note: I often set links to open in a new tab or window.

Update: Apparently I have been offered a reinstatement of my civil rights from On May 27 there was a new included option to re-enable my access with a condition that I never do it again or be permanently banned from their social media platform that could provide better moderation for me since I have been told that I needed to be put down (euthanized) when I was pointing out (& providing sources) the actual real history of the pit bull ban in Denver.

This page is about a local man who decided to patronize me in the comfort of the dominate culture on the local, & by dominate I suppose it consists of people who can freely discuss the incarceration of innocent citizens for arbitrary reasons all by the label of "mentally ill" without knowing anything about it other than it ain't about them. That's their luxury. Anyway...

The social media platform could invest more into the software, or include in their guidelines a reference to stigmatation & stereotype of any demographic (grouping) of people, including "mentally ill" which, in reality, is regarding psychiatric diagnoses and that is a medical condition that can also involve disabled citizens of our country. I retain my right to advocate & defend the innocent people that make up the community that the topic directly addresses & affects.

Terry (Hildebrandt, "PhD") edited one of his (public) pages that he linked to in his private, protected comment, to include a source to reinforce his contention regarding the Colorado m1 hold law. He provided a link to a proposal from the Denver Mayor which includes the same statement. I would like to reiterate though, that Terry associated the posit with a posting about property crime on local restricted social media; of course the proverbial crime is associated with drug abuse ... studies have shown that people of the demographic of "mentally ill" are more likely to be victims of (violent) crime than perpetrators. Apparently it has never occurred to any of these college educated dorks that the demographic may even be victims of crime committed by the very same drug abusers, but if so then the idea is to target the vulnerable & disadvantaged & traumatized subgroup who are not culturally allowed to speak out on their own behalf due to stigma.

Terry with his PhD has also already countered the word victimization in his public website that he linked to in his private, protected comment, & subtly makes mockery of the term. Terry's answer to property crime that he associates with drug abusers is to force incarceration of innocent people that are only involved by cultural stereotyping. There is increased risk of vigilante related crime against the people in the demographic & the posit of the social media platform is willfull ignorance. There is clearly a point of discrimination that I've presented but whether or not the platform addresses it will remain to be seen.

The other aspect of promoting the idea of "more stringent laws" regarding "M1 holds" is that there is obviously an assumption that people are always treated with dignity when in psychiatric secured facilities. In reality there is more likelihood of a violent assault being committed against a person on an involuntary hold with the more time spent in those circumstances and that is frightening in itself for the person & can increase their agitation which, in turn, increases likelihood of altercation with another patient &/or staff. The staff may not always be accurate with their assessment of an incident, they're human, but a misunderstanding will be to the detriment (maybe in form of actual punishment) of an innocent person who's being locked up "to make the city safer". (You all need to be sent to federal prison!) It is the very same biased culture that stands in judgement of what constitutes violence & victim (it can be assumed that violence committed against a "mentally ill" person is justified or at least excusable); from judging by general consensus, there is tendency to sympathize with the people who are assigned to contend with the distressed people who make up the "mentally ill" community. The idea of "increasing availability of services" (regarding involuntary commitment) presumes the required workforce & facilities & adequate funding for this proposal will be available when in reality there will not be & it's the involuntarily committed innocent "patients" who are expected to burden that discrepancy for the good of society.

(Original first paragraph) Notice: No ... I am not Terry Hildebrandt (or a mayor), nor do I want to be him. I'll let him explain to a judge how the existence of this top-level domain & site affects him if he wants it taken down.

This is a sociology presentation (work in progress) about a local political website that was linked to in a comment on the NextDoor social media platform. (Screen captures included here in conformance with fair use in this criticism.)

Apparently Terry ratted me out because my account has been disabled and in this reality it's because I have been attempting to get the social media platform to take steps to ensure that it can abide by their own guidelines. The term "mentally ill" is used by people in the general public without any consistant definition to whom it describes. There does exist an actual demographic where people can be categorized as such; although yes, as much as it irritates people, the term isn't appreciated by many who are labeled with the term. The term of "mentally ill" is often used in disparaging context. The way it is used by the likes of Terry ("... PhD & Associates") is an excellent example of why since he associates the group with criminality and anti-social behavior when studies have shown that people of the demographic of "mentally ill" are more likely to be victims of (violent) crime than perpetrators.

Terry conceded to that posit when he admitted that the article stated "car thefts are by drug abusers". I didn't read it since it wasn't applicable to his other topic he introduced with the link to the other website (his website) that stated " statutory improvements to involuntary mental health commitments..." which, in order to accomplish that, insinuates physical force against people that haven't committed any crime and this is for the reason of "safety & cleanliness" in Denver; the site is "".

Elsewhere on the same platform someone recently reported a " man with a knife" showed up at their door in the middle of the night and a nearby neighbor to the author posted a video of the man and used the term "mentally ill". The video posted was clearly an elderly man and he was actually exhibiting tardive dyskinesia and could barely control his upper body movement. It turned out that he wandered off from a nearby assisted living facility and given the people's location it seems that they would first assume that, but no, it's cool to be stupid. I included the evidence of that incident because at the mere mention of the general description of this elderly man in the author's post the subject of firearms was brought up in the comments and so implication is association of "mentally ill" & violence & vigilantism (although the latter isn't quite what the particular commenter meant ... but I just realized ... actually using the phrasing "arm ourselves" instead of merely expressing something about his own, personal right constitutes a vigilante idealogy in a parapraxis way). In any event, the term "mentally ill" is freely associated with violence which is ok, I suppose, unless you happen to be a person (like Brittney Spears & Brooke Shields) who can fit into that category. It is demeaning.

The site Terry Hildebrandt linked to includes propaganda related to a topic that is not only controversial but is actually subject to HIPAA laws in the real world ... but the subject is discussed casually in a way that implies that people who are considered ("diagnosed", labeled) as "mentally ill" are a problem that only more stringent laws will solve. The site ties in the two demographics of "mentally ill" & "drug abusers" as being associated with homelessness and (what's purported as) related crime.

So it's this man here, (sporting a PhD), that figures that he has enough expertise to promote "Lobby the State Legislature to support statutory improvements to involuntary mental health commitments including M1 holds and short and long-term certifications for the mentally ill and public drug users." He posted the link to the article that includes that statement but then pulls the ol' cop-out and retorts that the article has it that drug abusers are the cause of increased auto theft. (The fact that there's economy related causes because of a global pandemic is beside the point, apparently.) It's safe & culturally acceptable to talk about "mentally ill" people like they have no say ... & combining them with "criminals", but then there are also people of means who are criminals.

Terry brought up the NextDoor Community Guidelines but again, he associates a medical condition with crime and doesn't consider that as an issue since the guidelines do not address that possibility specifically. He could get away with it so that's what matters to him.

note: this section was previously written & included in another site of mine but it is relevant here too:
I will clarify here that the continued cultural posit of proliferating the association "mentally ill" with violent behavior deliberately to scapegoat is potential violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides for equal protection of laws & which is a crucial point as it relates to anti-discrimination laws as well as in relation to warranting aggravated charges for crimes committed against vulnerable citizens that may be designated disabled do to mental health reasons. (In the latter case HIPAA Health Information Privacy Rights apply too which is critical since that can confuse (ignorant) people.)

It is getting extremely obvious that people in the demographic of "mentally ill" are so marginalized that they're exploited in the sense that it's culturally acceptable, encouraged, & defended to disparage and stereotype them. Advocating for the mentally ill demographic is ridiculed, dismissed, & ignored because of bias. Terry Hildebrandt (supposedly) has a PhD & some sort of professional consulting type business yet is oblivious to the fact that he merely promotes a "straw man" argument posit - everybody has to be about extremes or nothing. The man is a blowhard!

Note: The image popup behavior of the CSS template I used is a bit strange & may not work well on mobile devices but I'm not utilizing Javascript code.


(The Nextdoor platform automatically arranges the replies & this one's not in chronological order.)





photo gallery...

Terry Hildebrandt


Terry Hildebrandt


The pdf copies of Terry's webpage didn't come out with good contrast but the relevant part of his "Call to Action" page originally said:

10. Lobby the State Legislature to support statutory improvements to involuntary mental health commitments including M1 holds and short and long-term certifications for the mentally ill and public drug users.

and Terry changed it to:

10. Lobby the State Legislature to support statutory improvements to civil involuntary mental health commitments including M1 holds and short and long-term certifications. Denver Mayor Hancock included involuntary commitment as part of his 2022 “Public Safety Action Plan” (open pdf in new tab), including intensive mandatory mental health treatment for criminal offenders who have been or are in the process of being placed under a mental health certification and expanding the number of providers within the health care system so those needing immediate support have access to treatment.

open the copy of the website page: Heres-What-You-Can-Do-Citizens-for-a-Safe-and-Clean-Denver.pdf in full screen viewer

open the copy of the website page: Heres-What-You-Can-Do-Citizens-for-a-Safe-and-Clean-Denver-edited.pdf in full screen viewer

open the copy of the website page: About-4-Citizens-for-a-Safe-and-Clean-Denver.pdf in full screen viewer

A point about the cultural contention that only government can infringe or violate a person's rights...

To be proactive here I'll refute a contention that's often made regarding Civil Rights (I usually refer to them as U.S. Constitutional Rights) but some people insist that only the gov't can infringe/violate a person's rights. In the article below on page 8 it states: "Rights have limits. Just because you have a right to something, does not mean that you can always enjoy this right to its full extent. One limitation on your rights is other people’s rights. Your right may end where another person’s begins. ..."
open the PDF: ... Timor-Leste-Constitutional-Rights.pdf in full screen viewer

Back to Top

The biggest danger to our rights today is not from government acting against the will of the majority
but from government which has become the mere instrument of this majority...
Wrong will be done as much by an all-powerful people as by an all-powerful prince.
~ James Madison

"Only a lively appreciation of dissent's vital function at all levels of society can preserve it as a corrective to wishful thinking, self-inflation, and unperceived rigidity" The Wrong Way Home : Uncovering the patterns of cult behavior in American society | by Arthur J. Deikman, M.D
ISBN 10: 0807029157 ISBN 13: 9780807029152

Photograph of my old department crewmembers & I displaying our
Battle Efficiency Award onboard the now decommissioned USS Wabash AOR-5


site part of:

W3C Validated HTML5W3C Validated CSS