A long history in Indiana of abusing the Mentally Disabled says Tim Lahrman

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.

See below:

1907 Indiana Eugenics Law

1907 Indiana Eugenics Law side 11907 Indiana Eugenics Law side 2
Indiana has quite a long history of discriminatory practices and they are quite proud of it too.
Tim Lahrman writes in an email:
Did you know that in the late 1800’s early 1900’s the professional title of today’s “mental health” professional was — the “alienist” — and in fact the New York State Board of Alienists screened every immigrant entering this country through Ellis Island —  https://books.google.com/books?id=JKE3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA917&lpg=PA917&dq=Ellis+Island+Alienist&source=bl&ots=8KEag98BLB&sig=8ClC6crLlcMhVIw0sFigrmInVUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig0KGNncXKAhUFx4MKHVZVCB8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Ellis%20Island%20Alienist&f=false
(source:  1906  Charities and the Commons: A Weekly Journal of Philanthropy and Social Advance, Volume 15 published by Committee of the New York Charity Organization Society)
 Buck v. Bell is not dead.
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.
No one cares from the State of Indiana that they guardianized a perfectly competent, lucid, thinking, kind and caring person (Tim often writes briefs as well or better than most licensed attorneys).  Then they fleeced him of millions.
Likewise the Illinois ARDC does not seem to care that what Lanre Amu said was true about certain judges and when investigated, the mega Chicago Business media agreed and published articles.
The ARDC does not apologize or restore his law license.  Jerome Larkin, the head Administrator, and Mr. James Grogin, chief in house counsel are the perpetrators.
In long history in the US of discriminating against persons that are melanin enriched in the skin, the Dredd Scott case lives on in Illinois and with the ARDC.
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,[2][3] 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.[4]
If you don’t know your history, you are doomed, not only to repeat it, but live in it.  The actions of the many clouted Supreme Court individuals in Indiana keep Tim Lahrman, a perfectly competent pot smoker enslaved.  The actions of the ARDC in Illinois continue to keep Mr. Amu, a now impoverished African Immigrant ensalved and unabled to help other African Immigrants.
Please write to the Indiana and Illinois Supreme Court and send them a copy of this article.  Buck v. Bell and Dred Scott v. Sanford were the most shameful of cases in their time, and must not continue to live on in the 7th circuit.

1 thought on “A long history in Indiana of abusing the Mentally Disabled says Tim Lahrman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s