Public Records Office / Public Library
Corrections Register
Corrections keep the depth honest.
26 corrected or superseded passages are indexed below. Some refer to the same correction in several places.
Batch 4 (6 Oct 2026) opens Romania, Cuba, Australia and South Africa, adding a second "complaint…
Batch 4 (6 Oct 2026) opens Romania, Cuba, Australia and South Africa, adding a second "complaint channel" finding (Chelmsford) and a US federal jury finding on Cuban electroshock \[corrected, Batch 18/D03: the 2002 conviction was for unlawful procurement of naturalization; what the jury found about electroshock is unestablished\] torture (Mederos, 2002).
Read the source in context →Batch 6 (6 Oct 2026) adds Turkey (forensic medicine used to keep prisoners in, not put them in)…
Batch 6 (6 Oct 2026) adds Turkey (forensic medicine used to keep prisoners in, not put them in), India (custodial neglect under court and NHRC monitoring), and the 22-country comparative data set that serves as the comparison set for \[corrected, Batch 18/D06: observational, measures incidence not wrongful detention; "control group" withdrawn\] the whole record: legal safeguards \[withdrawn as a general claim, Batch 20/A04: an incidence comparison cannot show safeguards fail\] do not predict detention rates.
Read the source in context →Batch 13 (7 Oct 2026) begins the US state sweep at Arizona under the method: channel 1 (Title 36…
Batch 13 (7 Oct 2026) begins the US state sweep at Arizona under the method: channel 1 (Title 36 procedure names in case law and session laws). Arizona's initiation rules are the loosest yet \[corrected, Batch 18/D02: ranking withdrawn; the enacted 2024 law kept screening-agency filing\] mapped in the United States and were amended (applicant notice and reasons; not loosened — corrected Batch 18/D02) in 2024.
Read the source in context →Batch 15 (7 Oct 2026) opens Texas under channel 1 (Chapter 573 instrument names and session laws)…
Batch 15 (7 Oct 2026) opens Texas under channel 1 (Chapter 573 instrument names and session laws) and channel 2 (a municipal police-oversight complaint file). Texas shows a different design from Arizona: initiation is officer- and facility-led, and the legislature has explicitly carved the facility hold \[corrected, Batch 18/D01: SB 359 was vetoed 2 Jun 2015; this describes a proposal, not law\] out of the firearm-record consequence.
Read the source in context →What § 5150 is and is not. Section 5150 authorizes a peace officer or county-designated…
What § 5150 is and is not. Section 5150 authorizes a peace officer or county-designated professional, on probable cause, to take a person into custody for up to 72 hours of evaluation when, as a result of a mental disorder, the person is a danger to others, to self, or gravely disabled. It is not a commitment, a competency examination, a conservatorship, or a voluntary assessment. Its design features — low threshold, no pre-detention hearing, statutory immunity for those acting under it (§ 5278), and a firearm prohibition that attaches to qualifying admissions \[corrected, Batch 18/E01: § 8103(f) requires custody, assessment and admission as a danger to self or others — not every hold\] (§ 8103) — are exactly the features that make it both a workable emergency tool and a credible threat. Volume is large: DHCS reported roughly 131,000–136,000 adult 72-hour admissions a year in fiscal 2016–17 and 2017–18 (DHCS FY17-18 report; column reading flagged for re-check).
Read the source in context →1981 California (9th Cir.) Doe v. Gallinot: probable-cause hearing required after emergency…
| 1981 | California (9th Cir.) | Doe v. Gallinot: probable-cause hearing required after emergency detention, no later than day seven \[corrected, Batch 18/E02\] | 5250 | JUDICIAL FINDING; leads to certification review hearings (§ 5256) | SUPPORTED | 657 F.2d 1017 |
Read the source in context →16–23 Aug 2012 Virginia (US) Marine veteran Brandon Raub detained under a temporary detention order…
| 16–23 Aug 2012 | Virginia (US) | Marine veteran Brandon Raub detained under a temporary detention order over Facebook posts; special justice orders 30 days; circuit judge dismisses petition as "devoid of any factual allegations" | NON-CA-HOLD (Va. TDO) | JUDICIAL FINDING on procedural deficiency, not on motive; later civil suit REJECTED: 4th Cir. affirmed for Campbell 29 Apr 2015 (no First Amendment causation; qualified immunity), cert. denied 16 Nov 2015 \[corrected, Batch 18/E03\] | VERIFIED (secondary) | Rutherford Institute; ABC News |
Read the source in context →2012-US-VA-RAUB Virginia Temporary detention order over political Facebook posts; circuit judge…
| 2012-US-VA-RAUB | Virginia | Temporary detention order over political Facebook posts; circuit judge dismissed petition as lacking factual allegations | JUDICIAL FINDING (procedural); Raub's civil suit REJECTED (4th Cir. 2015; cert. denied) \[corrected, Batch 18/E03\] | Speech-triggered hold | Virginia TDO procedure includes a special-justice hearing within days — a step LPS lacks at the 72-hour stage |
Read the source in context →2012-US-VA-RAUB Virginia, 2012 Brandon Raub; Chesterfield police; FBI; John Randolph Medical…
| 2012-US-VA-RAUB | Virginia, 2012 | Brandon Raub; Chesterfield police; FBI; John Randolph Medical Center; Salem VA facility | Virginia temporary detention order | Detained over political and lyric posts; held 7 days | JUDICIAL FINDING: petition "devoid of any factual allegations"; civil suit REJECTED (4th Cir. 2015; cert. denied) \[corrected, Batch 18/E03\] | VERIFIED (secondary) |
Read the source in context →1963-CU-MAZORRA Cuba, 1963–1980s State Security interrogation (Villa Marista) followed by…
| 1963-CU-MAZORRA | Cuba, 1963–1980s | State Security interrogation (Villa Marista) followed by forensic-ward confinement at Havana Psychiatric Hospital (Mazorra) and Gustavo Machín (Santiago); electroshock | Brown & Lago documented 27–31 dissidents (sources differ) diagnosed with conditions such as "apathy toward socialism"; nurse Heriberto Mederos named by ten victims | Book-length investigation (Freedom House, 1991); JUDICIAL FINDING: a US federal jury convicted Mederos \[corrected, Batch 18/D03: the offence was unlawful procurement of naturalization through false statements about persecution and Party membership; he died before sentencing; the verdict's necessary findings on electroshock are a LEAD — original wording follows\] in 2002 of lying to immigration officials by denying he administered electroshock to political prisoners (Cubanet; Seattle Times, 1992; JAAPL review) | Amnesty's researcher in 1992: no "generalized practice" found, though pressure on certain prisoners "could have been used"; Cuban authorities refused APA access to Mazorra | VERIFIED with DISPUTED scale |
Read the source in context →Reading across the channel-1 yield. Four California holds reached a federal appellate court; in…
Reading across the channel-1 yield. Four California holds reached a federal appellate court; in three the question of motive was never reached because probable cause was found; in one it was reached at trial and rejected on officer credibility. Combined with Julian (immunity, state action) and Nieves (doctrine), the California record now shows \[corrected, Batch 18/D05: overstated — Gonzalez v. Trevino (2024) narrows Nieves; the door is narrow, not shut\] every available legal door to a retaliatory-hold finding closes before or at the motive question. That is itself a Mechanism 3 finding: the procedural shadow is not only on the detained person but on the courts' capacity to see the pattern.
Read the source in context →CA-COPR-STRUCTURE Each county has a Patients' Rights Advocate (W&I § 5500 ff.) with "no direct or…
| CA-COPR-STRUCTURE | Each county has a Patients' Rights Advocate (W&I § 5500 ff.) with "no direct or indirect clinical" role, who investigates complaints in LPS facilities and reports Denial of Rights and ECT data upward to the California Office of Patients' Rights (COPR), operated under DHCS contract | A complaint path that exists at every LPS facility and is explained in county brochures (San Bernardino DBH brochure) | The advocate's jurisdiction begins inside the facility; the § 5150 application itself — the moment of initiation — is outside it. A person whose grievance is why they were brought in has no designated recipient \[corrected, Batch 18/D04: COPR handles intake, referral and county appeals but cannot change legal status; whether initiation complaints are accepted is untested\] for that complaint | VERIFIED (structure) |
Read the source in context →Channel-9 reading. The California complaint channel is real, staffed and lawful, and its outputs…
Channel-9 reading. The California complaint channel is real, staffed and lawful, and its outputs are designed to count rights denied during detention. Nothing in the reporting architecture can register a detention that was wrongly begun. This is the structural reason Batch 11's finding — every legal door closes before motive — is mirrored on the administrative side: there is \[withdrawn, Batch 20/A04: overstated from the forms reviewed; county intake and appeal records untested\] no form on which a retaliatory hold could be recorded even if one occurred. The parallel thread should treat the absence of California retaliatory-hold findings as an artifact of instrument design, not as evidence of absence.
Read the source in context →AZ-2024-DIRECT-PETITION 2024 session law (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., ch. 152, HB 2744) added a…
| AZ-2024-DIRECT-PETITION | 2024 session law (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., ch. 152, HB 2744) added a "\[SUPERSEDED, Batch 18/D02: this describes the introduced bill HB2744P; the enacted chapter keeps § 36-523(C)(2), filing only by the screening agency, and adds § 36-520(J) applicant notice of denial and reasons. Original wording:\] direct petition for court-ordered evaluation": if the screening agency declines to file, the applicant may petition the court directly; it also gives guardians and agents notice and standing in treatment proceedings | Session law (azleg.gov; bill text) | — | Removes the \[SUPERSEDED, Batch 18/D02 — the enacted law does not remove the gate; ranking withdrawn. Original wording:\] clinical filter between a private complainant and the court; the first US jurisdiction in the record to weaken the professional gate in the 2020s. Arizona now sits beside Korea pre-2016 and the loi de 1838 in initiation design | VERIFIED |
Read the source in context →TX-2015-SB359-FACILITY-HOLD 2015 SB 359 [SUPERSEDED, Batch 18/D01: VETOED by Governor Abbott 2 Jun…
| TX-2015-SB359-FACILITY-HOLD | 2015 SB 359 \[SUPERSEDED, Batch 18/D01: VETOED by Governor Abbott 2 Jun 2015; the text below describes the engrossed bill, never law. Original wording:\] (84R) added § 573.005: hospitals, emergency departments and freestanding ERs may detain a person up to four hours without an officer or court order when a physician believes there is no time to file; a notice of detention goes in the medical record; subsection (h): such detention "is not considered involuntary psychiatric hospitalization" for the handgun-license disqualification in Government Code § 411.172(e) | Session law (SB 359 engrossed) | — | A legislature designing an emergency hold so that it leaves no firearm-record trace — Mechanism 4 addressed by statute, in the opposite direction from California's § 8103 | VERIFIED |
Read the source in context →2005-US-3D-CIR-RICHARDS [re-keyed 2006-US-VI-RICHARDS, Batch 20/A01: opinion filed 23 Jan 2006…
| 2005-US-3D-CIR-RICHARDS \[re-keyed 2006-US-VI-RICHARDS, Batch 20/A01: opinion filed 23 Jan 2006, appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands\] | US, 3d Cir. (non-precedential, 2005) | 1-reverse | COMPETENCY-EXAM (civil, Rule 17(c)); adversary-initiated | A pro se attorney-plaintiff; the defendant university "suggested the District Court consider" her competency; the magistrate judge ordered a psychiatrist to address it and appointed a guardian, stripping her of control of her own case; the Third Circuit took jurisdiction on the ground that denial of the right to proceed pro se "injures dignity" | JUDICIAL (interlocutory review granted) (Richards v. Duke University, 3d Cir. 05-1170) | VERIFIED (opinion); first row in the record where the opposing party in civil litigation initiated the psychiatric inquiry |
Read the source in context →1. Crowds get criminal law [WITHDRAWN as a rule, Batch 20/A04: the absence of holds in the protest…
1. Crowds get criminal law \[WITHDRAWN as a rule, Batch 20/A04: the absence of holds in the protest searches run is a search result, not a pattern about crowds or individuals; kept here for provenance\]; individuals get psychiatry. The reverse search on US protest activists 2015–2026 returned arrests, charges and civil-rights settlements (Philadelphia $9.25M; Akron; St. Paul) and not one psychiatric hold. Every US psychiatric instance in the record is a single person embedded in an institution that owes them a duty of care — employer, department, family, court, hospital, jail. The welfare pretext (Mechanism 7) needs a custodial relationship to attach to. This predicts where to look: not protest records, but HR files, court dockets, guardianship registers, and institutional grievance logs.
Read the source in context →2. In US civil courts the querulous marker runs through procedure, not diagnosis. Rule 17(c)…
2. In US civil courts the querulous marker runs through procedure, not diagnosis. Rule 17(c) competency inquiries, guardian-ad-litem appointments, and vexatious-litigant orders perform the function ICD-10 F22.8 performs in Kazakhstan: the act of complaining becomes the evidence that the complainant cannot be heard. Richards \[corrected, Batch 20/A01, opinion re-read: Duke suggested the Rule 17(c) inquiry; Richards agreed to the psychiatric evaluation; the magistrate asked whether the text of her complaint showed "delusional psychosis"; the Third Circuit vacated the guardian appointment and held her competent to proceed pro se — a capacity-procedure case with appellate correction, not a retaliation finding\] adds that the adversary can start it; James adds that a prior adjudication can close the courthouse outright; the Maryland \[Washburn v. McCarthy, 2021, per Edition 03/A03: clinical evaluations and other evidence supported the capacity decision; filing volume was not the whole basis — primary text not reopened in Batch 20\] case adds that the costs can be charged to the person's own estate. Channel 6 now includes, for every US jurisdiction, the state's vexatious-litigant statute and its guardian-ad-litem rule as instruments to search.
Read the source in context →2. The law converts a hospitalization into impeachment on its own. Federal evidence doctrine treats…
2. The law converts a hospitalization into impeachment on its own. Federal evidence doctrine treats a witness's "insanity or mental abnormality," at the time of observing or of testifying, as provable on credibility. That means a hold placed before testimony has a guaranteed second effect without anyone intending it: even if the witness is released in time, the record is admissible against what they say. Mechanism 1 (credibility displacement) is therefore built into the rules of evidence, and the parallel thread should treat every pre-testimony hold as a two-instrument \[WITHDRAWN, Batch 20/A04: a hospitalization does not automatically make a record admissible or a witness incredible; Robinson turned on its facts and Hargrove upheld refusal of records\] event.
Read the source in context →D02 — AZ-2024-DIRECT-PETITION HB 2744 (2024 ch. 152) created a "direct petition" letting an…
| D02 — AZ-2024-DIRECT-PETITION | HB 2744 (2024 ch. 152) created a "direct petition" letting an applicant go to court when the screening agency declines | The enacted chapter adds § 36-504.01 (guardian/agent rights), a new § 36-520(J) requiring the agency to notify the applicant of a denial and, on request, give reasons, and § 36-523(C)(2): the petition "may be filed only by the screening agency." No direct petition exists in the enacted text; the heading I relied on was in the introduced bill (HB2744P) and was dropped | Chapter 152 text opened in full this batch (azleg.gov) | Row retitled AZ-2024-CH152-APPLICANT-NOTICE; claim reduced to: applicants gain notice of denial and reasons; the clinical gate stands. The "loosest US initiation design" ranking and the comparison to Korea pre-2016 and the loi de 1838 are withdrawn. Batch 13's lesson for the method: an introduced bill is not a session law — version status must be recorded on every statute row |
Read the source in context →D06 — 2019-EU-22-COUNTRY Called the Sheridan Rains study "the control group for the whole record"…
| D06 — 2019-EU-22-COUNTRY | Called the Sheridan Rains study "the control group for the whole record" and said it shows safeguards do not govern coercion | It is an observational cross-national comparison of detention incidence; it measures neither wrongful nor retaliatory detention and cannot show that safeguards fail | Accepted | "Control group" language withdrawn; the row now says only that coded legal features were not associated with incidence across 22 countries, with definitional and implementation differences unexamined |
Read the source in context →Implementation Press reports say Delta sent the decision to pilots and the case settled in late…
| Implementation | Press reports say Delta sent the decision to pilots and the case settled in late 2022 with $confidential terms \[corrected, Batch 20: AP, 21 Oct 2022 — settlement approved by ALJ Morris that day; terms confidential; her law firm said they were "consistent with" the 2020 ruling; no amount established\]. Remand decision and settlement terms not seen: LEAD. |
Read the source in context →Correction carried forward (C19-01). Summaries in this record and elsewhere that describe a…
Correction carried forward (C19-01). Summaries in this record and elsewhere that describe a sustained "$500,000 award" are superseded: the ARB vacated it. Any $payment \[corrected, Batch 20: the settlement amount is confidential and not established\] is reported as a settlement, which establishes no liability beyond the affirmed findings. The affirmed findings stand on their own.
Read the source in context →A01 Richards Filed 23 Jan 2006; Virgin Islands; exam agreed; guardian vacated Opinion read in full…
| A01 Richards | Filed 23 Jan 2006; Virgin Islands; exam agreed; guardian vacated | Opinion read in full: confirmed. Adds that the magistrate asked whether the text of the complaint showed "delusional psychosis", and the court held a guardian protects the incompetent person, "not the defendants" | Row re-keyed 2006-US-VI-RICHARDS; Batch 16 pattern 2 amended |
Read the source in context →A02 Tenth Circuit witness United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265; mother-initiated; Hargrove…
| A02 Tenth Circuit witness | United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265; mother-initiated; Hargrove contrary | Opinion excerpt confirms the mother committed the informant believing him suicidal | Row identified; "two-instrument" pattern withdrawn |
Read the source in context →A04 universal claims Withdraw five general claims Agreed: each rests on bounded searches…
| A04 universal claims | Withdraw five general claims | Agreed: each rests on bounded searches | "Crowds/individuals", "no form", "two-instrument", "safeguards do not" marked withdrawn; "every door" was already corrected in Batch 18 |
Read the source in context →