Sign in or 
Share this
Indiana...A State of Denial
Michael Lewitz, 43, of Reynolds, IN, suffers from borderline personality disorder (BPD), a serious mental illness that was precipitated by his exposure to the practices of Scientology. In addition to intensifying the symptoms of BPD, Scientology's practices also induced Michael Lewitz to dissociate and experience psychogenic fugue and drove him to attempt suicide.
His housemate, practicing Scientologist Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D., is capitalizing from Michael Lewitz' psychological vulnerability and is exploiting him physically, mentally, and financially. Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D. has created the psychological forces necessary for him to be able to exert undue influence over Michael Lewitz' independent decision-making ability by subjecting him to an ongoing program of coercive persuasion. He has in effect stripped Michael Lewitz of his free will and self-determinism, our most basic constitutional freedoms, in addition to having put him at great risk of sustaining irreparable physical and psychological injury. Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D. has convinced Michael Lewitz that he does not have BPD, thereby denying him the opportunity to get treatment for this serious but treatable disorder. Denying a person needed medical or psychiatric treatment is abuse.
Indiana Code Section 12-10-3-2 defines an endangered adult as "an individual who is at least 18 years of age and...who is incapable by reason of mental illness of managing or directing the management of the individual's property and...is harmed or threatened with harm as a result of...the exploitation of the individual's personal services or property."
Incredulously, the response from the Tippecanoe County Adult Protective Service (APS) as well as the Honorable Judge Robert W. Thacker was, "I see nothing wrong...Michael has food, clothing, and shelter," and no amount of reasoning will break through their wall of ignorance.
Senator Evan Bayh requested that Officials from the Indiana Family and Social Service Administration (FSSA) review Michael Lewitz' case, but they deny having jurisdiction over APS even though Indiana Code Section 12-10-3-1 clearly establishes the contractual relationship between FSSA and APS. APS Officials even denied a request from Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Skillman's office that they respond.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service likewise has difficulty with jurisdiction and the interpretation of legal code. Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D. admitted during a phone conversation that he himself said was being recorded to "routinely intercepting the mail and filtering out mail addressed to Michael Lewitz so that he doesn't have to be bothered by any of it."
A report of this blatant violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1702 "Obstruction of Correspondence" resulted in the following correspondence:
Notice that "Obstruction of Correspondence appears nowhere in Inspector Birkofer's letter.
August 12, 2006
Dear Mr. Campbell,
In your letter dated August 4, 2006 you responded to my concern sent to Senator John McCain on May 5, 2006 regarding the letter I received from your office in Indianapolis, Indiana in reference to Complaint 2822136 and the lack of response to two other letters sent to Inspector Birkofer of that office.
With all due respect, your interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 Obstruction of Correspondence is incorrect.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 Obstruction of Correspondence states:
“Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Let’s look at this closer:
Donald C. Lay, Jr., Ph.D. confessed to taking mail from the authorized depository for mail matter at 414 N 100 W, Reynolds, IN 47980 with design to obstruct the correspondence of Michael Lewitz during a recorded phone call and then again in a letter.
There is a federal violation in this case. Please do not further insult my intelligence or that of Senator John McCain, and do the job that you are paid by the American taxpayers to do.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerry Staton
Cc: Senator John McCain
August 25, 2006
Ronda Carrington, Manager
Consumer Affairs and Claims
P.O. Box 21628
Phoenix, AZ 85036-1628
Dear Ronda Carrington,
This is in response to your letter dated August 24, 2006 in which you state that the known violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 “Obstruction of Correspondence” that I reported is a civil matter. Your statement is incorrect.
One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal law is in the notion of punishment. In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration; misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 “Obstruction of Correspondence” imposes a punishment of a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. In this case, 23 provable violations would most likely constitute a felony.
You further stated in your letter that the Postal Service and the Postal Inspection Service will not become involved.
According to http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/usc18/welcome1.htm, which lists some laws postal inspectors enforce, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 “Obstruction of Correspondence” is listed under the heading Destruction, Obstruction, and Delay of Mail.
As I’ve previously stated, I feel as if I am being toyed with. I am absolutely appalled at the display of gross ignorance that I have been subjected to. You should be absolutely embarrassed. It is unconscionable that this matter is going to have to take up valuable federal district court time and resources as it appears that I am going to have to file a petition for a Writ Of Mandamus in order to force the Postal Inspection Service to simply do its job.
You purport to understand my frustration. You can not begin to understand even ½ of it. I am going to make sure that this gets as much publicity as possible. The American people need to know that this is the kind of protection that their tax dollars are paying for. I now know, and it sickens me.
Sincerely,
Jerry Staton
Cc: Senator John McCain
September 01, 2006
Ronda Carrington, Manager
Consumer Affairs and Claims
P.O. Box 21628
Phoenix, AZ 85036-1628
Dear Ronda Carrington,
You didn’t need to refer this matter to your legal department only to have them reach the same incorrect conclusion. The only reason that I can come up with for their doing so is that they perhaps were not given all of the information because no lawyer in their right mind would state that a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” is a civil matter. All that it takes is the exercising of critical thinking skills along with a little deductive reasoning to understand a matter that is not at all the least complicated.
Let’s start off with Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” itself:
“Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
It does not say “Whoever-unless they live at the same address and are legally authorized to take mail from the authorized depository for mail matter…” It says “Whoever…” period. 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” was amended in 1994 to make allowances for parents and legal guardians of dependents under the age of 16. No such allowance has ever been made for roommates/housemates, however.
In my initial report-as well as a couple of times since-I have stated that Donald C. Lay, Jr., Ph.D. stated that the phone call in which he admitted to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” was recorded. He also admitted to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” in a typewritten letter that he included in a package of 23 unopened letters from me addressed to Michael Lewitz that he mailed to me.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has stated that once the mail is delivered they have no way of knowing who retrieves the mail from the authorized depository for mail matter or whether or not they give it to the person to whom it is directed. Pardon me for being direct, but that is where the U.S. Postal Inspection Service should have obviously begun the investigation that they failed to conduct. Was any effort made to secure the recording of the telephone conversation? I know that they could care less about the 23 pieces of evidence along with the typed confession of Donald C. Lay, Jr., Ph.D. that I still hold in my possession.
This is not brain surgery. What could possibly be wrong with you people?
Sincerely,
Jerry Staton
Cc: Senator John McCain
If this wan't actually occurring, I would probably not believe such misunderstanding and dereliction of duty could ever occur on a scale such as this. In the time that has been spent by state and federal government officials attempting to come up with an argument to support their inaction, Michael Lewitz could have undergone 100 specialized independent mental examinations, all of which would have revealed the fact that he has BPD, and would have been well into treatment by now. Instead, the likelihood of his ever being able to establish a relationship with outer reality and become an autonomous individual continues to lessen with each passing second.
His housemate, practicing Scientologist Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D., is capitalizing from Michael Lewitz' psychological vulnerability and is exploiting him physically, mentally, and financially. Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D. has created the psychological forces necessary for him to be able to exert undue influence over Michael Lewitz' independent decision-making ability by subjecting him to an ongoing program of coercive persuasion. He has in effect stripped Michael Lewitz of his free will and self-determinism, our most basic constitutional freedoms, in addition to having put him at great risk of sustaining irreparable physical and psychological injury. Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D. has convinced Michael Lewitz that he does not have BPD, thereby denying him the opportunity to get treatment for this serious but treatable disorder. Denying a person needed medical or psychiatric treatment is abuse.
Indiana Code Section 12-10-3-2 defines an endangered adult as "an individual who is at least 18 years of age and...who is incapable by reason of mental illness of managing or directing the management of the individual's property and...is harmed or threatened with harm as a result of...the exploitation of the individual's personal services or property."
Incredulously, the response from the Tippecanoe County Adult Protective Service (APS) as well as the Honorable Judge Robert W. Thacker was, "I see nothing wrong...Michael has food, clothing, and shelter," and no amount of reasoning will break through their wall of ignorance.
Senator Evan Bayh requested that Officials from the Indiana Family and Social Service Administration (FSSA) review Michael Lewitz' case, but they deny having jurisdiction over APS even though Indiana Code Section 12-10-3-1 clearly establishes the contractual relationship between FSSA and APS. APS Officials even denied a request from Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Skillman's office that they respond.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service likewise has difficulty with jurisdiction and the interpretation of legal code. Donald C. Lay Jr., Ph.D. admitted during a phone conversation that he himself said was being recorded to "routinely intercepting the mail and filtering out mail addressed to Michael Lewitz so that he doesn't have to be bothered by any of it."
A report of this blatant violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1702 "Obstruction of Correspondence" resulted in the following correspondence:
Notice that "Obstruction of Correspondence appears nowhere in Inspector Birkofer's letter.
August 12, 2006
In your letter dated August 4, 2006 you responded to my concern sent to Senator John McCain on May 5, 2006 regarding the letter I received from your office in Indianapolis, Indiana in reference to Complaint 2822136 and the lack of response to two other letters sent to Inspector Birkofer of that office.
With all due respect, your interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 Obstruction of Correspondence is incorrect.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 Obstruction of Correspondence states:
“Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Let’s look at this closer:
- “Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter...”
- “…before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed…”
- “…with design to obstruct the correspondence…of another…”
Donald C. Lay, Jr., Ph.D. confessed to taking mail from the authorized depository for mail matter at 414 N 100 W, Reynolds, IN 47980 with design to obstruct the correspondence of Michael Lewitz during a recorded phone call and then again in a letter.
There is a federal violation in this case. Please do not further insult my intelligence or that of Senator John McCain, and do the job that you are paid by the American taxpayers to do.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerry Staton
Cc: Senator John McCain
August 25, 2006
Consumer Affairs and Claims
P.O. Box 21628
Phoenix, AZ 85036-1628
Dear Ronda Carrington,
This is in response to your letter dated August 24, 2006 in which you state that the known violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 “Obstruction of Correspondence” that I reported is a civil matter. Your statement is incorrect.
One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal law is in the notion of punishment. In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration; misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 “Obstruction of Correspondence” imposes a punishment of a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. In this case, 23 provable violations would most likely constitute a felony.
You further stated in your letter that the Postal Service and the Postal Inspection Service will not become involved.
According to http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/usc18/welcome1.htm, which lists some laws postal inspectors enforce, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 “Obstruction of Correspondence” is listed under the heading Destruction, Obstruction, and Delay of Mail.
As I’ve previously stated, I feel as if I am being toyed with. I am absolutely appalled at the display of gross ignorance that I have been subjected to. You should be absolutely embarrassed. It is unconscionable that this matter is going to have to take up valuable federal district court time and resources as it appears that I am going to have to file a petition for a Writ Of Mandamus in order to force the Postal Inspection Service to simply do its job.
You purport to understand my frustration. You can not begin to understand even ½ of it. I am going to make sure that this gets as much publicity as possible. The American people need to know that this is the kind of protection that their tax dollars are paying for. I now know, and it sickens me.
Sincerely,
Jerry Staton
Cc: Senator John McCain
September 01, 2006
Consumer Affairs and Claims
P.O. Box 21628
Phoenix, AZ 85036-1628
Dear Ronda Carrington,
You didn’t need to refer this matter to your legal department only to have them reach the same incorrect conclusion. The only reason that I can come up with for their doing so is that they perhaps were not given all of the information because no lawyer in their right mind would state that a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” is a civil matter. All that it takes is the exercising of critical thinking skills along with a little deductive reasoning to understand a matter that is not at all the least complicated.
Let’s start off with Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” itself:
“Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
It does not say “Whoever-unless they live at the same address and are legally authorized to take mail from the authorized depository for mail matter…” It says “Whoever…” period. 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” was amended in 1994 to make allowances for parents and legal guardians of dependents under the age of 16. No such allowance has ever been made for roommates/housemates, however.
In my initial report-as well as a couple of times since-I have stated that Donald C. Lay, Jr., Ph.D. stated that the phone call in which he admitted to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” was recorded. He also admitted to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (1994), “Obstruction of Correspondence” in a typewritten letter that he included in a package of 23 unopened letters from me addressed to Michael Lewitz that he mailed to me.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has stated that once the mail is delivered they have no way of knowing who retrieves the mail from the authorized depository for mail matter or whether or not they give it to the person to whom it is directed. Pardon me for being direct, but that is where the U.S. Postal Inspection Service should have obviously begun the investigation that they failed to conduct. Was any effort made to secure the recording of the telephone conversation? I know that they could care less about the 23 pieces of evidence along with the typed confession of Donald C. Lay, Jr., Ph.D. that I still hold in my possession.
This is not brain surgery. What could possibly be wrong with you people?
Sincerely,
Jerry Staton
Cc: Senator John McCain
If this wan't actually occurring, I would probably not believe such misunderstanding and dereliction of duty could ever occur on a scale such as this. In the time that has been spent by state and federal government officials attempting to come up with an argument to support their inaction, Michael Lewitz could have undergone 100 specialized independent mental examinations, all of which would have revealed the fact that he has BPD, and would have been well into treatment by now. Instead, the likelihood of his ever being able to establish a relationship with outer reality and become an autonomous individual continues to lessen with each passing second.
innocent |
Latest page update: made by innocent
, Oct 30 2007, 7:41 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by innocent
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
ACLU
Brandt Hershman
Evan Bayh
governor
indiana
Lambda Legal
lieutenant governor
Mitch Daniels
Rebecca Skillman
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
