Dr. Filippo Juretic, My Friend or Tormentor

I met Dr. Juretic in Montreal three years before I became his "patient". Immediately after my arrival in Canada (Quebec City) the first thing I wanted to do was to find out how to integrate myself with my own profession. Mr. Alain Horic, a poet in French and Croatian languages, also originally from Yugoslavia, was kind enough to advise me on how to get started again in my profession. For a start, he advised me to see Dr. F. Juretic, a psychiatrist in Montreal, who might be able to assist me.

At the first opportunity when I visited Montreal, I went to St. Jean de Dieu mental hospital where I met Dr. Juretic, who in turn introduced me to Dr. Turinski, another psychiatrist also from Yugoslavia working in the same hospital. Both were very polite and I found them considerate of my situation. Dr. Juretic especially had shown an interest in advising me on how to start working as a physician. I had already heard from other people that he was a man who liked to help immigrants, especially physicians. He told me that he had emigrated from Yugoslavia as a young boy. He had graduated from medicine in Italy. He came to work in Canada ten years before I met him. Although he was not then licensed as a physician in Canada, he worked for several years, from the time of his arrival, in mental hospitals in New Brunswick.

We come from different parts of Yugoslavia. I am from Macedonia while he is from Croatia. Both of us had similar political opinions critical of the Yugoslavian political system. He supplied me with papers expressing his opposing views to the Yugoslavian political system.

Since I found Dr. Juretic to be a very amiable person, I did not miss any occasion to see him whenever I visited Montreal. He would always pay for my dinner and on a few occasions he invited me to meet his family.

Dr. Juretic was the physician who recommended me for work in the Psychiatric Service of New Brunswick.

Unexpectedly, Dr. Juretic became one of the psychiatrists who played a large part in my internment. When I was interned, I immediately phoned to advise him of what had happened. He was shocked. He could not believe that I was in a mental hospital as a patient. However, he was sympathetic and offered encouragement to me by saying that there was nothing wrong with me. He told me that he would call Dr. Dorion, my first psychiatrist, and Dr. Roy, the superintendent of the hospital, to suggest to them that I should appear before a board to be assessed as to the state of my mental health. According to him, my place was not in a mental hospital. As I mentioned at the beginning Dr. Juretic made a very professional and human gesture by suggesting to Dr. Dorion that my internment was much ado about nothing, or in his own words -- "a storm in a teacup" (this is also mentioned in the medical records).

After the first day of my hospitalization in Quebec, it was clear to me that I had been trapped by villains. I, therefore, asked to be immediately transferred to St. Jean de Dieu Hospital in Montreal, where Drs. Juretic and Turinski worked. At that time, I was convinced that these two men would release me as soon as possible. After three months of verbal and written requests, I was finally transferred to the hospital in Montreal.

Drs. Juretic and Dr. Turinski did not come to see me on the first day I arrived there, as I had expected. In fact, Dr. Turinski never came. Apparently, according to Dr. Juretic's testimony, "he refused to be involved in the affair".

The next day, Dr. Juretic met with me and reassured me that the Quebec psychiatrists had made a mistake. He wrote in the medical records that he saw no symptoms of psychosis. Verbally he pledged he would release me as quickly as possible.

In the medical records he wrote a diagnosis of "situational depression" (dépression situationnelle) -- actually a phony, nonexistent diagnosis in psychiatric terminology.⁴⁸ From the point of view of a layman we assume that somebody is depressed because of some situation (sickness or death of a loved one or any unusually difficult personal situation, and so on). No one would consider this kind of depression an illness. According to psychiatry, the persons who are indifferent to such a situation would be assessed mentally sick, but not the other way around.

Dr. Divic wrote in his letter to Mr. Philip Goulston, my first lawyer, "I wonder whether it would be logical to ask ourselves (psychiatrists) how would anyone of us feel in the 'situation' of finding ourselves incarcerated in a mental hospital without the ability to get out, on an involuntary basis."

Dr. Juretic wrote that I was under "voluntary patient status" (cure libre), which means -- according to the law -- I "could go out at my will".⁴⁹ In fact, he locked me up in the ward with dangerous patients, without any chance to write, call outside or receive visitors.

When I asked Dr. Juretic when I would receive notice of my discharge, he replied that he could not really say, "because my records contain many psychiatrists' signatures from Quebec". Obviously, his explanation was weird. I asked him to bring Dr. Turinski and the "signers" so that they could see the mistake. Then I would be released. He said nothing.

During this meeting I felt that my "friend", voluntarily or under compulsion, took upon himself the ignominious role of covering up for the "signers". To my great shock, I discovered that Dr. Juretic was not the same person whom I had known.

Moreover, when in the earlier hospital I had some limited privileges (to receive visitors and with the nurses' tacit permission I was able to phone outside, I slept in a room with only one patient) and the general hospital conditions (food, clothing, hygiene) were much better, but it was hell for me in the Montreal hospital where Dr. Juretic worked. After reading a book written by a former patient about this particular hospital (with a postface by Dr. Camille Laurin, later Minister of Health),⁵⁰ I find my own impressions were shared by others.

My "friend" placed me in a ward with the most disturbed patients. I slept with seventy other patients. They often harassed me during the day and night and fought with each other. One night I awoke suddenly because someone tried to choke me. One day a patient sprained my thumb and on another occasion I suffered a black eye.⁵¹ Although I complained about the harassment to the attendants, they did absolutely nothing.

Further, I noticed the hospital staff had a very strange attitude towards me, including Dr. Raymond Legault, head of the ward. No one would speak to me or offer support. Whenever I approached them, they would ignore me or give me a short and dry response, just to get rid of me. I had the impression that they were following instructions to ignore my complaints in order to make my life as difficult as possible. I was feeling really lonely and very despondent. I was happy to see the evening staff, consisting mostly of volunteer or regular staff who did not know as much about me.

Dr. Juretic then ordered that there be "no privileges or flexibility" for me: "No permission to go out of the ward, no permission to telephone."⁵² Naturally, the staff strictly obeyed his orders. Thus the discrimination and abuse continued. I tried to make the nurses sympathetic towards me. The nurses wrote in my file, "... he is using all means possible to attract our friendship." The nurses made only one relevant entry in my file -- simply that I had been beaten and hit in the eye by a patient, although I had been more frequently attacked.

While some of the new patients were transferred to other wards, I remained in this ward and was forced to wear pyjamas -- a distinguishing feature of "dangerous" patients.

I had no privacy or freedom. When I had to leave the ward for interviews with the doctors, I was always escorted by the attendants. I was forbidden to write to anyone and receive mail. Even registered letters that were addressed to me were censored or forwarded to my ex-wife. I discovered this later from a post office in Quebec. I was also denied visits and not allowed to see any of my children or my friends (Dr. Jaromil Danek and Dr. George Sotiroff, both professors of Laval University, and Reverend Claude LaVergne, dean and director of St. Augustine's Seminary).

After a while Dr. Juretic disappeared and nobody was responsible for me. I learned from the nurses that Dr. Juretic was on his vacation.

Shortly after Dr. Juretic's return, we had a meeting. He promised to discharge me the next day. Then he changed his mind. He came and started shaking his fist and yelling at me: "I will show you ... until you soften your hard head, you will not leave!"

I felt very despondent. I asked him what I had done to make him have no trace of humanity. Had I committed a serious crime? I asked him why I was still being held in the hospital. He answered in Croatian: "You are a liar and vagabond! You will remain here until reason comes to your head!" I left his office feeling very anxious and hopeless.

Dr. Juretic then gave an order to the ward nurses: "He remains where he was." They immediately gave me a shot of Nozinan (a powerful neuroleptic drug). Confused and disoriented, I was lying in a cell not knowing where I was or what had happened to me.

Nurse Gareau wrote the following in my chart about this event:

Patient seen by his doctor ... very anxious ... tears in his eyes ... walks here and there ... tries to explain his reaction is normal. Nozinan 50 mgr. Rests for a few hours ... always anxious ...⁵³

This was the worst time of my hospitalization. I could not believe that in Canada human beings could be so brutal to others. I do not know how long I was left like this. For several days I was not able regain complete consciousness.

When the effects of the Nozinan had worn off, I told Reverend Ugel, chaplain of the hospital, who frequently visited patients, that I was a bit desperate and fearful of Dr. Juretic. I also told him about the earlier episode in Dr. Juretic's office. He told me that even the nurses were questioning Dr. Juretic's judgment that I remain in the hospital. Reverend Ugel recommended that I contact Dr. Legault, head of the department.

I tried to arrange a meeting with Dr. Legault, either in person or through his secretary, but failed. I finally wrote the following letter to Dr. Legault, Dr. Juretic and other hospital officials:

After more than three months in St. Michel Archange Hospital and for over one month here, my discharge remains more uncertain than on the first day of my hospitalization. My treating doctor, Dr. Juretic, notwithstanding his initial assurances given in a first interview, that he did not find me ill and that he would help to arrange my discharge, is still unable to settle my case. I feel that five months of hospitalization due to "depression situationelle" as diagnosed by Dr. Juretic are too long and without medical justification.

After my meeting with Dr. Juretic, I asked to have an explanation from the head nurse and the nurse in charge of me, but they both answered that since the records are not kept daily, they could not comment.

Thus I come to the conclusion that Dr. Juretic is inept and incapable of following and taking care of my case.

Because of this situation I would ask you to please take into consideration my request, as I am legally capable of signing documents, to settle my case once and for all. To this end I think it is absolutely necessary to call a case conference together, composed of the doctors from my ward and myself, that a final decision could be made whether there is any reason for further hospitalization.

Later, on April 26, 1972 I was called to appear at a case conference chaired by Dr. Legault. Three of the four other psychiatrists, some nurses and medical students working on the ward were at the conference. Dr. Juretic was conspicuously absent. He knew that I would put him in a unfavourable situation.

The conference was more of a farce than a serious discussion. Dr. Legault began by asking a senseless question:

Why you had not yet passed the required examination for foreign doctors?

I had not done so because I was not fully prepared. I asked him whether it was necessary to keep those immigrant doctors who had not passed the examination locked up in a psychiatric institution.

Never mind, Dr. Legault shot back. He then added, I only wanted to know. You have been married twice?

The duel-dialogue continued as follows:

A: I will marry, Dr. Legault, twice more if the opportunity arises.

Q: Are you jealous?

Since the doctor continued with stupid questions, I tried to let him know that he was really stupid.

A: Are you jealous, Dr. Legault?

Q: I am not.

A: Would you be so indifferent if by chance you were aware that your ex-wife slept with another man at this very moment?

Q: Yes, I would be ambivalent.

A: That wouldn't be normal, doctor!

The case conference continued and ended in this vein. The students applauded me and Dr. Legault appeared embarrassed. I am certain he was very sorry that he had arranged the conference. Of course, this meeting was never reported in my medical records, another very conspicuous "error".

A week after the conference I was finally released. The discharge note in the records stated that I had been "directed" to go to Hamilton, Ontario. In fact, I was pressured to live there against my will, which is a flagrant abuse of my fundamental human rights. I was practically thrown out on the street without any means of support, since I had not worked for six months.

I had been treated as a very "dangerous" and "serious" patient. However, on the discharge slip⁵⁴ it was not noted that I needed a guardian, or any medication, and there appeared to be no suggestion that I should be under the treatment or supervision of a psychiatrist! If I had been really sick there would have been a medical follow-up of some sort. The way I was discharged was a tacit admission that the psychiatrists had blundered.

Later, Dr. Divic (a psychiatrist in Toronto) and the other psychiatrists that I met substantiated that I have never been a "schizo-paranoid" at all. I wasn't surprised. The fact that I did not go insane after undergoing six long months of psychiatric torture speaks well for my mental health indeed.

When I brought a charge against all the psychiatrists involved in my internment, including Dr. Juretic, he perjured himself during the preliminary discovery, saying simple lies (that he did not know me before my hospitalization, etc.). He was compelled to admit that I was not psychotic.

Further, he took it upon himself to falsify the medical records in order to cover up for himself and others (Cf. Chapter VI: Fabrication of Diagnoses, "Dangerosity" and Treatments).

In brief, my former friend had turned into a brutal tormentor, when he decided to align himself with the other psychiatrists.

The "well-intentioned professionals", whom I sincerely trusted to help me, ultimately proved the most harmful people. Under the pretence of helping me, they in fact frustrated all my efforts to get out of the hospitals or later to get rid of the stigma of being mental patient.

Outstanding examples in this category are two professors of psychiatry, Dr. F. Juretic and Dr. J. Divic, and Dr. Divic's friend, a lawyer Mr. M. Rusko. All of them are my countrymen. We did not have any linguistic problem in our communications. Dr. Juretic had played big role during my stay in the hospital to make my life miserable. At the trial, to exonerate his colleagues and himself, he used forgeries and perjuries. Dr.Divic for his part, after initially giving me his enthusiastic support, also turned out to be a disappointment.

On many occasions during my hospitalization, I had reiterated to Dr. Dorion, and this is written in the medical records, that I wouldn't give up after my hospitalization, that I would go further to determine whether I was properly interned or not.

After my release I wrote many letters to Dr. Dorion and Dr. Juretic, in which I asked them for an explanation as to why I had been interned. In most cases they refused to answer and in other cases they evaded the question about why I was interned in the hospitals. Therefore, I was compelled to search for other psychiatrists who would examine me and also obtain my medical records from Quebec.

It was during this time that I met Dr. Divic. Indeed, he was one of the most important psychiatrists, who after my hospitalization, played a significant role in examining my case. Dr. Divic had pursued his studies, as I did, in Belgrade and had come to work in Canada as a psychiatrist. He was in a position to make a proper examination of my mental state and settle my torments easily, without having to go to court -- and without me having to write these lines.

I was referred to Dr. Divic by Drs. W.H. Clare, psychiatrist and N. Pamukoff, general practitioner, both of Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Divic was then a Senior Psychiatrist and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

Regarding the cause of my commitment, Dr. Divic expressed himself in nearly the same words which Dr. Juretic had used two days after my hospitalization, before my transfer to the hospital where he was employed. He said that I had been "committed precisely for a storm in a glass of water."

It was Dr. Divic who advised me to sue the psychiatrists and hospitals involved in my internment. It was he who recommended his close friend Mr. Michael Rusko, a Montreal lawyer, to represent me in my case before the court of Quebec.⁵⁵

Further, he presented my case as a striking example of psychiatric abuse to a panel (Grand Rounds) of about 30-40 psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, presided by Professor Dr. W. J. Stauble, head of the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Toronto. Dr. Divic was serving as an interpreter and examiner. The title of the presentation was Hospitalization or Jail Sentence without Trial ... The forum's conclusion was: "... it was the consensus that there was no justification for commitment".

I was very comforted and happy to meet Dr. Divic. He was polite and considerate. I had the distinct impression that he was a competent, wise, and honest psychiatrist. I felt a changed person. Our meetings would involve pleasant chatting about our mutual memories of our schoolmates and professors of Belgrade University. In the meantime I learned that Dr. Divic consecrated most of his psychiatric career in searching for and treating emotionally disturbed patients who had endured situations like mine⁵⁶. Thus I could not imagine a better psychiatrist to help me resolve my predicament than Dr. Divic.

Moreover, when I showed Dr. Divic the application which had been submitted by my ex-wife to the court to prohibit me the access to my children (alleging that I "do not have moral, intellectual, and physical aptitudes"), he was furious, saying "This is more than cruel."

He wrote a letter to Mr. M.A. Bouliane, of the Legal Aid Office in Quebec City, in which he denied my ex-wife's assertions: "As a psychiatrist I can state that I can see neither intellectual nor physical reasons that would justify any legal action directed against Dr. Delev's right to visit his children."

The psychiatrists involved in my hospitalization were supposedly going to appear in court to testify as "experts" that I was not suitable to meet with my children. "I will go to Quebec, to the court", said Dr. Divic, "and I would like to see what kind of psychiatrists they are who want and could prove that you are sick!"

A week later Dr. Divic wrote a letter of reference to support my application for work in New Brunswick. It reads as follows: "... I have the distinct impression that he (Dr. Delev) is honest, straightforward, a man who had very good medical training and considerable experience in family practice."

On November 15, 1972 Dr. Divic, accompanied by Mr. Rusko, came to the Family Court of Quebec. I also had other witnesses (Rev. LaVergne, Prof. G. Sotiroff).

Not one of the Quebec psychiatrists appeared. Evidently, the application had been cancelled. Thus, I was most grateful to Dr. Divic and Mr. Rusko for making it possible for me to see my children.

I would like to emphasize that I appreciated this most human expression by Dr. Divic and Mr. Rusko. Both travelled to the court without any financial compensation. At the time, I was unemployed.

Mr. Rusko later agreed to accepted my case on a contingency basis, in the expectation he would collect his fee later, upon winning damages for me. He was sure that, with Dr. Divic's help, he would win the case. Dr. Divic repeatedly told me that "every lawyer would accept your case, not only for the money, but also for securing a good reputation". On another occasion, he told me that the matter would likely be resolved out of court, since "only foolish psychiatrists would come to court to prove something that could not be proven." He agreed to devote himself "to fight against the rotten apples".

At the time I understood that there were several ways of settling the question of my commitment:

l. Friendly settlement,

2. Complaint to the Medical Association of Quebec,

3. To incriminate the psychiatrists involved.

4. Legal suit for damages.

5. Public exposure.

Dr. Divic was in a good position to help me with any of these options. Let us consider the options one by one.

1. Friendly settlement. For the psychiatrists involved and myself, the easiest and most acceptable solution would have been to achieve a just medical settlement. The tragic errors would have been corrected by a friendly agreement and this would have restored my emotional well-being and social situation. At the same time it would have averted unnecessary expenses for both the psychiatrists and myself.

Dr. Divic was ideally placed to accomplish this most desirable option. Since he had already done a good examination of me, and examined the records of the hospitals where I had been kept, he was able to go further than he actually had to. That is, to gather all the relevant information in Yugoslavia and here in Canada, which would be devastating for his colleagues in Quebec. Confronted with such well-supported testimony, those who had "treated" me could only do one thing -- concede they had been wrong and then accept an out of court settlement.

During our visit in Quebec City I suggested to Dr. Divic that he approach the psychiatrists and the hospitals involved in my commitment in order to convince them that they had made a frightful error and that they ought to correct it by arriving at a human and medically acceptable solution in my situation. I also proposed to him that he contact my family -- my children, my ex-wife, and the individuals (my friends and some hospital staff) whom I had met while hospitalized. He rejected all of my proposals without a valid explanation.

I had expected that Mr. Rusko would then vigorously commence my case against the psychiatrists for damages. Unexpectedly, both Dr. Divic and his friend Rusko, after the very human and professional gesture I had just written about, turned a somersault in their attitude to me. Without giving me any reason, Dr. Divic ceased to see me although I insisted that we continue with his examinations. After my terrible experience with his colleagues, I was in dire need of support from him.

In the meantime, a certain Mrs. Sally Torri wrote to me and suggested that it was Dr. Divic who insisted on continuing, but I had ostensibly refused to see him. This was most surprising for me. Thus, I found Dr. Divic's attitude very astonishing. Likewise, Mr. Rusko would not pursue the case. To my surprise, they both became uncooperative with me and obstructive in my actions against the psychiatrists.

During a telephone conversation, when I insisted that I would like to see him to clarify my situation, Dr. Divic stated that there was no longer any reason to continue with the examinations. At the same time he advised me to return to Yugoslavia presumably because I "had no future in Canada". Since he was very close to the Yugoslavian Embassy, he promised that he would speak to the Embassy so that I would not be embarrassed about having to deal with the government. I did not expect this turn of events, but given my desperate situation I told him that since my destiny was in his hands, he was authorized to do whatever he wanted.

After this conversation Dr. Divic became almost hostile to me. He did not want to talk to me by telephone or even meet with me.

Finally, after several efforts to contact Dr. Divic, in desperation, I decided to go to his office without making an appointment. During this meeting he was furious to the degree that I was unable to recognize in him the Dr. Divic who was gentle, polite, and graceful at our earlier meetings. I noticed a great change in his attitude towards me. I tried to calm him by telling him that I did not want to disturb him but my own situation was desperate and that what I wanted was a medical and humane gesture, which he had previously showed me. Nothing happened after our meeting. Despite several efforts I made to communicate with him, he remained deaf to my pleas for help.

I met many others, who at first appeared sincerely willing to help me solve my story out of court. They were very enthusiastic at the beginning, but when I referred them to Dr. Divic, in the belief that he would give a competent and honest opinion that my hospitalization was unnecessary and harmful, their enthusiasm would inexplicably be deflated. I am inclined to believe that Dr. Divic did not act honestly on my behalf. This was proven later when he testified in court and his evidence was found to be fruitless.

2. Complaint to the Medical Association of Quebec. I believed that it was also possible to settle my case, with Dr. Divic's help, if we made a complaint to the Quebec Corporation of Physicians (the Quebec equivalent of Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons). He would have denounced the involved psychiatrists as incompetent and not conforming to medical practice. Dr. Divic was opposed to this idea and said that this solution would not be in my interest, without giving further reason.

I used Dr. Divic and Dr. Sebastian Littmann as my references when I wrote to the Corporation. I am inclined to think that Dr. Divic gave an unfavourable opinion. Why not! If those "attending psychiatrists" from Quebec had been able to convert my brother and Dr. Juretic against me, they would have found it easy to deal with Dr. Divic. After all, I do not see any raison d'être for the sudden change in Dr. Divic, after our visit in Quebec City.

I lost confidence in people from the first day of my hospitalization. My "friend" Dr. Juretic amplified my distrust to the extent that I could not trust anybody. After I was discharged, my first concern was to buy a tape recorder and to record every conversation which I had with the psychiatrists involved in my internment, then and afterwards. Dr. Divic was no exception. I recorded all the conversations I had in his office and over the telephone. Otherwise, how could I assert what I am writing, that I am a victim of unscrupulous psychiatrists?

I can only speculate about the reason for the change in his and in Mr. Rusko's attitude. It could be either corruption, which is most unlikely, or professional solidarity, otherwise called a "conspiracy of silence⁵⁷". There could also be a political reason. Once you are labelled as an "undesirable" in a communist system you remain such forever. As friends of the authorities of the Embassy, it is possible they were pressured by the Yugoslavian Embassy. It could be also chauvinistic zealotry. Both Dr. Divic and Rusko are Serbs, and I am from the Macedonian part of the former Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia the majority of the population is of the same Slavic origin, speaks almost the same language (with slightly different dialects), but some call themselves Serbs, others Croats, some Slovenians, others Macedonians, some Bosnians. Some are Catholics, others Orthodox, still others Moslems. But all of them hate each other, and we are witnessing today how they are butchering each other to extermination, because of those "differences". It is possible that I am a victim of those differences.

I have written about my speculations, but one thing is certain -- Dr. Divic never gave me any reasons why he and his friends left me in the lurch.

3. To incriminate the psychiatrists involved. The third option was to denounce the psychiatrists in the appropriate courts as criminal delinquents, for my arrest and sequestration without warrant, arbitrary detention and exile, cruel and unusual punishment, infringement of my fundamental human rights, depriving me of the right to be informed of the motive for my arrest and detention, depriving me of the recourse to habeas corpus, denying me the right to retain and instruct a lawyer, for committing flagrant perjuries and forgeries, etc.

In a case such as mine, which includes six months of hospitalization and in which several psychiatrists are involved, one cannot simply assume there was an error or that this was a matter of ignorance. There was most likely a criminal offence, a conspiracy. I believe that all the involved psychiatrists are responsible, and even Dr. Divic is professionally responsible to the extent that he did not expose the others.

4. Legal suit for damages. I had a premonition that to sue many psychiatrists in civil court -- all wealthy and powerful -- would be very distressing, and a waste of time and money.

Although pessimistic about the outcome of my case in the court, I decided to sue the psychiatrists because I did not have other way to clear my name. The lawyers, interested in the money involved, commenced an action for damages ($45,000).

I was in the position of David against Goliath. Possibly, my position was even worse. I was a man who had already been labelled "mad" by psychiatrists, and who intended to fight three hospitals and six psychiatrists! Crazy, isn't it?

After I retained other lawyers, contrary to their professional codes of ethics, Dr. Divic and Mr. Rusko seemed intent to sabotage my efforts to be rehabilitated. Although Dr. Divic gave Mr. Rusko my complete medical records without hesitation, he would not transfer the records to me or the lawyers I later retained.

After the lawyer Rusko withdrew from the case,⁵⁸ I hired Mr. Boris Hristoff of Toronto. Dr. Divic refused to provide him a copy of the medical records which he received from the hospitals where I was incarcerated and his own notes about my case. My reason for dealing with Mr. Hristoff was only to obtain the records, since he could not represent me in Quebec. Later Dr. Divic had moved to Ottawa and through his secretary he gave me a false address.

It was obvious that he was not willing to help me. I felt entirely abandoned and truly lost. In a desperate and distressed state I went to Ottawa with friends of mine to beg him to do something for me. He refused to see me.

For a long period before the case came to court in 1979, I was unable to communicate with Dr. Divic regarding his potential role as my expert witness. As I have already explained, his original attitude had been, on the whole, favourable to me, but before agreeing to have him come to the trial as my expert witness, I certainly needed to see him as both an expert and my psychiatrist.

My lawyers Wolofsky and Selig, without my knowledge, invited him to testify. As I indeed expected, his testimony was confusing, not only on psychiatry but also on points of psychiatric terminology. The opponents' lawyers reprimanded him for not having complete records, and as a consequence Judge Boudreault accepted that Dr. Divic was not convincing. (Cf. Chapter VII).

Taking this fourth option required only honesty and courage from Dr. Divic to state the truth that the psychiatrists had made my life unbearable. As an adherent of a "disaster theory⁵⁹" and psychiatrist who was familiar with all the circumstances of my hospitalization, he was in a position to help me achieve justice. I could have won the case, even though my adversaries had hired at least four lawyers, and sometimes five, who taught their clients all kinds of frauds. Unfortunately, he failed, and I lost and thus, have remained with this stigma in my life.

5. Public exposition of wrongdoers. The final and most effective method of exposing the scoundrels was to do so publicly -- which is what I propose to accomplish by writing these pages.

As indicated in my records, I have insisted from the very first days of my tragic story that a public inquiry should be held.

During the trial, my friends and I encouraged the media to be present, so that the general public might be able to have follow my case. The general interest of the case cannot be denied. My lawyers, along with Dr. Divic and Littmann, vigorously opposed this view, and they claimed it would be "harmful" to the trial of the case.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that in Canada it is the practice that all court proceedings are recorded, reported and scrutinized. In my case, there is no recording of my hearings at the Superior Court and Appeal Court in Montreal. Nor is my case reported in the Official Law Reports of Quebec (Recueils de jurisprudence de Québec)⁶⁰. One wonders why the authorities have not let the public know of my case?

We must undo the "conspiracy of silence" not only of the psychiatrists, but also of the legal authorities.