Law Exposé

Autistic Grievance

Congressional acts

Most Congressional Acts on behalf of Disabled beginning with  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 employ the language of “as appropriate to
[their] individual needs and abilities” in a setting that is “least restrictive of [their] personal liberty”  – creating an innocent looking loophole that effectively swallowed the freedom and rights of disabled, divergent, and expressly Autistic people.

In each of these Acts not a word of justification for such honors [sarcasm] is given as it has apparently been unequivocally assumed by lawmakers to be clearly APPROPRIATE and NECESSARY that the personal liberty of Disabled need to be somehow restricted!   

The marriage of presumed ‘needs and abilitiesof disabled person to restriction of their ‘personal liberty‘ is a cancerous outgrowth of the
xenophobic madness of the past Century  and we call on Lawmakers to strike out this pervasive internalized prejudice that continue to sicken our Law.    

We intend to expose this language in Congressional Acts, and track it back in time to the psychopaths who championed it.

Continue here to Congressional Acts Exposé

Cleburne v. Cleburne, Inc.

This 1985 Supreme Court ruling has become a seminal case as a bulwark and a bastion of Law-enshrined denial of rights to Autistic people in particular and the Disabled in general.

Below is a quotation and a reference to a highly respected Constitutional Disability lawyer and an erudite Law scholar :

“For disability law purposes, Cleburne has been the end-all–be-all statement of the constitutional rights of people with disabilities. And, despite the holding in Cleburne itself, … it has been nearly uniformly applied to deny people with disabilities any protection under the Equal Protection Clause.”    Waterstone, Michael – Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

Dean Michael Waterstone is a nationally recognized expert in disability and civil rights law. His recent articles have appeared in the Harvard Law Review, Emory Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Vanderbilt Law Review, William and Mary Law Review, and Northwestern Law Review, amongst others. http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/63/3/articles/waterstone.pdf

The unabridged prejudice exhibited by Supreme Court Judgement in Cleburne v. Cleburne is on display there – plainly in view for a “rational person”  – and we endeavor to expose it here, and track it down in time to its shameful and virulent beginning. 

Continue here to Cleburne v. Cleburne Expose

Guardianship

At the core of the denial of Liberty to millions of Disabled people is the  Guardianship Law – it powers our system of forceful institutionalization,  and removal of personal freedom for the rest of one’s life. 

We site below the few of many articles denouncing this instrument of dehumanization:
Guardianship and the Disability Rights Movement
Guardianship laws improving problems persist
Eliminating the Pervasiveness of Guardianship
Rethinking Guardianship and Promoting Self-Determination 

This law is a vile corruption of true Guardian’s purpose – it removes human rights with the imposition of power and poisons our society – it stands in a way of Human progress.  A society that violates the rights of its Disabled Citizens is a Disabled Society.  Just like Slavery Law of the past era this law has proven to be irreparable and must be abolished!  There is a better way.

Our Slogan – Return our Freedom – Return our Rights!

NEXT: Appeal to Public