was a giant! His stature looked strong and fierce. But talk to him for a minute and what you feel and find is a gentle giant and no threat to anyone (who is not provoking him physically I guess). That is an example of a “normal ego” which, because of inherited trait of tallness and strength, had no choice but to form and fashion a personality which enables this person to interact with anyone socially and not be worried by his size and strength. Another example is an especially highly intelligent person whose ego has fashioned the personality in such a way that the first impression is that this person is perhaps even a touch slow. Another example would be of a person in exceptionally high authority whose ego altered the personality to make this person able to make anyone with him feel comfortable. We could label such an ego as an especially mentally healthy ego.


Typical Ego

5.7 A typical ego is what most people have. It does not need to modify the personality much because everyone else has much the same personality of likes, dislikes, personal choices, the way they communicate, and so on. An active typical ego is probably much harder to spot than a normal healthy ego. A typical ego prefers to “hide” behind the personality. A typical ego rarely has any “testing” or work to do. This in contrast to a normal ego which may continually need to test reality in new situations. Take our gentle giant. He is sitting at night in the train and four young drunk men came along and engage him in talk. Regardless of his huge size, if he comes across as a gentle giant he might become a target of an attack – so the ego may give him a temporary new deep voice with a touch of aggressiveness and certain movements which may put the potential attackers off. On the other hand, a typical ego in such a situation might “hide” because it does not have a clue what to do so it would leave the decisions to other parts of the brain and mind.

5.8 A typical ego is certainly not perfect, it is simply appropriate to a situation. The normal ego comes closer to a perfect or ideal ego.


Modified Ego

5.9 This is a feature of certain occupations especially court officials or similar, and police. Their actions can modify reality for a great many people. A legal precedent may cause a number of government departments to hurriedly review and change their procedures. Other occupations, such as bank executives or advertising executives, may also form a modified ego. A modified ego may also develop as a form of “self defence of the psyche” in some positions.

5.10 A modified ego is opposite to the ego. The normal or typical ego is about understanding “reality”, or “testing” reality if need be to know what it is. A modified ego is about modifying reality. These are usually opposite and contradictory and opposing functions.

5.11 The modified ego exists in two states: mature and immature. An immature modified ego is a nuisance to the ego and a clinical mind spotting such needs to – in the setting of say a psychiatrist’s couch when there is opportunity to do this – to either squash it, or bring it to maturity quickly.

5.12 A mature modified ego is subservient to the ego and the ego has full control. This does not mean the ego does not sometimes “get it wrong” and allow the modified ego to be active for too long. This is not an issue for the ego because it knows it made a mistake – or it “tested” reality - and adjusts its own parameters in regards to the conditions during which it will allow the mature modified ego to take control of the psyche.

5.13 A modified ego may also serve another vital role. Once I was sitting at a hearing in the Supreme Court and there was a break. This very older gentlemen was one of the court transcript takers. Something about his manner told me he could open up to me. So I walked over and just said that he looked like he had been doing this for so long and how does he find it? He soon opened up and explained that this was not so bad (this particular type of hearing) but upstairs in the criminal court there are stories of horror against children and such are presented so often. I replied “I don’t know how these judges can cope listening to that over and over.” His reply was something like “I don’t know. I could not do it. I switched off and just took notes.” Possibly the ego hid and allowed the modified ego to take over and it in turn switched off parts of the brain. We have clinical precedents for this type of actions. For example. In cases of angina, which is say strong chest pain, this chest pain seems to take place only when there is much activity in the anterior cingulate cortex. Thus while the ego is not in a position to switch parts of the brain off, the modified ego may just learn how to do this and the reason the ego is more than content to let the modified ego take over in some situations. The modified ego is about modifying reality – given it learns how to do this in the external environment, it might just learn how to do this to parts of the internal environment.

5.14 Other aspects of the conceptual model we are developing are explained in the CMPL either in the conclusions or the appendix or the glossary. Often there are variations to some existing psychiatric definitions or concepts or ideas – modifications which are better equipped to reflect our specific and in a sense unique frame of reference.


Part 3 – Insights into Psycholegalanalysis

6.1 The table below is the output of psycholegalanalysis that “equated” the reality of a legal mindset to how it would appear in a different situation. Psycholegalanalysis can produce complex and sometimes seemingly cryptic comparisons. There is no simple way to understand this type of conclusion, or understand why this was the correct “equivalent” situation.

Actual Case (NSW Legal Services Commissioner, 2010 and still continuing at the time of writing)) A lawyer accepts money and does not deliver. A complaint is made to the Legal Services Commissioner who can award some compensation for actions of lawyers that result in damage. It appears instead of contacting the witnesses named (two of the witnesses so named were lawyers), this Legal Services Commissioner  collected the financial records of the solicitor and then decided to dismiss the claim for compensation on the grounds that “there are no independent witnesses”. (How is this action (of dismissing this complaint on those grounds) related to the complaint (which clearly named two independent witnesses which were never approached)? We don’t know – it is a puzzle - you would need to have a legal mindset to understand that reality - but psycholegalanalysis mapped out an equivalent situation – see right side)

Patient: Doctor, I have a headache. Doctor: Would you like me to diagnose arthritis? Or perhaps a hernia? This is important because the outcome depends on the diagnosis. OR Customer brings a car to the mechanic explaining “it makes a noise every time I turn.” Mechanic: What would you like me to diagnose? A starter motor problem? Or perhaps an ignition coil problem?

Table 3.1

6.2 Psycholegalanalsysi is a complex subconscious process which takes place inside the medical diagnosis areas of the brain. The CMPL is an example of “direct” translation of that process into specific diagnosis. At other times it can be close to impossible to understand why psycholegalanalysis produced a certain result. The above is an example. What does it mean? While the actions of the Legal Services Commissioner do not appear related to the complaint – why then does psycholegalanalysis produce that type of mapping? So far psycholegalanalysis has proved 100% correct in the situations in which it could be sensibly tested. Thus until shown otherwise, any output from the process needs to be treated with respect. The difficulty is trying to make sense of why and what does it mean to the conscious reason?

6.3 The keyword appears to be “diagnosis”. This suggests the Legal Services Commissioner’s unconscious had tried to make some kind of “diagnosis”. Of what? Of the credibility of the complaint? Or about the integrity of the solicitor?

6.4 This is the approach to tackling some results from psycholeganalaysis. First to identify some key words or phrases which “stick out”. Hence the word “diagnosis” sticks out. The pattern that “sticks out” is also puzzling. A pattern which suggests a course of action is not directly relevant to the problem at hand.

6.5 Common sense might tell any of us that this is a bizarre situation. The witnesses were not contacted. Yes – but we are dealing with a different reality, the reality of a different mindset. Of a legal mindset. Witnesses in this situation, so it seems, are not the “evidence” this legal mind is seeking. The output on the right seems to hint that this person is seeking the kind of evidence which will allow him to make a “diagnosis” the way he wants it made.

6.6 It is rarely possible to be certain if the end result, a psycholegalanalytical conclusion, had as its source one person or more. Example. I may spend days walking around the Supreme Court, or sitting at different hearings. Finally psycholegalanalysis presents an “observation”. To whom is this related? The process itself absorbs subconscious input from anywhere it finds it. The only way we can make a diagnosis using CMPL is if an exact and precise diagnostic criteria relevant to one person is satisfied. That is not the same as the general process itself. The diagnosis criteria contains actions that are observed – not unconscious input which we can not see or be certain where it came from. (about the only way we could be certain if there was exposure during a period to only one lawyer or similar – but what about television series about law? It is not clear if the process would absorb some of such from these – such are actors, true, but actors can be so clever at conveying the nature of a mindset that possibly this can become input.

6.7 The CMPL is the result of psycholegalanalysis projecting a conclusion in such a way that the conscious knows immediately which diagnosis criteria apply. That is not the typical way we form a diagnosis of this kind. The more usual way is a struggle, trying to make sense of a number of psycholegalanalytical projections into the brain. Table 3.1 is an example. Here the conscious does not immediately understand what is the “diagnosis” that we will end up with, what are the diagnosis criteria, and how does it fit into the scheme of things.

6.8 The honest person would say “hold on, this Commissioner just failed to do his job.” No! (Well, yes, that is what common sense tells us, but "no" in the context of a legal mindset). The question is – what does his unconscious see as his job? Is it to protect “the good reputation of lawyers?” We don’t know what his unconscious is about – but psycholegalanalysis had managed to work that out. And the process then explained this – but in its own way which we need to somehow make sense of and decipher into more concrete terms our forebrain can understand. Thus we need to study the output in the right column only (of table 3.1) – and not trying to match it with our perceptions.  If and only if and only when we get this right – then the left hand side tells us the actions that form the “diagnosis criteria”.

6.9 Could we diagnose this action as "incompetency?" No - because the CMPL has such a diagnosis and the actions of the Commissioner do not satisfy the diagnosis criteria.

7.0 In fact, no conclusion in the CMPL can be used because none satisfy the diagnosis criteria. And yet what we are presented with in this situation is in fact a "diagnosis" which does belong in the CMPL but at this point in time we don't know how we should name it or what it is exactly.

7.1 Let us assume the Commissioner has a modified ego. This is about the only rational explanation for the contradiction - dismissing the claim on the grounds that there are not independent witnesses and yet at the same not contacting the witnesses that were named. This is more the mark of a "modified ego" which is not interested in "reality" only in how to "modify reality to suit". To understand this, we need insights into the subconscious - that insight is in cryptic form in the right column of table 3.1.

7.2 What is this modified ego about? We don't know - it could be a personal ambition of the man to make sure he never pays anyone anything, this will make it seems all solicitors in the country are honest and professional. It could be arrogance - many a lawyer starts to believe that they are "infallible" against ordinary people and can shape any argument any way they want. There could be more than one inner motive which the modified ego is shaping and pruning or working with.

7.3 And perhaps that is our diagnosis "Modified Ego"? The diagnosis criteria would be something like  (a) claim by a judicial officer that there are no witnesses when witnesses were named but not contacted; OR (b)...........

7.4 Our presumptive diagnosis (7.3) is a "diagnosis". It does not explain why or what the modified ego is doing or why, or what are its ambitions. A CMPL diagnosis is not the typical psychiatric type of diagnosis - there are no "explanations" as to why or how this comes about, there is only the diagnosis and the diagnosis criteria. (the CMPL has examples which in a way offer minor explanations). Once we have this diagnosis, the next step - in theory - if this was a patient - would be to work out if this was a "mature" modified ego or an immature one. It is unlikely the ego would allow a mature modified ego to present such a blatant contradiction. That contradiction is the mark of an immature modified ego. The true ego has no control over an immature modified ego.

7.9 Having identified a likely immature ego, how might we go about treatment? Our aim is to either squash it, or to bring it to maturity as quickly as possible. While we can not say exactly how the modified ego is structured, or what anchors into the brain it has developed – at least at this point we have no clinical need to answer such questions - but we have a clinical right to assume a component of that modified ego are parts of the id. Therefore, if we follow Freud’s natural rule about mental healing, to shift some of the id into the ego, there is every chance once we start on this therapy – the component that will be removed and shifted will be from the immature modified ego. At this point the modified ego will start loosing its strength. It will know this. It will also quickly work out that in order to survive, it has to become subservient to other forces and allow the true ego to be strengthened not from its id energy but from the other vast id energy reserves in the subconscious. A modified ego which does not learn this lesson, will disappear as the id energy is transferred from its own self which insists on being active and interfering with the therapy.

7.10 Let us take a look at another psycholegalanalytical result.  The table below again has two columns. The second column is the psycholegal “comparison” which the process projected into the mind’s eye. (note: there are different ways, as should be clear, that psycholegalanalysis projects its results. The most common is by the conscious becoming aware of the “thoughts” of the process – but these are often cryptic and usually there is a struggle to make sense of them. Visual projections into the mind’s eye may only take place when the conscious can not work out what the process is attempting to explain. What we have is thoughts in the subconscious which are attempting to “lock onto” the correct neurons so that the conscious can translate those thoughts in its own ways. When the process fails to find such a group of neurons, and yet its internal activity is considerable, then projecting an image into the mind’s eye is an alternate way to explain. This is simpler in a sense because the correct visual associations can be found much easier than the verbal associations. It is more complex, on the other hand, in that much more energy is needed. The visual pathways contain bundles of neurons which number in the millions, while the auditory and verbal connections are much less dense. Much more energy, force, is needed to channel energy into the visual pathways in order for this to result in the image in the mind’s eye. It is best to “visualize” this explanation instead of trying to work this out from the words used. The visual pathways simply “sense” the nature of the energy and the association areas find the best image. This may even be a very “primitive” function, in the same way that “blindsight” is a primitive function which allows the eyes to watch and follow a moving target even when injury had taken place in the V1 (primary) visual areas and the target can no longer actually be seen by the eyes – but the primitive “inner eye” knows how to move the eyes so that it appears that the eyes are still seeing and watching. It is possible that same primitive “third eye” and “primeval sense” is what makes it possible for psycholegalanalysis to project an image into the mind’s eye – when it can not find a simpler way to discharge the mental energy.)

Actual Case, Guardianship Tribunal of NSW The three members of this tribunal compared a woman with 90% of her thinking brain destroyed by Alzheimer’s to a person with two legs and juggling this comparison in their head they came to the conclusion this woman had testament capacity.

The projection of psycholegalanalysis in this case is a person walking on their hands. (i.e. upright, but walking on their hands instead of legs).

Table 6.2

6.22 These actions and or approach satisfy the CMPL diagnosis criteria for “magical thinking.” But, psycholegalanalysis is also projecting another possible diagnosis – if we can decipher it of course.

6.23 As always, we need to focus only on the possible meaning of the information in the right hand side of table 6.2. The clinical mind might instantly diagnose “magical thinking” without the aid of CMPL – but this is not the way we do this with a legal mindset. We need to ponder on the significance of what psycholegalanalysis is trying to convey by its mental projection. A person walking on their hands instead of legs? After a while of thinking about this, the diagnosis of “inappropriate view” springs to mind. Which means we have a differerntial diagnosis list: magical thinking and inappropriate view. The latter is not a CMPL diagnosis. We can use other methods, more tradtional methods of psychiatry or clinical psychology, to try and eliminate magical thinking. If we eliminate magical thinking from the DDX list, then we are left with “inappropriate view”.

6.24 This, however, is an “unsafe diagnosis”. Exactly why is not our concern. It could be for personal reasons – the psyche of the analyst may not be able to cope with the true diagnosis. When we find this diagnosis of “unsafe diagnosis”, we stop, there is nothing more we can do using psycholegalanaylis. This type of result may be more common in certain cultures such as an Islamic political system.

6.25 An “inappropriate view” starts bordering on the values of the belief system. Why does a man believe in God? Perhaps in his childhood his favourite dog died and his mother told him about a “doggy heaven” and that love had shaped his belief system. An “unsafe diagnosis” can have a destructive effect on the patient – or in rare cases on the clinician.

6.26 It is not the role of the clinician to deal with this type of “unsafe” diagnosis. Consider. Three people on this tribunal came to that same conclusion. Not one, but three. That excludes delusional thinking by default (well, so extremely unlikely that we do not want to entertain this unless we truly had extremely strong evidence that some kind of group "delusion" effect took place).

6.27 One psycholegalanalytical projection of an “inappropriate view” is that image. It might vary depending on the analyst and his or her own way of relating. In this situation there are likely to be other diagnosis that satisfy the CMPL. If we can eliminate the others, typically by more traditional diagnostic means, and are only left with an “inappropriate view” then this is an “unsafe diagnosis” to make and we stop.

6.28 It is extremely likely that every psychiatrist and clinical psychologist has a mature modified ego. This type of modified ego is different – it only comes online at professional times and it tests reality but only in the context of the patient and the intellectual tools, such as psychotherapy or gestalt therapy or as appropriate, that may be appropriate to “modify” the reality in the patient. That modified ego in this group is as important to the clinician as a sharp surgical knife to a surgeon. The “unsafe diagnosis” more than likely refers to the clinician more so than the patient(s). The psycholegalanalytical process is not about damaging the mature modified ego in the clinician and that could happen if a “clear cut” diagnosis was presented by psycholegalanalysis. To damage a mature modified ego means to force it into an immature state and that is a clinically dangerous – not safe – approach.

6.29 The psycholegalanalytical process sits inside the brain’s medical diagnosis areas. Its first and primary function is to protect those areas and this is achieved by protecting the psyche and of course the professional clinical modified ego. By its very nature it can “diagnose” with 100% accuracy in the context of the psyche. If the process thus “diagnoses” that it is not safe to produce a “true diagnosis” because the psyche or components may be damaged – it will not do so. The “unsafe diagnosis” ought not be seen as anything else other than the process not taking a risk on damaging the modified ego in the clinician. (There could be other reasons for an “unsafe diagnosis” but there is no point trying to work those out.)

6.30 From a practical perspective, to try and change the “view” in a legal mindset can only be done by courts of law or appropriate authority figures. It is not a question of education or presenting good clever arguments. A legal mindset is anchored in “respect” and “subserviance” to precedents and laws and the interpretation of those laws. A clinician, even with the best intentions, and even when highly respected by the patient, is simply not the authority figure the legal mindset accepts in the context of “laws” or “views”. (or “religion” in countries in which religion integrates with a legal system). Given we find no other psychiatric concents (or issues of clinical significance), and only this "unsafe" diagnosis, then we stop. The aim of the analyst is to heal a damaging process in the brain of the legal mindset - not to shape politicial or cultural or legal views. Hence, and only providing we can eliminate all other potential candidates from our DDX list, then we have an "unsafe diagnosis" on our hand which by definition means we don't make it or investigate it.

6.31 Another way to correctly view what takes place prior to an "unsafe diagnosis", is to imagine mental energy of the psycholegalanalytical process more and more touching more and more neurons, but then the moment a neuron is about to be touched that is an important neuron to the modified ego, the process just stops, the mental energy hovers above this neuron but does not touch it or harm it. This type of internal mental structure is the "unsafe diagnosis" bit. The force the process needs to restain the energy, causes the energy to build up more and more - and the force in that energy - so much so that eventually the energy is strong enough to discharge into the visual pathways. That is possibly a natural feature of the brain. The very nature of visual signals is such that enormous energy is generated and hence the brain may automatically, when very strong energy forms inside, "assume" such energy belongs to the visual pathway and absorbs such into these. OR - it may be the natural function of the brain not to allow an energy build up of this type - energy that forms a force which in turn forms more energy which in turn forms a stronger force and so on - and the pathways most capable of handling such strong energy are the visual pathways and automatically take over when this happens and absorb the energy, converting it into signals.


Part 4 – A Dysfunctional Brain

Pre-amble

4.1 The term dysfunction typically refers to a brain affected by injury. It can also mean a dysfunction caused by chemical or electrical or other factors. Epilepsy is a simple example of a dysfunction caused by electrical activity in the brain.

4.2 This treatise  - which overall is the output of the psycholegalanalysis process – also proposes that the brain that forms a legal state of mind can only do so if it modifies itself to be dysfunctional – in this context this primarily refers to a brain that no longer operates in accordance with the typical and normal human brain.

4.5 The name of the game in courts of law is not “facts”, “truth”, “ethics”, “morals”, or “justice” as such – the name of the game is “win or loose”. The plaintiff’s lawyers (person or persons that initiated a case) presents a case and evidence. The aim of the defendant’s lawyers (person or persons against whom a claim has been made) is to discredit that evidence as much as it can be and to improve the credibility of its own evidence as much as can be. This is not science. It is more like a Casino. It is a “topsy turvy” world in which logic, facts, science, morals and ethics, play no part in the context of the whole. Any of these components can be a “convenience”, a “tool”, that can enhance or discredit evidence - but they are the means to an end and not the end goal in the heart and mind. In fact, often, neither is “law” as such.

4.6 This may appear as a contradiction. How can courts of law not be about law? Consider the human side of the coin. Do legal firms represent people out of the goodness of their heart or their passion for the law or justice? This would be extremely rare and the answer to this question is a big no. The name is to make money, lots of money, and to enhance one’s own modified ego and image.

4.7 The typical left brain, as is known from studies of split-brain patients and right brain damaged patients, is only capable of 2-dimensional perception. It is also a “details” brain and also the “positive brain” in the sense of being responsible for the state of “happiness”.

4.8 The typical left brain has no natural sense of many normal functions of life. The well known case of the person who seemed ever so intelligent but would do things outside the norm such as borrowing a shoe and defecating into it, is an example often cited in neuroscience texts. Eventually it was found that his left frontal lobe was abnormal and small, and the right frontal lobe was missing altogether. Without that vital typical frontal lobe, there is no way a person can properly judge their own actions in relations to others.

4.9 The reason is the 2-dimensional perception nature of the typical left brain. Human dynamics can not be understood in 2-dimensions – except in courts of law! In order to cope with understanding human behaviour, the courts researched appear to have invented very large books which contain their own legal terms which explain all aspects of human behaviour. A vital need when the typical right brain is not used and only the left is, and that brain has to understand a matter in its own 2-dimensional way.

4.10 There is a “rational approach” to “rules of evidence”. Government departments and other organizations tend to define their own rules and use these. However, almost without exception in my research, people charged with such matters always use the right brain also which may be said to contribute “professional judgment” regardless of how well the rules of evidence are satisfied. Intellectuals, in my observations, also always use both brains even when their subject-matter appears to have been put together solely by the left brain.

4.11 This is never the case in courts of law as I have observed. It is always the typical left brain and in addition the more experienced or skilled the lawyer is, the more of the typical left frontal brain is used. If we name the top of the prefrontal cortex of the brain as the “apex” – psycholegalanalytical projections indicate that a “cylinder” like force forms in this area which attempts to imitate the right brain activity. The keyword here is “imitate”. The dysfunctional brain in the legal state of mind has literally attempted to replace the natural workings of the right prefrontal cortex with an invented scheme natural to the left brain. When activity of this type is strong – the I AM GOD AND I KNOW BETTER syndrome may emerge. Because it is only a 2-perception brain, its view of the world and cosmos and self is “one dimensional”. When that view is strong, the one dimensional state of mind is an I AM GOD experience. The cosmos and other minds do not exist to this state of mind – it alone knows all, knows how, knows when, and knows how to make a judgement. It is possible serial killers may experience the same effect at the point of mutilating their victims.  [A 2-dimensional brain can only form a 1-dimensional mind. Refer CMPL definition of mind and diagrams for clarification.)

4.12 One reason for this could be because it is known that the typical right prefrontal areas are one of the key anchors for the ego – the reality test. In order to protect the self from facing “reality” or “truth” in a court room situation head on, the brain modifies itself to ensure the true ego is never active in a court room situation.

4.12 Regardless of how we understand this conceptually, the fact is that perhaps any legal decision you come across, as a clinician, you will always only see the typical left brain being involved in all deliberations. The left brain is capable of throwing words such as “justice” – but when it comes only from the left it is just a word and not the true meaning as normal people understand.

4.13 The typical person hears a politician explain a law and both their brains are used to understand the intent of that law. Courts of law don’t think like that. They use only a 2-dimensional brain and their understanding of laws is not related to the ordinary understanding. Their understanding is either very literal or in accordance with precedents in the unconscious of lawyers. An experienced lawyer hearing a new law can by intuition work out if that law will have any real impact or whether existing precedents can be used to bypass this law or parts thereof.

4.14 The reality of this can not be imagined – it has to be experienced. So we have inheritance laws which lawyers even on television explain what these are and what a person needs to do. Such lawyers themselves may not be specialists in what is known as “succession law”. This type of propaganda, not intended as such but in the end that is what it is, is spread to people and people believe this. The truth is very different. Any law firm who knows how to do this can organize a Will and pass it through probate without the family in question even knowing this had taken place.

4.15 Australian politicians and lawyers and police may even insist that there are laws about sexual abuse of children and so on. Sure – but the truth is very different. Court orders known as AVOs and obtained through legal firms on no evidence can be used to protect child sexual abuse.

4.16 It is perhaps even possible to label all law firms which do not specialize as a “waste of time” against a determined legal firm which does specialize. Matters of routine is about all the typical law firms can handle – or they can handle more but only providing they don’t come up against a firm which specializes in bypassing laws and getting through the courts whatever they want.

4.17 Thus “law” is something that is sold to the public as “rules we all live by.” This is not the case at all. Criminal law is not the subject of this study and possibly in matters to do with rape, murder, violence (real violence not AVOs which are a joke in Australia when obtained through legal firms and they don’t indicate anything about reality or truth), are possibly the laws which had passed the test of time and do work quite well to protect society. Other laws, which are the vast majority of laws, are often not worth the paper they are written on. You can find examples everywhere you look. Take the Australian laws to do with age discrimination in the workforce. Sound so pretty on paper but in practise any specialist legal firm knows how to present a point of view (of an employer accused of this) which automatically dismisses any claim. A typical argument might go “your honour. IGC did not hire Mr Smith not because of his age but because he is over qualified. That is clear from his resume relative to the job description.” Perhaps most people over 40 could list the type of arguments invented by specialist legal firm which employers can use and which work each time.

4.18 Note the nature of the argument. It is a form of logic you can not argue with. Anyone of that age knows very well Mr Smith did not get a job because of his age – but courts of law are their own Twilight Zone and normal reality does not exist in that zone. It is the left brain that excels in its own form of logic – and only accepts its own kind of evidence and common sense is not evidence in courts – and you can not use both brains to overcome this because the normal left brain does not specialize in this type of mental logic.

4.19 In the legal mindset, the skill of a typical left brain to chain 2-dimensional sequences together in such a way so that they become irrefutable “evidence” is immense. This is what the legal mind and in turn the typical left brain develop into – a fine computational like machine which more and more builds a concrete wall between itself and the right brain, and more and more begins to emulate the functions of the right brain but using its own 2-dimensional methods and techniques.

4.20 From our perspective, the question is at what point does a “clinically significant” dysfunction of this type set in? What begins it, how does it develop, and what treatment options are there?

How much force does it take to modify your brain? Would you accept one million dollars to kill someone? If you were assured you would get away with this? What about 2 million? What about a billion? If you only use your two dimensional brain which has no notion of ethics, morals, right and wrong, you would accept an offer eventually and it may not be that much. Much the same in lawyers. Money is what begins the dysfunction in the brain. The more ways the left brain can find of obtaining more of it, the more dysfunctional the brain becomes. The surest way to obtain more and more is to win more and more cases – or to specialize in especially lucrative and especially easy areas of law such as worker’s compensation – and the way to achieve all this is to more and more ignore any ethical or moral problems the right brain comes up with. There is not much choice for the left brain but to set on a path of forming a dysfunction, a block, between itself and the right brain. The right brain is far too “negative” in its views and the left could not sustain its state of “happiness” if it allowed the typical right brain to interfere with its money making abilities.

4.21 Money on its own is not what causes a dysfunction. A person with a normal brain and ego can win millions but this is not going to change them much. It is a combination of the Twilight Zone, of how “evidence” can be manipulated in these zones, and the “thrill” – the adrenaline rush – that comes with a victory in a court of law. This is something most people can never experience – a win for young lawyers is more of a “rush” that having sex with the most elegant of persons. It is a mind altering experience and an addiction forms -  a subconscious craving begins for more and more wins and whatever way there is to do it, becomes ethical and moral and justified on the grounds of “professionalism”. It is a form of conditioning. Similar to how soldiers or police officers are conditioned. Do something against nature for long enough, and be praised for this, and your brain and ego will modify to suit. Thus a typical young police officer is at first shoved at the back of police station to watch human beings locked in cages not fit for pigs. This conditions and modifies the brain to a more “animal” state of mind. A state of mind in which authority figures are the “respect” conditioned into these people – courts of law in their case – while the ordinary person is seen as a potential “animal” that is going to be in a cage if they break the law in any way.

4.22 Just as lawyers do not think obtaining a subpoena is a big deal – and have no interest nor understanding what sort of shock to the psyche that is to the ordinary person on the end of such a subpoena – neither do police officers have any idea that putting human beings in cages not fits for pigs is a mark of an “animal” and not human. (We are not talking about rapists or murderers – but ordinary people who, for example,  may have forgotten to pay a traffic fine and are arrested usually accidentally perhaps during random breath testing).

In cases of severe frontal lobe injury, a person may need to be placed in a special environment. One reason is that such a person imitates the actions of the person speaking to them. A part of the brain as it sees, must also do in order to understand. The powerful frontal lobes inhibit this motor response – but not when the frontal lobes are not there of course. So what is the impact on the brain of a typical police officer who sees human beings put in cages not fit for pigs? More importantly perhaps, what does the unconscious make of this? In the CMPL there is a diagnosis of “Holy Duty”. That is one diagnosis that can be made in regards to certain actions of a police officer. Typical IQ of general duty police is estimated at 75. What does this type of IQ understand, how does the psyche form, when they drag the poor unfortunate from that cage into a castle like room of the court – sometimes filled with these perceived glory images or emblems of head of state or the like? One (the judge) may seem to be God and the other (the prisoner) as the Devil. Thus, as the CMPL points out, it is possible to have the diagnosis of “Holy Duty” and when this diagnosis applies that is exactly the state of mind of such a police officer (or similar) during such times. Eventually, that state of mind might cause a break down of the psyche and the police officer may end up as patient of a psychiatrist.

4.23 We can decipher much of how a dysfunction is likely to begin by understanding the “struggle” that is sometimes involved in trying to make sense of law. A struggle which may not have that much effect on highly intelligent people but such would be exceptions. Most people would have enormous difficulty even experienced lawyers.

4.24 In a class of 12 adults studying for a particular course (not related to law but which used its own rules of evidence) only 1 person managed to understand such rules in relation to a case study – the others had little idea how to go about this. In this case study a person wanted a particular job and presented evidence why he can do this job. In this class the 11 managed to find fault in every aspect of his evidence. It is incredibly hard for a normal brain to find a way to reconcile the left and right forces that begin during such deliberations. The risk of a dysfunction is high if a person does not have a natural skill of being able to do this and forces himself or herself to understand.

4.24 There is a big difference between the brain learning, and the mind learning. The brain can learn skills how to put something together or what procedures to follow. If the mind learns, it has to wait for the brain to translate this into neural network activity. If the brain fails to do this, the mind can “force” the brain to do this but this is where dysfunctions can begin. Compare to a child who is not speaking by a certain age and yet nothing is found wrong in the brain. Such a child is sent to a speech pathologists and usually can be taught to speak within six or so months. In these cases the “mind” or “will” had failed to compel the brain to learn, so an external will uses incentives such as lollies to interest the brain in forming sounds and words. The brain can be modified by its own will – or an external will.

Mark of a Dysfunction

4.25 One way to spot a dysfunction in a legal state of mind is to present a clever “legal scam” to a legal state of mind. If that brain has a dysfunction – there will be a smile on the face of the listener whose left brain is “delighted” at how clever a legal scam is. This is the “joy” of the typical left brain – to amuse itself by understanding legal scams which can be so atrocious the normal brain is so shocked that it produces a negative flow from the right prefrontal cortex which instantly overpowers the left brain’s desire to smile.

4.26 If such a brain has an unconscious sadism trait, it will make an attempt to congratulate the perpetrator of the scam - perhaps by being satisfied by invented evidence, or perhaps by being entertained by the scam.