Rule 1100 Litigation Prospectus

157KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Any interested parties willing to engage in this litigation are encouraged to do so, and I am available through email at adarights@pm.me

P.D., Jay V. Shore

In a Tennessee courtroom, a 100% disabled veteran’s life was torn apart when a judge looked at his medical mobility cane and declared it a “weapon”, and used it to classify the veteran as dangerous. What followed was a catastrophic denial of due process, a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the heartbreaking loss of a father’s right to see his child. This is a documentary of an ongoing, outrageous civil rights crisis.

The Story: Injustice in the Courtroom

This veteran broke his leg terribly in the line of duty, leaving him with a severe, service-connected injury. While waiting months for the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide his prescribed orthotic shoes, he relied on a standard walking cane intermittently. When he stepped into the courtroom, the system failed him entirely:

Denied Due Process:

The veteran is hard of hearing, yet the court provided no reasonable accommodations even when requested, meaning he could not hear the testimony against him or defend himself.

The “Weapon” Ruling:

Without a single piece of evidence presented regarding his mobility aid, Chancellor J.B. Cox (unprompted, and arbitrarily) labeled the cane a “weapon” in his official ruling. This prevented the veteran from being able to “object” as one would to argument or discussion during a case. The judge waited until it couldn’t be objected to, and humiliated the veteran with this classification.

Mockery from the Bench:

The judge called the veteran’s ADA arguments “frivolous” and “insidious,” sarcastically stating it was “miraculous” the man could take a few steps without the cane.

The Devastating Consequence:

As a result of this biased trial, the judge barred the veteran from having any contact with his child for an entire year, and this veteran has not held his child for 760 days as of the posting of this documentary.

The Fight for Accountability

This isn’t just one veteran’s story; it’s a fight for the civil liberties of every disabled American. Echoing the landmark Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane, a massive federal civil rights lawsuit has now been filed against both the State of Tennessee and the judge involved. We cannot let this discrimination go unchecked. The transcripts prove it all, and the truth is finally coming out.

How You Can Help

The only way to fight a broken system is with undeniable public awareness. Share this video on your social media and with anyone who cares about Veterans’ Rights, ADA protections, and parental rights. Leave a comment below to let the algorithm know this story matters.

Thank you,

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate

I have to admit, there’s a huge part of me that doesn’t want to work through this. I seem to be embracing the posture of my ex and kids, who, through alienation, just left my life, with me begging for communication, but there was none to be had.

Every day, I grieve the deaths of six people. Six people who are still on the planet, but are inaccessible to me through time, space, or proximity.

When I help people who have lost one or two children through the family court system, I find myself realizing that while they too have grief, their grief is incomparable to my grief in many ways.

The word “alienation” seems to be thematic in my life at the present. Feeling like no one would understand my situation, I am withdrawn.

There are also the other emotions. Extreme anguished sadness, bitterness at their inability to communicate and work through whatever they deem as “wrong” about me, and then there’s this guilt that doesn’t have an attachment point. I somehow allow the thought that surely there’s something that I should answer for, and at the same time, I know I did my best to navigate my life and keep them safe, while admittedly not knowing how to communicate with them either. I’m not claiming to be blameless in this variable.

But, I did beg for communication. I did express that I didn’t know how to communicate effectively, and asked for their help to do this. All that was returned was hate and silence.

My work with those who need equal access brings out my empathy, and I appreciate that, but even though I’ve attained a level of mastery of the ADA, and “know my shit”, as people often tell me, what fulfills me, what my core existence is based on, is now reduced to daily multiple funerals.

The podcast I am working through pointed me to this resource: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fe278aec01e323d6cc0bc73/t/60f98fccaa32ea2fffbf31b5/1626968012585/complicated-grief-report.pdf

Here’s how my complicated grief inventory worked out.

And this is every. damn. day.

How do I get off of this ferris wheel? I don’t know, but facing it, and putting it to paper is seemingly a first step.

(I’m not asking for pats on the back or atta-boys. I just want to have this out there.)

As always, I retain the right of interpretation of my words here.

P.D., Jay V. Shore.

I’ve pointed to this event as cataclysmic and causative of much of my CPTSD response mechanisms. And in that case, I believe I’m right.

But losing the house was not my primary adult trauma.

Losing the respect of my ex-wife was my primary adult trauma.

And I didn’t even catch when it happened, until today.

I was talking to a friend today, and I was discussing this video from TikTok:

And it hit me. I lost her respect when she got pregnant the first time, and she told me: “I’m not working anymore.” From that point on, it was ALL on my shoulders, and from that moment on, I couldn’t trust her to help me with anything. Although she did help from time to time, it was not because she was obligated, in her mind. She did it because she was willing at the time. But I knew within that the entirety of the safety, provision, and health of the family. None of that was HER responsibility, because she had refused it, and handed it off to me.

And what did I do with that handed-off responsibility? I TOOK IT LIKE A MAN. I MANNED UP, I BUCKED UP, AND I DID IT. And I was deceived into thinking that it mattered, and that it would be appreciated. I WAS WRONG.

I had hope. Hope failed me. I had love. Love failed me. I had damned determination, and that failed me too, and it was all because my wife saw me as a resource, rather than a partner. She paid whatever price she needed to pay to keep me dedicated to the SOLE responsibility for the entirety of performing for the family to be “happy”. I sacrificed myself, believing that I was happy to serve, when deep inside, I had questions that I dared not ask.

I was a man. I am a man. But that meant I was biologically and societally programmed to be the GIVER. The obverse is true for the feminine sex.

My primary adult trauma was losing the (pretended) respect of my ex, and only realizing it many years later, when all of the damage had been done, and all of my kids were alienated.

The irony of her requiring me to be the masculine, and at the same time embracing and surreptitiously weaving the doctrines of feminist hate into my children is not lost on me.

I was wrong.

All of this frees my mind up to the frame of being me without actually holding onto any hope for redemption, and actually just wanting to close that chapter out of my life for good.

Onward.

P.D., Jay V. Shore

Second, Trump’s FCC is pursuing the Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Sixth Report and Order, CG Docket No. 17-59, which includes requiring ID and address and other identifiers for all users of cell phones. This too violates the Rehab Act, in my opinion, by causing disparate treatment through discrimination against those who need privacy to mitigate PTSD and other disabilities.

Additionally, it is a direct attack on personal privacy, and I will be a thorn in their side when this commenting/consultation period opens.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate.

Here’s what Claude responded, in part:

“I’d challenge the binary first, because I think it’s part of what traps people. Victim or owner isn’t the actual choice space. There’s a third position that the literature on what Pauline Boss calls “ambiguous loss” gets at — the carrier. Someone who bears a wound that won’t close, without pretending it has closed and without being defined solely by it. That’s not a reframe trick; it’s a different ontology of what healing means.

The owner/agency framework — popular in personal development, sometimes in coaching — works reasonably well for discrete past events. You were wronged, the event is over, the question now is how you relate to the memory and what you build going forward. For that situation, “shift to ownership” maps onto something real.

Parental alienation breaks that framework, and I think you already know this — which is probably why your clients reject the offered exits. Alienation isn’t a past event. It’s an ongoing, renewing wound. The children are alive. The phone could ring today. The campaign against the parent continues whether they engage or not. There’s no “after” to relate to. Traditional grief models assume a body to bury; this is grief with no body, no funeral, and no permission from society to fully mourn. Telling someone in that situation to “take ownership and move forward” is asking them to bury someone who isn’t dead. They’re right to refuse.

So the honest answer to your question — how does one shift when any alternative role feels hollow compared to the intended outcome — has a piece I think you’re hoping I won’t say: sometimes they don’t shift, and they shouldn’t be made to feel they’ve failed for not shifting. The desire for reconciliation and redemption isn’t a pathology to be processed away. It’s the appropriate response of a parent who loves their child. Asking them to want less is itself a kind of violence.

That said — and this is where I’d push on your framing — I think “compared to the original intended outcome” is a comparison that destroys whoever runs it, regardless of the loss. Every life contains the death of intended outcomes. The alienated parent’s loss is genuinely worse than most, but the structure of “my actual life vs. the life I was supposed to have” is a torture engine that runs on any fuel. Part of what makes alienation so cruel is that it makes this comparison feel forced and constant, where most people get to let it fade. The work isn’t accepting the loss — it’s interrupting the comparison loop without pretending the loss is acceptable.

What I’ve seen in the better writing on chronic, unresolved grief (Frankl is the canonical reference, but also Hillesum, and more recently the meaning-making work coming out of bereavement research): the people who carry it best don’t transcend the wound. They don’t reach a higher plane. They develop a relationship with the wound that lets them still be fully themselves around it. They want reconciliation. They ache for redemption. They sometimes get neither. And they still find that there are mornings worth waking up for, work worth doing, other people worth loving — not as replacements for the lost children, which would be obscene, but as the rest of a life that was never going to be only about that one thing, even if that one thing was the center.

The hardest piece, and the part most frameworks lie about: some children return. Some don’t. Some return decades later. The alienated parent can’t make this happen, and pretending they can — through “doing the inner work” or whatever — is just another flavor of the splitting that did this to them in the first place. What they can do is stay reachable, stay sane, stay alive, and remain the parent the child could come back to if the child ever sees through it.

That’s not a shift from victim to owner. It’s something closer to: refusing to be defined by what was done to you, while also refusing to pretend it wasn’t done.”

Just GahDaym.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate.

And I see all kinds of videos, where a cop walks up to a first amendment auditor, or conducts a traffic stop, and when the individual that is detained (“Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Terry v. Ohio holding), the individual asks “why did you pull me over,” or “what crime do you suspect me of committing,” the officer will often pull something out of their ass like:

• You have a tail light out

• You have a broken windshield

• You were parking in a no-parking zone

• You look suspicious

Or some other horse-shit that IS NOT A CRIME.

Here’s what the general public has not yet registered when resisting these common intrusive interactions with police. AN INFRACTION OR VIOLATION IS USUALLY NOT A CRIME!

I mean, oftentimes, speeding less than 9 miles an hour over the limit, is an INFRACTION, and neither a misdemeanor or a felony, and thus NOT A CRIME.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Under Terry v. Ohio, the only legitimate reason a cop can stop and detain you briefly, is when reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime exists. AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME.

AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME.

AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME.

Further, the Terry decision uses the limiting phrase “crime of violence.”

Thus, IF You know the list of infractions that are not crimes, such as (using North Carolina as an example) (From a very good AI model)

• Not carrying a registration card

• Not updating the address on a driver license when one has moved

• operating a motor vehicle in violation of the lane-discipline provision cross-referenced there, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-176(a1) (2026)

• certain littering acts (under 10 lbs) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-399 (2026)

• lots of vechile inspection violation N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.8 (2026)

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-246.1 (2026) authorizes a county to adopt civil-enforcement ordinances using electronic speed-measuring systems in school zones. When a county uses that authorized mechanism, the resulting violation of the school-zone speeding statute is specifically not treated as an infraction if the citation is issued under the ordinance; instead, it is deemed a noncriminal violation carrying a civil penalty and no driver’s-license points

And, from https://northcarolinavehicle.org/traffic-violations:

• Below are the examples of traffic infractions in North Carolina:

  • Disposing of litter on the roadway

  • Exceeding the speed limit by up to 15 mph

  • Parking violations

  • Not using turn signals or signaling incorrectly

  • Not stopping or yielding when required

  • Violations related to seat belt use

  • Faulty vehicle equipment

  • Making improper turns

  • Driving the wrong way on a one-way street

The thing is, AN INFRACTION IS NOT A CRIME! And yet, no one is challenging the authority of the police officer to pull over or approach and detain someone for infractions. People are just assuming that infractions, because they may be citable offenses, are fitting into the Terry v. Ohio construct of an officer’s authority to stop and detain someone. Uh, NO.

I present this possibility of exchange:

Police Officer: ”Sir, I stopped you because you failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign back there. I need to see your driver license, insurance, and registration.”

Detained Individual: “Officer, is failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign - a misdemeanor or a felony?”

Police Officer: “Neither, it is an infraction, but I can write you a ticket for this.”

Detained Individual: “Officer, under Terry v. Ohio, the legal standard of authority for you to stop and detain someone is when reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity is afoot. Because you have admitted that the reason you stopped me is only an infraction, and not a crime, you are noticed that you are currently acting outside of qualified immunity. Now, what do you demand that I do?”

[Edited addition. I am aware that there are “stop and identify” states. And while SCOTUS, in Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada said that states can enact laws that require one to identify when stopped, I am saying that perhaps that’s not the end of the discussion.]

Know your remedy.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate

Man to Man

MAN TO MAN

(By Jay Vincent ~ 12-28-20) ©

For all those times you gave your word:

You’d never run, but grab your sword,

I see you.

For all the times you felt so trapped;

Each maiden voyage without a map,

I see you.

For all the times you tried so hard,

To look so brave, to keep your guard,

I see you.

For all the days, for all the ways

You’ve had to work, and never laze

I see you

For every time you gave your soul,

To lift the load, to keep control,

I see you.

For every tear you couldn’t cry,

To keep facade, to hide the lie,

I see you.

For every time you felt confused,

And wondered why you felt so used,

I see you.

And if the day arrives at last,

You weep your tears, you raise your fists,

You curse the lies that caused your pain,

You stand in rage while unashamed,

Your sword cuts through those truly weak,

The ones who tasked you to not speak,

Who bade you to your anguished war,

Without regard through every door,

Until your soul demands “no more”...

And now you dare to seek YOUR peace,

A place to cry, to heal, to weep,

Concern for those who used you - gone,

They’re not here when you’re all alone.

And so you step out on your own,

Admitting pain while standing strong,

The sword, a still, and silent blade,

Your voice alone, your will displayed,

And at this point,

Lies are de-fined,

Truth is refined,

Today I find -

I am you.

Why did I make the choices that ended up with me alienated and alone?

Why did I not see it sooner, and try to better address it?

Why am I even here?

This month, please be aware that everyone around you is struggling. EVERYONE.

I’m not special because I happen to be writing this message. I’m right there in the struggle boat.

Give someone a hug, and take a step or two with them.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate

I learned that disorienting a system caused it to have the standard operating procedure thrown into inaccessibility, and this disorientation creates new opportunities.

I think this is one of the strongest operators I have found to be magical in my life.

Marc Stevens, in his book Adventures in Legal Land, included the following quote:

“Those who attack the rationale of the game, and not the players, are its most formidable adversaries.” - James J. Martin in the introduction to Lysander Spooner’s No Treason -Constitution of No Authority.

In application of the ADA, and calling out state court players who openly discriminate, it seems that I have not only attacked the rationale, but also the players, and their “rationale” for existence.

Questioning the rationale of a judge, demanding accountability from those who stand in front of them, while simultaneously avoiding that same accountability, has been a light saber that cuts through all of the bullshit.

Asking a judge to give the static, complete, full, and permanent meaning of words/terms like “contempt” or “represent yourself” or whatever else they pull out of their control toolbox, cuts through all of the bullshit, especially since we ALL have communication disabilities, when it comes to the language of the court, and the ADA requires equal access and effective communication.

Telling a judge that there is no ADA access, thus no sixth amendment access to court, upends the very foundation of the operating system (rationale) of their game.

And so on, and so forth.

Tell them that the emperor has no clothes. It totally fucks with their hubristic entitled power trip.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, Certified ADA Advocate

Rosie (speedmeth) Gonzalez, as I call her, was a judge in Bexar County TX. I gave her the name #BexarButch, because of her militant feminazi lesbian presentation. I have no problem with lesbians or gays, and yet, her entire angry, belligerent identity was as described just prior.

She wore the LGBTQ flag colors on her robe, and displayed these colors elsewhere in her courtroom.

To put it plainly, she is a cunt, masquerading as a man.

So when she openly discriminated against a litigant with autism, who was involuntarily stimming and had outbursts, I went to work putting together a video about this matter. You can find it anywhere online, and I won’t distract this article by posting mine.

That’s not what got her, though. She apparently put a lawyer in detainment in her courtroom, and she was charged with one or more felonies for this.

And what did she do? Did this piece of shit judge face the accountability she insisted on from others? NO. She ran like a little cockroach.

This is the rule for judges. When faced with the possibility of accountability, they RUN.

Fuck her and the rest of her life.

P.D., Jay V. Shore

I asked Vincent several questions, among which were:

1. Show me a table of conflicts between the uploaded maxims of common law and the doctrine of judicial immunity.

2. Show me a table of conflicts between the uploaded documents and the practice of keeping judicial disciplinary records secret.

3. Tell me about the use of the doctrine of quia timet to address the anticipation of future harms.

I’m posting this as a substack article, because I will be (a) pointing legal researchers here for this information, and (b) I am opening this up to anyone to research and provide relevant information for attack points.

It is absurd that judges wear robes, call themselves honorable, assume an air of superiority, and all the while they are AFRAID of accountability, and worse, shielded from accountability.

It’s time for these tables to turn.

Vincent Federal Conflict Chart With Judicial Immunity

7.61KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

Legal Analysis Of Judicial Immunity Conflicts With Common Law Maxims

219KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Cases That Deal With The Resolution Of Conflict Between Doctrines

559KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Vincent Table Of Conflicts With Keeping Disciplinary Records Private 2

8.58KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

Using The Doctrine Of Quia Timet To Address The Anticipation Of Future Harms

43.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Nippon Life Insurance Company has filed a suit in the Northern District of Illinois against OpenAI a/k/a ChatGPT for unauthorized practice of law.

I’m getting ready to put out a video of a judge telling a pro se litigant that there is absolutely no difference of standard for a pro se person as compared to a lawyer, which is patently untrue according to Haines v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519 (1974).

But, this does present the issue that the courts are rigged for lawyers, and not for the average American to come in and seek their equal access to court.

This lawsuit as much as verifies the same concept.

Lawyers are worried about AI, and rightfully so. Their chokehold on the legal industry has actually choked out justice for the average American. If you can’t “buy” the law, by hiring an attorney, you can’t experience justice, or even equal footing in the courts of America.

I have a couple of lawyer friends that follow this blog, and this is no dis on them or their practice. It’s just a fact.

Frederic Bastiat wrote about this long ago in his masterpiece “The Law”

Below is a copy of the Complaint in this case, and I have marked it in red with my thoughts. Of course, my comments on the complaint are only my opinion, and not legal advice.

It seems preposterous that a corporation can be even accused of unlicensed practice of law, but NIPPON is trying it.

IF NIPPON prevails in this case, justice will be further from reach, and lawyers will celebrate.

IF, however, NIPPON fails, it may be a new dawn on the horizon.

OF NOTE: Dela Torre, who is the subject of the case, used ChatGPT to draft her filings and give her legal advice. She claims to be disabled, which bears special observance of this case.

Here’s the complaint.

Nippon V

11MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you’re in Florida, and you’re trying to get ADA access, there’s a very real likelihood that they are going to get it wrong.

For kicks, I went through their state guidance, and marked it up to show where it is deficient.

Here you go:

Title Ii Guidelines Ada Information General Counsel Services Florida Courts

2.04MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This is three of the most powerful minutes in my life.

When they left, I was lost. I didn’t know who I was anymore. Hell, I still don’t.

The thing I had given my energy, body, and sheer willpower to overcome, had told me I wasn’t good enough, and the psychological splitting occurred.

Psychological splitting is when an ideology, such as “woke”, says “If someone isn’t ‘woke’, they’re bad. (Especially a parent.)” If they’re bad, go no-contact. With psychological splittting, there is no grey area. Either someone is the same as you, in belief or whatever other measure you are comparing, or they are not. If they are not, they’re just labeled as “bad.” The hallmark of psychological splitting is thinking in extreme binary, either “good” or “bad”, while these same people, my kids included, embrace “nonbinary” as a “gender” identity. It’s fully bizarre and absent sustainability when questioned with facts that require them to adhere to the binary position they have claimed.

There was no opportunity to discuss this with the kids. I TRIED. I tried again. Nope. I was crucified on the cross of psychological splitting, and that was that.

How is this a disability?

This kind of emotional, mental, and physical trauma (yes, it’s all three) cause our brains to go into fight or flight. We want to reach out to our kids every day, but we know that will only make it worse, and they will dig their heels in, becoming ever more entrenched in the position of “no-contact.”

We start our day with a fog. It’s a fog that only lifts momentarily if we can distract ourselves enough.

And so, our major life activities of working, communicating, caring for ourselves, interacting with others, and more, are ALL affected by the filter of the trauma of loss.

There is no part of life that this does not affect harshly.

The sheer willpower I had to muster to keep my kids safe and fed and sheltered has now become sheer willpower to just live another day. Some days, I don’t even want to do that…

Not only is this a disability, it is an EPIDEMIC that is not receiving enough attention.

The ideal of woke has murdered the ideal of traditional. With it, the minds, bodies, and hearts of parents everywhere are suffering and lost. There is no “cure”. There is no medicine that can remove this trauma. (Although some of us have tried…)

The imagination of the woke, no-contact child is that they have escaped someone “bad,” because of the psychological splitting mechanism of labeling someone who doesn’t believe the same way as bad.

What these kids have done, however, is to place a pure love on the cross of idealism.

I can’t state it more plainly.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as a broken Dad.

One of the most power-shifting dynamics I’ve ever USED s to give it right back to the judge that is abusing or intimidating you.

Some examples:

A judge keeps interrupting you, throwing your thought process, and any respect, out the window.

“Judge, how can you thoroughly explain the due process concept of the right to be heard, when you as judge keep interrupting me and disrespecting me? Don’t you demand to not be interrupted and treated with respect? How is it then that you can do to me what you demand I avoid with you? How is that respectful or giving me the right to be heard?”

A judge threatens you with contempt for something you are doing to upset them, but you don’t understand why it is upsetting them.

“Judge (I NEVER call them “your honor”, because they haven’t earned it), since you are using that word “contempt” to intimidate and threaten me, I am asking for the specific, static, complete and full meaning of the word contempt, so that I can avoid it in the future.”

Crickets will start chirping.

Another one I have done in this situation, and I have video of this one, is to ask, “So you’re the sole accuser, the sole witness, and the sole adjudicator of this contempt?” (This goes to the very core of fairness, and shows the conflict of interest that EVERY contempt charge includes)

Here is an abbreviated version of that exchange with the now disgraced Judge Bridgett Robb of Nevada (She’s apparently a stalker)

A hilarious back-down of bullying…

But the best one, and I’ve used this, although to my regret, I don’t have it on video, asking the judge if they are COMPETENT to give the specific, static, complete, and full meaning of the word “contempt”. This impugns their competency, and they will explode. (I escaped unscathed, however.)

Among the other tactics they try, are discriminatory comments, even in passing. Here’s me calling out a judge for this.

At least he apologizes. I found this judge to be quite pleasant, in all fairness.

When they use terms that confuse or intimidate, asking them if they are “COMPETENT” to give the full meaning of the word they just used against you will totally torque their asshole so tight you couldn’t pull a straight pin out of it with a tractor.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate, and intermittent rabble-rouser

For one individual, it may be avoiding going out at night. For another, it may be avoiding some place where their trauma occurred.

I heard a tiktok from mikecullisonvegas (he was selling something) but he gave the best description of PTSD I’ve ever heard. Here are excerpts, without his sales pitch.

QUOTE:

“You experience a traumatic event, what? Whatever. You get into a car accident instantaneously, and I mean within milliseconds, your amygdala detects a threat. Your system floods with norepinephrine. But here’s the problem. Your hippocampus, which is supposed to contextualize memories and timestamp them, just goes offline during extreme trauma.

So the amygdala encodes this memory. With zero context. 1989 neuroscientist James Pittman proved it becomes a memory that’s essentially frozen in time, hyper consolidated, the proteins, dendritic connections, the synaptic strength, all abnormally amplified. Now, a year later, you smell exhaust or bur rubber or whatever, and your amygdala doesn’t think memory.

It thinks threat now, and your entire nervous system reactivates as if the accident is happening right there in that very moment. That’s not a psychiatric symptom that’s persistent in coding. Of a false present moment. Reality. PTSD is a biological filing error where your brain loses the ability to distinguish between what happened.

And what’s happening, your nervous system becomes trapped in this loop of retraumatization. When you’re in a chronic threat state, your autonomic nervous system lives in sympathetic overdrive. So normally your vagus nerve is like a brake pedal. It tells your biology that you’re safe. Trauma breaks that pedal and this causes very real physical damage.

Most PTSD patients have actually inverted cortisol curves, so it’s high at night when it should be low, creating this perpetual wakefulness. That’s not stress, that’s a pathology.”

This really explains what is happening.

For me, it’s ANY system that has rules. Some would call this anti-authoritarianism.

Anti-Authoritarianism

Are people that are classified as anti-authoritarian just bad people? Do they just have a bent to “disobey” or be “vexatious?”

I would argue an emphatic NO. For me, it was sourced as a child with the disconnect between abuse and proclaimed love, so that love always has some hidden agenda behind it. This was reinforced with school, church, and oh yes, government and the “justice” system. All of these constructs contain the possibility, and the plausibility to be extremely corrupt and abusive. When a child or an adult is abused by this, and they reach the point of rage that allows them to escape the fear of paralyzation, they step away or more often run away from the abuse.

To whatever degree that they can process without going into the event unsafely, they realize, in their internal mechanism, that there were variables associated with this.

For instance, seeing someone in a suit and tie can translate to the authoritarian memory, and all of a sudden, the PTSD individual is right back in the situation where a parent, teacher, judge, or some other authority figure is getting ready to brutalize them. It shuts them down, because it isn’t just a possibility, their mind believes and behaves as if it IS happening at this very moment.

The major life activities of communicating, breathing, interacting with others, cardiovascular operation, thinking, concentrating, caring for oneself, and more are severely impacted.

And, like it or not, even though I was raised as Gen X, and taught to “walk it off”, the abuse is so rampant in this current social framework, that this “walking it off” is only mimimally available as a resolution.

Social constructs have broken down. Whoever it is (many theories abound) that design the flow, propaganda, social emergences of new and destructive ideologies, and disarray, have planned the demise of society.

Many suffer in silence, and when they see a tactic that could help them, but don’t have the full picture, they try asking an officer what crime they are suspected of, and it goes downhill from there, even though they are well within their rights to ask this and resist unlawful or voluntary interaction with police.

When the self-mitigation operating systems go bye-bye

When someone gets into a situation, and their operating system of self-mitigation has a piece taken off of the board, the panic, sweats, hyperventilation, tunnel vision, and more resurface, because it is that same original trauma re-manifesting itself, even though in a different form.

And for me, I have found it most helpful to document as much as I can remember happening, sit with it, and develop new pieces for the chess board, so that I can face a similar situation more efficiently and with a more full executive function the next time. (I hope that helps you too.)

What about when that doesn’t work?

Well, church, schools, courts, cops, and other authority figures are resistant to change, so unfortunately, we with PTSD are tasked to still stand up to the dragon, keep challenging it, and resisting the abuse. It’s not easy, but it is our path.

One thing that I have found most valuable on this path is that when I face authority, asking it questions that it cannot answer, and watching it deflect, gaslight, etc., and then calling that out as not answering the question, well, that seems to totally fuck the construct, at least for a bit.

Jesus, when approached by those who would trap him, would often ask them these sorts of questions, and watch them reason over the impossibility of the answer.

I’ve said it many times: If you want to win, you have to embarrass the hell out of them.

It’s what Jesus would do. LOL

One last thought that I’ve recently written about in recent posts here. Chase Huges said that power and confidence comes from being able to incur a social injury without it fazing us.

When you can be embarrassed, triggered, or otherwise in a twist, and instead of letting it get the best of you, you can turn the tables and see them embarrassed? That’s a WIN in my book.

Marc Stevens, in his book (I recommend reading) Adventures in Legal Land, quotes a note from the Geneva Bible, Note i, Exodus 1:22:

“When tyrants cannot prevail by deciet, they burst into open rage.”

Give ‘em hell.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate (Outward Goddamn Bound)