I
have requested a connection with you on LinkedIn based on this message
received: You and I have unfinished business as it relates to
denial
of my rights as persons with disabilities that has never been truly
enabled since my complaint in Oakland CA --- you know it is
not right to hold the old system paradigm in place against me and us.
In
a 2013 legal discussion video on the Convention for Rights for Persons
With Disabilities [ CRPD ], This is queued to a 10 minute
discussion
on Article 12. Where as none of the system elements has been
featured to support me, or the class I represent, I am
affirming that I am about to file a huge systemic discrimination case --- for which ALRP will be claimed a participant in the
#ConspiracyExposed
in Denver Colorado. And I am pressing forward with perhaps a
lawsuit against the County of San Bennardino
for not allowing email in my mental health care treatment.
We realize I hold truth record. All of the way back to 2005 with the registrant address of @
realuphuman.net, this is a case
a decades worth of discrimination filing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, criminal matters are at hand in the system of
laws that are defined in the Ryan White Care Act to the surveillance and coercion of a population, the HIV/AIDS population
of the United States of America.
I
have already written the United Nations, followed up in a postal mail
copy, to have the United States placed in check for corrective
adaptive
implementation per the "Optional Protocol" given rules to
empower. I claim you firm is a part of #Conspiracy based upon
my direct experience with your firm and your attorney's at the time of defense of eviction case WG06266106 which is documented
onto the web.
We are BREAKING this CONSPIRACY forever --- do you hear me?
Aids
Legal Referral Panel shall employee the correct adaptive measures if I
need to reassert a connection to your firm for this action.
I will succeed in providing the evidence forward.
We
are linked forever because I choose to write to you back then.
And we connected forever on this issue. You can't escape that
connection. You are connected to me by technology.
With spoken voice text narrative interface:
That
link has special URL addressing of #INeedAGuardianAngel -- for which I
don't trust you all...... obviously to represent my side of
rational considerations for the CRPD. You wish to retain your silence or adapt corrective thought onto this matter.
Because the URL that is adaptive here is to @ElonMusk on twitter --- and he will be watching.
statements made:
It aims to enable self direction or autonomy -- yes it
works for that within a framework of support. So the last little bit in
that slide, the last contract, goes to what I would term the relational
effect of these two models.
So whereas the substitute model has the
effect of subjecting one suspicion and surveillance and ultimately
coercion --
[
this is the current model that is in place in the county system, or at
least weighted against me in discriminatory practices ]
This is a big package that I'm throwing together - the
alternative model of supportive decision-making is meant to enhance
relationships of respect and empowerment.
[ The model that I have been stressing internal of them, they refuse to enable ]
So this sums up to the point,
and it is the language used by representative of a group called the World
Network of Users and survivors of Psychiatry.
That was a key player
instrumental group among many others in assisting in the drafting of
article 12.
So what does this say? it says instead of restricting
autonomy [ which they are restricting the use of email ] of those who
need extra support to comfortably participate in all aspects life, The
CRPD [ Convention Rights For Persons With Disabilities ] in particular
article 12 - requires states [ that means the County of San Bernardino ] to provide access to those supports [ which
has been denied by verbal order and suspension of services provided ].
Article 12 : What is supportive about it? I picked out a few things
here. One, it stipulates expressively that capacity shouldn't depend on
one's way of communicating with others.
[ They are restricting my access to email protocols, because it is
threatening to their standard. That standard being dangerous to
the community ]
That seems important from what
we have seen so far. Second, it allows one to appoint someone who
assist me, right, with making decisions and to take over, in
specific areas.
It also allows me to appoint someone to take over in
certain circumstances that this model does.
The act also states a test
for capacity to make those appointments that's not rooted in the sort of
cognitive capacities of understanding and so on that traditional models
are so it goes to one's ability to express preferences [ in my case
communication in email ] and trust
I TRUST NO ONE --- BUT ONE WHO HOLDS THE HONOR OF BEING THE HONORABLE RECIPIENT OF MY EMAIL PROPER!
So Think about the relevance of this
and this is why it is drafted this way.
i have omitted text from the above clauses that are in the original email. You should link to it.
Your moral proclivity against me is outrageous to leave standing without my rights enabled.
Your firm will be one listed in complaint in a huge discrimination suit that I can prove.
Sincereley,
James Martin Driskill
original defense case #WG06266106 -- Unlawful Detaiiner
Allen Temple Housing and Development Vs. James M. Driskill
For Apartment #308 at Allen Temple Manor
You all should be ashamed of yourself for protecting this system
of hate and oppression against the community --- long term standing
IT BREAKS --- #ConspiracyExposedTerminatesASAP
[Quoted text hidden]
![[TXT]](Gmail%20-%20James,%20you%20have%2089%20contacts%20you%20may%20know%20on%20LinkedIn_files/3QuoL1Ptt9-v1FHIz4WiwQCJxnv1txZebRiEFjJEM4JmH05xW0PQwPVGKjop.gif)