(c) 5GL Software

Medical Fact Sheet for Australian Doctors (but these could be worldwide legal "crimes"; in fact attrocities by international court of justice standards) in regards to so called "protection" court orders and psycholegal shock these can cause in victims (who could be your patient). In Australia these are known as AVOs (in theory to protect a person from violence - in practise these are literally sold through legal firms and are in huge demans because such can prejudice a court so much that Will can be engineered without too much of a problem, and any number of other forms of legal scams such as divorce cases property settlements. All a person needs to obtain one is $10,000 to a legal firm and they can claim anything that they are afraid of someone, or were pushed, or were shouted at even and this had caused them to be terrified. No shortage of reasons can be invented.) Note that this does not apply to AVOs applied for by police - these appear genuine - but any legal firm in Australia can obtain this from a court at a drop of a hat, and these are the one that are unlikely to have any just cause but are there to aid property theft by engineering a new Will for an elderly but first isolating the elderly from other sibling(s), or to sexually abuse a child under the protection of the courts.

If you are a medical practiioner, I believe you should be familiar with psychopaths.  The Abel of the Bible, the Cleopatra of Egypt, or the King of England who invented the church of England, are only the well known psychopaths. Psychopaths are in fact more common than anorexia nervosa. The typical victim of a psychopath is a lover, parent, or sibling. These types will not think twice, in order to obtain what they want, to plant evidence that may put a sibling or parent in prison. These people are so convincing some can move their listeners to tears as they make themselves out as a victim (of a situation or incident). Legal firms that are operated by psychopaths are perhaps one of most dangerous threats to society. A psychopath has no conscience. A psychopath makes out his (or her) victims as the culprit(s). A psychopath will lie under oath without blinking. If such a person is a lawyer, after one lie after another in court they may stick their business card out and say "my word as a lawyer". That seems to clinch whatever he or she is after. Some researchers, typically psychologists, have devoted decades of effort to understand this type of personality and there are some extremely informative books on the subject.

If you have a patient with Alzheimer's

The signs of a family member seriously thinking about engineering a Will and Testament, include the following:

- detachment from other family members (the key sign)
- attempts at provoking a family member, especially the executor of the existing legal Will
- such a person is unlikely to be married
- such a person is likely to display psychopath tendencies
- such a person may be living with the Alzheimer's parent
- such a person is likely to be highly intelligent and/or knows friends who are lawyers
- such a person may have an alcohol or drug problem or gambling debts
- such a person may be self employed in their business which may be running into financial strife

Basic Preventive Measures (that it may be possible to use later in court, however, legal advice in this regard from a trusted source is best)

- advise each siblings to have a copy of the true Will
- advise each sibling to make sure there are pictures of the parent and sibling
- if you suspect psycholegal shock, explain the matter the best you can to a family member (no known way to treat this that I can think of, other than facts; it is difficult to clinically define psycholegal shock; equivalent to a physical assault perhaps?)
---- signs of psycholegal shock include
-------- sleepless and/or restless nights
-------- enormous tension in a person, tension/anger that spouse or siblings or friend may be aware of
-------- likely to write lots of complaints to all sorts of people about the original court order that isolated him/her from parent (or child). Such letters may not be that rational either because stress is coming through in these.
-------- spouse is likely to be also affected, may even consider separation which is a natural response to a traumatic situation
-------- some inability to control talking to oneself when alone
-------- some inability to control verbal anger, but full control of physical anger, at some authority figures or models (e.g.. police).


If you have a sole parent who has a pretty child (any age), be cautious or suspicious when it comes to your notice that-

--- single parent is suddenly being introduced to, or dated by, a rich man
--- she may have noticed some unusual attention being made to her daughter but her desire to escape "adult loneliness" perhaps blinds her to this
--- the new man may in particular like the child when she is dressed in any manner which is more "adult" like

---- preventive measures: ask the mother to inform you immediately if suddenly a protection court order arrives naming the child as protected from a natural father (or next of kin). Inform child protection authorities immediately.


The Problem (from a neuroscience/psychiatry perspective)

There is no simple way to explain this. The Alzheimer's Scam report explains the specifics.

The problem is the brain - modern neuroscience knows that the human brain modifies itself in accordance with what a person does. Modern neuroscience also understands, from studying what are known as "split brain" patients, that the typical dominant left brain is 2-dimensional perspective only, while the right cerebral hemisphere is the 3-D perception brain. How to convey the importance of this? Perhaps only neurosurgeons truly understand things such as: if they cut out a tumour aggressively near the human speaking areas, the person may no longer understand words. The patients do not understand this at first. If the neurosurgeon explains that cutting the tumour near the word processing areas too much may result in loss of speech, the patient tends to say "I will just have to write down what I want to say." The surgeon will then carefully explain that this will not be possible because without that area in the brain it will not be possible to understand words. In the same way, the more "detached" the right brain becomes from the left, the more "fixed ideas" become the "reality" as the person perceives it. The left brain can invent any manner of reasons to explain a position. For example, in Saudi Arabia they will not allow women to drive. To justify this position, the argument is that there are lots of men who are employed to drive and if women are allowed to drive then so many people will loose their jobs. As long as the left dominant brain is "listening" alone, this makes perfect sense and reason.

Those into law try to make sense of certain aspects of law are using their own "logic". Not science, not intellectual reasoning as such, but their own form of logic. This is often one "fixed idea" after another. These ideas become fixed over decades of being a judge or similar. Very few people can overcome such "mental fixations" once they set in.

Modern neuroscience knows such things. To understand how it may modify itself, and how the subconscious may become put together, we need to appreciate, or perhaps explore is the more appropriate term, aspects of what Anglo-Saxon courts of law are about.

I will use the term "Anglo-Saxon Australian" courts. As I understand, the decision of Privy Council in England even dating back 400 years can be more important than any Australian law. One reason for this is that the Anglo-Saxon is an "Anglican" - compare with Muslims in that in their own country their courts will force on people their "law" . The Anglican religion was formed by a King of England who murdered one wife after another, even "butchered" his 17 year old niece in a public execution. A true psychopath. One of the earliest political uses of this religion was to "legally" steal land from the Irish. Thus to "steal" property using the courts is an ancient tradition of Anglo-Saxon courts.

Since its beginning, the Anglican religion went in two directions - those who became Reverends and formed the Church of England and those who became judges or members of the judiciary and formed the "Anglican religion of law". Compare with Islam - exactly the same principle. Thus there is tn Anglican religion which Anglicans practise, which is as Christian as any Christian religion because sincere people took over this church, but there is also an Anglican version which the courts practise.

To suggests courts in Australia are "Australians" is being naive. In Australia, a true colonial type mindset is conditioned into those who want to practise law and or want to be magistrates or judges. While there may be a rare exception, those who are magistrates and judges and heads of major tribunals must be Anglicans with Anglo-Saxon surnames. Australians of Anglo-Saxon origin are, since 2000, a minority but one which completely controls the courts and the "legal mindset".

The word "proper" is one of the more important concepts of Anglo-Saxon law. This has a subtle meaning, possibly much the same as "Allah" has to Muslims. In the final analysis, what is "proper" is relative to the Anglo-Saxon monarchy. That is the reason decisions made hundreds of years ago by the Privy Council in England can be far more important to these people than the Australian Constitution, or common sense, or rational normal thinking in the context of the present generations. (Compare with Islam.  What is "proper" is relative to Islamic Law and not to the law passed by any government. If a government passes a law inconsistent with the "Islamic Law", the courts destroy this by "precedents" - exactly the same principle is used by Australian Anglo-Saxon courts.)

On the question of inheritance, in the Anglicans part of the judiciary and loyal to the throne of England and the monarchy which is head of the Anglican church, there is always a fear that a bastard child of a King of England could use colonial inheritance laws to attain succession to the throne. That appears the only reason why time after time when any State government(s) attempted to put inheritance laws in place which are on "just terms", the Supreme courts quickly destroy these by so-called "precedents". In addition, as I was advised in such way as to believe, the State Constitution insists inheritance must be on "proper terms" and not "just terms" as the Constitution states. The subtle twist of meaning is consistent with the Anglo-Saxon judicial mindset and the implication in the sense of what it means is incredibly different. Thus "just terms" is relative to all Australians, that is what the Constitution demands, while "proper terms" are relative to the Crown and monarchy.

A "precedent" may be fair, but it could also be "magical thinking". Such precedents become more important than the law. Such precedents in the Anglo-Saxon Judicial Anglican mentality are the "interpretation of the law". (Compare with Islam, exactly the same principle is at work; or with Judaism where the interpretation of the law can be far more important than the law).

The Australian Constitution may belong to the age of the steam engine but it does have some protection for people, such as every person has the right to be represented in court. In practise, the government body supposedly to provide funds for people who have none for expensive legal firms, can choose not to. The legislation relevant to legal aid has been written using the words "may" - (e.g. "the commissioner may grant legal aid") which means legal aid need do nothing and often that is exactly what it does - nothing. In such cases there are what are known as "pro bono" lawyers who may accept acting for a person. While the High Court of the country has in the past seemed "true Australian", this is such an expensive forum that it is out of the question of most people. Another protection the Constitution offers is that when the government takes over land from someone, then it "must be on just terms". The process of probate is the government, through the courts, taking land from a deceased and handing it to someone else. But - the Supreme Courts invent what they consider "just terms". What it means to those courts is anybody's guess. In the modern age, one aspect of just terms as they view it is that the process of probate has to be advertised in a newspaper. A small section at the back of the newspaper. This principle may have been "just terms" 400 years ago, but so meaningless in the modern world. This legal group sells itself as "professionals" and they are convinced they are equal to medical doctors. Medicine is science but law has no scientific or academic basis - it is a mindset. That mindset begins to be conditioned into young people when they enter University. They are taught how to "interpret" and "understand" law. Why would anyone need to be taught such a thing? To the average person law is a simple instruction which everyone is to abide by. Why would anyone need to "understand" how to interpret law?

In Australia, protection court orders are a boom industry. Magistrates sign these as a matter of routine. No evidence of any kind is required. A person can invent any lie - the mentality of the Anglo-Saxon courts is that you have to pay huge money to legal firms who are then supposed to prove that so and so is lying. In other words, you can claim anything you like and this is accepted on face value. Which means legal firm after legal firm has started obtaining protection court orders in cases such as:-

a) an elderly demented parent is named as protected from sibling(s) so that one sibling can isolate the parent and engineer a new Will and Testament leaving all to themselves. Such a Will also makes sure that sibling is alone responsible for the funeral which means he or she alone has the death certificate. That means he or she can rush this through probate before any legal firm acting for other sibling(s) can stop this process. This type of scam is probably very traditional Anglo-Saxon legal scam perhaps practiced since the White Australian police.

b) a pretty female child can be isolated from her parent and sexually abused, this on the pretext an AVO is there to protect the child.

c) in cases of divorce an AVO is perhaps the first step and gives the person who obtains tremendous financial advantage.

d) there is perhaps no shortage of legal scam and fraud that can not be achieved by first obtaining such protection court orders.

The problem is something perhaps only neuroscientists or psychiatrists can understand completely. Those into law "engineer" their brain to think in certain ways. This is what happens when a person studies law. They also tend to use "magical thinking" which is a psychiatric term. This was demonstrated at a hearing before a Guardianship Tribunal which is supposed to protect other sibling(s) from "predator sibling(s)" (or cousins, or next door neighbour) but in practise this body compares a person with Alzheimer's to a person with two legs and somehow using this "magic" is "satisfied" that a person with Alzheimer's has testament capacity.

Because "law" is not science or any other cohesive framework, areas in the brain became "fixed" in the way they understand. To a magistrate or judge, what is unreality to others can be absolute reality. This is delusional thinking which is then enforced by using inappropriate experts to produce some kind of "evidence". An "opinion" of someone with a title of "doctor" is absolute evidence in these courts and to challenge these is so expensive few people can afford this. These people also accept "authority figures" as "experts". A geriatric specialist can produce an "opinion" that a person with 90% of their thinking brain destroyed (e.g. Alzheimer's) has "testament capacity" and this becomes acceptable evidence to courts. If a neuroscientist contracts this, he or she is "ignored" on the basis "you are not a doctor". (while there may be exceptions, geriatric specialists have limited skill in understanding the brain and mind.)

Instead of trying to be certain and "satisfied" who is right, these people are conditioned to accept any "opinion" from what appears as an "expert", whether it is an appropriate expert on not, as "evidence". That is the nature of a fixation. To the rational normal person it does not matter who is who, what matters who is right. Example: a lady is worrying about her car because it is making an unusual noise. The local mechanic had taken a look at it and says the engine needs a major overhaul and that will costs thousands and she is to avoid driving the car to avoid causing more damage. Her next door neighbour, on the other hand, who knows a bit about cars, tells her that it is the fuel, some moisture in it, and this will resolve itself as she continues to drive. To this lady, she is not interested how many qualifications the mechanic has, what is interested in is "what is the truth?" That is normal thinking. To Anglo-Saxon courts, truth is irrelevant, what is relevant is that a person stating a "truth" or "opinion" is qualified to do in accordance with their view of qualification. While there is nothing wrong with this in principle, the fact is that a brain that had formed "fixations" can not struggle with truth and needs perceived authority figures to tell it what "truth" is.