Visitation by family began to be refused in middle August. The Detention House repeated visitation refusal and permission to his family as well, and as far as We know, all visitations were refused after the last visitation around April 30, 2008 for attorneys and June 10 for family.
Our older sister and younger brother were the last people in our family who were able to meet our father. We heard he was in a terrible mental and physical condition, with the skin on his face being peeled, red and swollen.
Our younger brother who met our father after a long time was shocked by his condition, and worryingly asked him, "You look red here and there. Is it a rash or did you get bitten by something," but no answer came back as a matter of course.
We also think about another possibility. The Detention House concluded not to let anyone meet our father, because our brother who is only a boy worried about not only his mental state but also his physical condition.
In later years, we requested adult guardianship with our father as a ward and investigators and expert witnesses from a family court tried to meet him; however the Tokyo Detention Court rejected it. A family court exclusively handles judgment and mediation relating to family and household as well as judgment on criminal cases involving juveniles. Adult guardianship is a system to request a guardian to a family court for a person with insufficient ability to make decisions due to mental disability (e.g., intellectual disability, mental disability, dementia, etc.) so that the guardian can help the person not to suffer from the disabilities.
As long as We know, our father has not been seen by outside people since June 10, 2008. He was shielded by the Tokyo Detention House in a physically and mentally worn-out condition as last seen by our older sister and younger brother.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Sunday, February 25, 2018
＃22 JFBA's warning to provide psychological treatment
The appeal was turned down at the end of March 2006, followed by an immediate appeal and special appeal filed by the defense attorneys. During this period, the seventh psychiatrist prepared a written opinion. However, both the immediate appeal and special appeal were turned down, and judgment was finalized on September 15 of the same year.
The Tokyo Detention House began to refuse visitation by the defense attorneys in April 2007.
The Detention House began to refuse visitation when things calmed down, i.e., almost seven months after the relationship between the Tokyo High Court and our father was disconnected; therefore this visitation refusal was obviously initiated by the Tokyo Detention House. Even still, the Tokyo Detention House tried to save appearances in front of the defense attorneys, claiming that visitation naturally became difficult for our father's own convenience.
"×○○○○○○○×××××○○×××○○××○○××○×××××○○○×××××××○
(○ indicates successful visitation upon visitation request and × indicates unsuccessful visitation.)"
As indicated in the above, they tried to create a flow of natural inevitability of visitation, rather than quickly refusing all visitations. When they refused visitation, they claimed that it was due to our father's condition or problem, saying that "they talked to him but he did not try to move", etc. However, our father was not moving on his own from the first place, because he was always transported on the wheelchair.
The Japan Federation of Bar Association (federation of local bar associations in Japan established under the Lawyers Act; abbreviated as JFBA below) warned the Tokyo Detention House where our father is imprisoned to allow him to receive proper psychiatric treatment under the "petition to protect human rights" on November 6 of the same year.
JFBA's Civil Liberties Commission pointed out in the investigation report that there is a full-time psychiatrist at the Tokyo Detention House but "basic psychiatric treatment has not been provided", requesting examination by an outside psychiatrist as well as prompt drug therapy or treatment at a medical prison. However, the Tokyo Detention House never provided medical treatment for our father who "cannot be ill" or whose illness "should not be treated".
The Tokyo Detention House began to refuse visitation by the defense attorneys in April 2007.
The Detention House began to refuse visitation when things calmed down, i.e., almost seven months after the relationship between the Tokyo High Court and our father was disconnected; therefore this visitation refusal was obviously initiated by the Tokyo Detention House. Even still, the Tokyo Detention House tried to save appearances in front of the defense attorneys, claiming that visitation naturally became difficult for our father's own convenience.
"×○○○○○○○×××××○○×××○○××○○××○×××××○○○×××××××○
(○ indicates successful visitation upon visitation request and × indicates unsuccessful visitation.)"
As indicated in the above, they tried to create a flow of natural inevitability of visitation, rather than quickly refusing all visitations. When they refused visitation, they claimed that it was due to our father's condition or problem, saying that "they talked to him but he did not try to move", etc. However, our father was not moving on his own from the first place, because he was always transported on the wheelchair.
The Japan Federation of Bar Association (federation of local bar associations in Japan established under the Lawyers Act; abbreviated as JFBA below) warned the Tokyo Detention House where our father is imprisoned to allow him to receive proper psychiatric treatment under the "petition to protect human rights" on November 6 of the same year.
JFBA's Civil Liberties Commission pointed out in the investigation report that there is a full-time psychiatrist at the Tokyo Detention House but "basic psychiatric treatment has not been provided", requesting examination by an outside psychiatrist as well as prompt drug therapy or treatment at a medical prison. However, the Tokyo Detention House never provided medical treatment for our father who "cannot be ill" or whose illness "should not be treated".
Friday, February 23, 2018
＃21 Do babies have litigation ability?
Our father's appeal was turned down on March 27, 2006 on the basis of "expert opinion" written by Dr. Nishiyama, the expert witness for the Court, claiming that he is not in a stupor but normal, as long as he "holds or eats things".
As We previously wrote, it is illegal for the Court to handle the document prepared by Dr. Nishiyama as a formal "expert opinion" as he ignored the legal procedure and is not qualified as an expert witness. However, as the Court took the initiative in violating the Constitution and laws in our father's trial, Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" was treated as the expert opinion.
The court deliberately ignored more than 10 opinions on our father's mental condition as well as objections to Nishiyama's expert opinion written by six psychiatrists to whom the defense attorneys requested diagnosis. We don't know much in detail, but the psychiatrists who accepted the request of the defense attorneys were all experienced with formal psychiatric evaluation for courts and very renowned doctors, including the teacher of Dr. Nishiyama as previously mentioned.
Our father is a target of criticism in society, and there is no need for these six psychiatrists to fabricate facts for him. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama performed his evaluation under pressure from the Court, nation and society, and might have had no choice but to fabricate the expert opinion.
It is hard for us to understand the claim stating that there is litigation capacity if one can "hold or eat things." Infants can hold or eat things. Does it mean that they have the litigation capacity? If you talk to a baby,
"The defendant went to ○○ in ○○ City of ○○ Prefecture on ○○ ○○, ○○….."
The baby would only say "baboo?" Our father cannot even say "baboo?"
Moreover, our father is an adult over 50 years old, not an infant. It is hard to believe that an adult who cannot even say "baboo?" has litigation capacity.
As We previously wrote, it is illegal for the Court to handle the document prepared by Dr. Nishiyama as a formal "expert opinion" as he ignored the legal procedure and is not qualified as an expert witness. However, as the Court took the initiative in violating the Constitution and laws in our father's trial, Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" was treated as the expert opinion.
The court deliberately ignored more than 10 opinions on our father's mental condition as well as objections to Nishiyama's expert opinion written by six psychiatrists to whom the defense attorneys requested diagnosis. We don't know much in detail, but the psychiatrists who accepted the request of the defense attorneys were all experienced with formal psychiatric evaluation for courts and very renowned doctors, including the teacher of Dr. Nishiyama as previously mentioned.
Our father is a target of criticism in society, and there is no need for these six psychiatrists to fabricate facts for him. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama performed his evaluation under pressure from the Court, nation and society, and might have had no choice but to fabricate the expert opinion.
It is hard for us to understand the claim stating that there is litigation capacity if one can "hold or eat things." Infants can hold or eat things. Does it mean that they have the litigation capacity? If you talk to a baby,
"The defendant went to ○○ in ○○ City of ○○ Prefecture on ○○ ○○, ○○….."
The baby would only say "baboo?" Our father cannot even say "baboo?"
Moreover, our father is an adult over 50 years old, not an infant. It is hard to believe that an adult who cannot even say "baboo?" has litigation capacity.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
＃20 Is it normal if you can hold or eat things ?
Dr. Nishiyama concluded that our father has a litigation capacity in his "expert opinion".
The reason was amazing: because our father is able to hold and eat things…
According to Dr. Nishiyama, not speaking while being able to hold or eat things is not a stupor (mental illness), but silence chosen on our father’s own will; therefore he is able to say things, i.e., has communication ability = litigation capacity.
Dr. Nishiyama replaced the communication ability with the "ability to say things", and concluded that one is able to communicate as long as he has the ability to say things; therefore has litigation capacity.
On the contrary, our father is not even "capable of saying things" in reality. Thus, Dr. Nishiyama considered that our father does not say things even though he is capably of speaking.
We previously wrote about the litigation capacity, which is to be determined according to the defendant's proper understanding on the details of trial as well as the ability to take proper actions.
There is no other case but our father's where the ability to hold or eat things was considered as having litigation ability.
As We write this explanation, We are totally unable to understand the claim made by Dr. Nishiyama.
When the defense attorneys explained this to us, We asked,
"Why is it considered as normal because he is able to hold or eat things? Even babies are able to do these things…."
The defense attorneys lost words. They seem to have been perplexed by the "expert opinion" that was far from making sense.
One of the doctors who wrote an opinion stating that our father is ill and needs medical treatment was a teacher of Dr. Nishiyama. That doctor was angry with Dr. Nishiyama and said, "Did Nishiyama lose pride as a doctor ?"
After Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion was issued, the defense attorneys submitted to the Court a total of five documents, including three written objections against Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion written by psychiatrists as well as two supplementary letters containing objections. At this point, six psychiatrists had written opinions, etc.
However, opinions written by psychiatrists did not mean anything to the Court that had already made this unshakable conclusion prior to the "expert opinion".
The reason was amazing: because our father is able to hold and eat things…
According to Dr. Nishiyama, not speaking while being able to hold or eat things is not a stupor (mental illness), but silence chosen on our father’s own will; therefore he is able to say things, i.e., has communication ability = litigation capacity.
Dr. Nishiyama replaced the communication ability with the "ability to say things", and concluded that one is able to communicate as long as he has the ability to say things; therefore has litigation capacity.
On the contrary, our father is not even "capable of saying things" in reality. Thus, Dr. Nishiyama considered that our father does not say things even though he is capably of speaking.
We previously wrote about the litigation capacity, which is to be determined according to the defendant's proper understanding on the details of trial as well as the ability to take proper actions.
There is no other case but our father's where the ability to hold or eat things was considered as having litigation ability.
As We write this explanation, We are totally unable to understand the claim made by Dr. Nishiyama.
When the defense attorneys explained this to us, We asked,
"Why is it considered as normal because he is able to hold or eat things? Even babies are able to do these things…."
The defense attorneys lost words. They seem to have been perplexed by the "expert opinion" that was far from making sense.
One of the doctors who wrote an opinion stating that our father is ill and needs medical treatment was a teacher of Dr. Nishiyama. That doctor was angry with Dr. Nishiyama and said, "Did Nishiyama lose pride as a doctor ?"
After Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion was issued, the defense attorneys submitted to the Court a total of five documents, including three written objections against Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion written by psychiatrists as well as two supplementary letters containing objections. At this point, six psychiatrists had written opinions, etc.
However, opinions written by psychiatrists did not mean anything to the Court that had already made this unshakable conclusion prior to the "expert opinion".
Monday, February 19, 2018
＃19 About the litigation capacity
Litigation capacity is defined as the “ability to differentiate (clearly distinguish the difference in things) material interests as a defendant and defend accordingly in a reasonable (appropriate) manner”.
It means that presence of litigation capacity is determined in accordance with whether or not the defendant properly understands the details of the trial and is able to take proper actions.
However, Dr. Nishiyama who was never able to communicate with our father could not have understood whether or not our father was equipped with such ability. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama saw the situation to sufficiently believe our father’s illness, such as the twilight state, seizure, irrelevant nodding, etc.
There were only facts to prove illness, without being able to obtain the evidence of his normality. Therefore, Dr. Nishiyama developed his own argument about the litigation capacity in his own “expert opinion”.
It means that presence of litigation capacity is determined in accordance with whether or not the defendant properly understands the details of the trial and is able to take proper actions.
However, Dr. Nishiyama who was never able to communicate with our father could not have understood whether or not our father was equipped with such ability. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama saw the situation to sufficiently believe our father’s illness, such as the twilight state, seizure, irrelevant nodding, etc.
There were only facts to prove illness, without being able to obtain the evidence of his normality. Therefore, Dr. Nishiyama developed his own argument about the litigation capacity in his own “expert opinion”.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
＃18 Dr. Nishiyama gave up on the possibility of psychological examination
Dr. Nishiyama considered it impossible to perform a psychological examination of our father, and did not attempt to do it.
He also recognized the twilight state of our father but ignored it, by giving a reason that his observation was fragmentary. As an expert witness, he only needed to observe for a longer time.
Furthermore, he recognized attacks like seizures in our father but did not take it into consideration as his medical condition, although it was so serious that employees at the Detention House would worriedly go to talk to him.
Irregular speech and orientation (basic understanding of the situation including the current year, month, time, where he is, etc.) at the time when our father's condition was still moderate was concluded as fabrication.
Dr. Nishiyama agreed that communication was not successful, stating that there seemed to be no relationship between questions he asked and the noise sounding like nodding that our father was uttering at the time of visitation. Our father was far from being able to talk in front of Dr. Nishiyama as well.
Then, what did Dr. Nishiyama spend 168 days for? Did he only push the predetermined conclusion into the text titled as the expert opinion? Is it because it took so long to come up with the text to cover up failure of logic? We had no choice but to suspect it, as the expert opinion by Dr. Nishiyama was logically broken and did not make sense.
We would like to touch on the details of Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" later.
He also recognized the twilight state of our father but ignored it, by giving a reason that his observation was fragmentary. As an expert witness, he only needed to observe for a longer time.
Furthermore, he recognized attacks like seizures in our father but did not take it into consideration as his medical condition, although it was so serious that employees at the Detention House would worriedly go to talk to him.
Irregular speech and orientation (basic understanding of the situation including the current year, month, time, where he is, etc.) at the time when our father's condition was still moderate was concluded as fabrication.
Dr. Nishiyama agreed that communication was not successful, stating that there seemed to be no relationship between questions he asked and the noise sounding like nodding that our father was uttering at the time of visitation. Our father was far from being able to talk in front of Dr. Nishiyama as well.
Then, what did Dr. Nishiyama spend 168 days for? Did he only push the predetermined conclusion into the text titled as the expert opinion? Is it because it took so long to come up with the text to cover up failure of logic? We had no choice but to suspect it, as the expert opinion by Dr. Nishiyama was logically broken and did not make sense.
We would like to touch on the details of Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" later.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
＃17 Expert opinion based on erroneous records without examining the content
The records of the Detention House referred to by Dr. Nishiyama contained some obvious deceit. For example, the Detention House claims that our father eats meals without spilling a drop of soup. When We were caring for him, however, he would frequently spill because he was blind. When he ate meals at home, We would cover his clothes with bath towels on his chest and knees to avoid soiling them. It was also the role of his caregiver to hold his hands to show him the location of chopsticks, forks, and spoons.
A jail is a closed room that cannot be seen by the eyes of a third party. Records can be fabricated very easily.
The Detention House would lose face if our father lied neglected in serious illness. Moreover, our father was not seriously ill in the beginning, but deteriorated over time. If it is possible to conclude that our father was "malingering", they won't be blamed about not allowing medical care but helping the deterioration of his symptoms.
In other words, the Detention House cannot be a fair institution at least for our father. Dr. Nishiyama performed the evaluation on the premise that there is no doubt in the accuracy of the report by the Detention House.
Why did Dr. Nishiyama only refer to the record of the unfair Detention House to give a solid expert opinion? There must have been many opportunities to observe our father during mealtime with his own eyes.
A jail is a closed room that cannot be seen by the eyes of a third party. Records can be fabricated very easily.
The Detention House would lose face if our father lied neglected in serious illness. Moreover, our father was not seriously ill in the beginning, but deteriorated over time. If it is possible to conclude that our father was "malingering", they won't be blamed about not allowing medical care but helping the deterioration of his symptoms.
In other words, the Detention House cannot be a fair institution at least for our father. Dr. Nishiyama performed the evaluation on the premise that there is no doubt in the accuracy of the report by the Detention House.
Why did Dr. Nishiyama only refer to the record of the unfair Detention House to give a solid expert opinion? There must have been many opportunities to observe our father during mealtime with his own eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)