[malvolio]

TERI SMITH TYLER, Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES CARTER, WILLIAM CLINTON, ROSS PEROT,
AMERICAN CYANAMID, IRON MOUNTAIN SECURITY CORPORATION, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, IBM,
DAVID ROCKERFELLER, ROCKERFELLER FUND,
BCCI, NASA, Defendants.


Plaintiff Teri Smith Tyler, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in December 1992 alleging a bizarre conspiracy involving the defendants to enslave and oppress certain segments of our society. Plaintiff contends she is a cyborg, and that she received most of the information which forms the basis for her complaint, through "proteus", which I read to be some silent, telepathic form of communication. See complaint, at 1, and Affidavit accompanying November 1993 Order to Show Cause. She asserts that the defendants are involved in the "Iron Mountain Plan", which provides for the reinstitutionalization of slavery and "bloodsports" (which she identifies as death-hunting and witch-hunting), and the oppression of political dissidents, herself included. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a number of personal indignities visited upon her by defendants: "strafing of my dormitory room by planes and helicopters, the electronic bugging of my student rooms and apartments, deliberate noise harassment, blasting of loud rock music with lyrics designed for witch-hunts (music about social pariahs) . . . students following me around to prevent me from studying, whispering campaigns and social ostrification . . ." Complaint, at 1-2. Plaintiff also makes the following allegations against the defendants. Former President Jimmy Carter was the secret head of the Ku Klux Klan; Bill Clinton is the biological son of Jimmy Carter; President Clinton and Ross Perot have made fortunes in the death-hunting industry, and are responsible for the murder of at least 10 million black women in concentration camps, their bodies sold for meat and their skin turned into leather products. The defendants are also responsible for breeding farms, which turn out 2,000 black girls a year, who are then sold for recreational murder or as human pets. Additionally, the defendants utilize weather control and earthquake technology to threaten other countries that object to the Iron Mountain plan.

Great lawsuit!
But who made sure we never heard about the Iron Mountain Plan on the evening news?

[iMOTOR]

[mitchell_pgh]

Wait a second, I'm NOT an oppressed cyborg??

[Mastrap]

Darn. Somebody could have told me.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

cyborgs are hot

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
cyborgs are hot

You think?

[BRussell]

It's kind of sad, really. This person is mostly likely mentally ill, almost certainly paranoid schizophrenic, and rather than get her help someone helps her act on her delusions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's kind of sad, really. This person is mostly likely mentally ill, almost certainly paranoid schizophrenic, and rather than get her help someone helps her act on her delusions.

Who helped her? She appeared pro se, which means without an attorney representing her.

The court just handled the matter as they are required to do. Unfortunately, courts get these kinds of crazy rant lawsuits pretty often. One of my favorites is the famous case United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971), which I read in Civil Procedure. The legal question was personal jurisdiction of the court over Satan, and how does a court serve process on him?

We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.

We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.

[malvolio]

^^^ Love the reference to The Devil and Daniel Webster in that decision.

[JustAnOl'Broad]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's kind of sad, really. This person is mostly likely mentally ill, almost certainly paranoid schizophrenic, and rather than get her help someone helps her act on her delusions.

Yup, what he said.

And she's probably walkin the streets in some
fair City. And hopefully, none of us will be around when the voices from
Proteus tell her it's time everyone around her needs to die.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who helped her? She appeared pro se, which means without an attorney representing her.

I just hope someone in the court did something other than politely let her file and then laugh about it after she left. Unless this person is just imitating schizophrenia, she's very sick. But the courts, not to mention all of us more generally, hardly have a stellar record in dealing with the mentally ill.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just hope someone in the court did something other than politely let her file and then laugh about it after she left. Unless this person is just imitating schizophrenia, she's very sick. But the courts, not to mention all of us more generally, hardly have a stellar record in dealing with the mentally ill.

What are they supposed to do?

[JustAnOl'Broad]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What are they supposed to do?

Maybe a little counseling/monitoring from the County Mental Health Dept
would be of use; at least to determine the extent of her illness. At least
some supervision that she wouldn't take as THIS:

[/QUOTEPlaintiff's complaint alleges a number of personal indignities visited upon her by defendants: "strafing of my dormitory room by planes and helicopters, the electronic bugging of my student rooms and apartments, deliberate noise harassment, blasting of loud rock music with lyrics designed for witch-hunts (music about social pariahs) . . . students following me around to prevent me from studying, whispering campaigns and social ostrification . . ."QUOTE/]

Reminds me of alot of people who were released from the State Hospitals
in the 70's. It was really awful.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What are they supposed to do?

From the tone of your statement (set me straight if I'm reading too much into it) it sounds like you think nothing should be done. That's the problem I'm talking about - we laugh it off or at best assume there's nothing that could possibly be done for someone like that. But there are community programs in every city looking for folks like this to help. A few minutes looking up a number and making a call is all I'm talking about.

The infrastructure for dealing with it is barely there at all, and in the end, maybe she'd be back out raving on the street even if someone tried to get her some help. But laughing it off or throwing up your hands and assuming nothing can be done is part of the problem.

Apologies to the thread for making this a downer.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by JustAnOl'Broad:
Reminds me of alot of people who were released from the State Hospitals
in the 70's. It was really awful.

As I understand it, they were released because the courts held that people's civil liberties were being infringed. I'm not sure about the wisdom of that, but I am also not keen on the idea of the government whisking people away because someone files a kooky-sounding complaint with a court.

People do have a right to petition the courts for redress, including on bases that have let's say, a tenuous connection to reality. It happens all the time, and the overburdened courts do get tired of them. But they have to endure them at least up to a point. When they do get impatient (usually because someone files repeated frivolous suits), the courts have the power to bar a plaintiff. However, reporting that plaintiff to the mental health authorities is several levels more authoritarian, don't you think?

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...However, reporting that plaintiff to the mental health authorities is several levels more authoritarian, don't you think?

A refreshing breath of reason and perspective, mixed with a taste of (not undue) condescension.

[JustAnOl'Broad]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I understand it, they were released because the courts held that people's civil liberties were being infringed. I'm not sure about the wisdom of that, but I am also not keen on the idea of the government whisking people away because someone files a kooky-sounding complaint with a court.

People do have a right to petition the courts for redress, including on bases that have let's say, a tenuous connection to reality.

As I remember shutting down the Mental Hospitals was based more on the
fact that economy had worsened and they couldn't get the funds to keep
them going.
Some of the more outstanding examples I can think of did not really
belong walking the streets with everyday folks.

I merely meant that if the courts have to review cases like this - where
someone is pretty obviously unstable (understatement); shouldn't there be
a bit of intervention to monitor their dealings in the community?

[/QUOTE But there are community programs in every city looking for folks like this to help. A few minutes looking up a number and making a call is all I'm talking about.
[/QUOTE]

That's what I'm saying; don't just let it go, with "wow that was a wild day at work".
Do some follow up and see that the individual has help with seperating her
cyborg self from the one talking to your kids, or my elderly parent at the 7-11
some afternoon.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I understand it, they were released because the courts held that people's civil liberties were being infringed.

True enough, but the problem was compounded by government willingness to abdicate responsibility for the care of the mentally ill:

At the same time as civil liberties lawyers have been making it virtually impossible to treat severely mentally ill individuals involuntarily until they commit some horrific act, state mental health officials have been increasingly abdicating their responsibility for these individuals. More than 90 % of state psychiatric hospital beds that existed in 1960 have been eliminated. Many states have turned over the responsibility for treating severely mentally ill individuals to health-maintenance organizations. Some of them, mostly nonprofits, are doing a creditable job. But for-profit HMOs, with few exceptions, have been disastrous for the severely mentally ill, who are expensive to treat.

Source.

[turtle777]

-t

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
True enough, but the problem was compounded by government willingness to abdicate responsibility for the care of the mentally ill:

I said I am not sure that as a policy deintitutionalization makes much sense. It's well outside of my area of expertise, but living and working in the DC area I am certainly aware of the problem, because I am literally confronted with the results on a daily basis.

That said, what the states may have decided to do as a matter of political policy isn't the province of federal courts to try to undo. It's also not their responsibility to be social services organizations, or to make layman diagnoses about who may be a bit eccentic, and who may be in need of psychiatric intervention. The courts are overburdened enough without taking on that additional responsibility for which they are ill equipped and not trained.

There is also a policy argument about whether taking advantage of your civil right to seek legal recourse against a perceived wrong should put you in jeopardy potentially of your liberty. I don't think I want access to the courts to be chilled in that way. Free access to the courts is a more important issue than policing the odd mental patient.