Mr. Tim Lahrman is one of the most helpful, kind “disabled adults” that I have come to know. He regularly writes pleadings for the disabled, reads cases, is highly skilled in the law–yet is under guardianship in Indiana!
How does this happen? Tim Lahrman ran a very successful electronics store or stores in Indianapolis. They were worth millions. But one day, evil greedy brother ran into court on false pretenses that Tim smoked marijuana frequently and was in need of a guardianship. The court agreed, stripped Tim Lahrman of all his rights and handed over control of the electronics store to evil brother. Of course, we all know what happens after that–assets are sold, but many simply disappear. Evil brother is now rich, bank accounts of the business quickly drained, but the court and all court appointed lawyers and vendors are happy because they have been paid well. Tim Lahrman screams like a stuck pig, but no one listens because he is “an addict” and must be controlled, or that is, fleeced.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives” from the gene pool. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott’s request. For only the second time to that point in its history, the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.
Reblogged this on Justice for Everyone Blog.