[I see my sister has posted a detailed summary of the hearing as a comment to the original post about this incident http://jaredites.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/when-paranoia-is-not-warranted/ , which covers much of what I state here. However, I am vain enough to think my write-up still worth posting.]

Since I talked to the FBI, I’ve now had a chance to talk to both my mother and brother (the eyewitnesses to what transpired). If you’re coming in late, my brother, Richard Chiu, submitted a sarcastic letter to the FBI via their website. Subsequently a group of flak-jacketed law enforcement personnel with rifles showed up at my brother’s home, were allowed into the home by my mother where they tasered my brother three times and handcuffed him. My brother was then taken to the hospital where he was involuntarily committed to the adult psychiatric ward. He has been there over a week and will remain until at least Tuesday. These are the facts that no one disputes. Below are a handful of points where the understanding and claims of the FBI don’t jibe with the eyewitness testimony of my mother and brother.

Point #1 – The FBI claims that they had no involvement in the actual incident. Per Mr. John Wright, the FBI merely passed the letter to the local police. Mr. Wright did acknowledge a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) official was involved, basically a sheriff that is deputized to work JTTF.

My mother claims the spokesman of the group identified himself as FBI. Richard claims that an individual at the hospital identified himself as FBI. It is not possible to determine if the same individual identified himself as FBI in both locations.

Point #2 – The FBI claims that there was additional e-mail traffic from family members expressing concern about Richard. When pressed, Mr. Wright couldn’t be sure that the tasering incident was based on anything more than the letter.

My mother affirms that she was asked to provide medical background on my brother after he’d been admitted to the hospital, presumably to substantiate her assertion that he is autistic. She provided descriptions, e.g., head banging when he was a child. My brother was already an adult by the time the modern definition of autism was promulgated in the DSM-IV, therefore he was never diagnosed with or treated for autism, indeed could not have been, in childhood. My mother has the full e-mail history and can substantiate that this correspondence was requested by the authorities and took place after Richard had been involuntarily committted.

Point #3 – The FBI claims my brother was disappointed that he hadn’t induced the FBI to pay attention to his case.

My mother believed the FBI was at the door. She woke my brother up, telling him the FBI was there to talk with him. Then she went out to get her groceries from the car. My brother came out of his room and said, “So you’re the FBI?” They told him they weren’t the FBI. He casually responded, “That’s too bad.” I could wish he’d said, “Oh,” and asked for names and badge numbers. Then again, I could wish my mother hadn’t allowed them into the house.

Point #4 – The FBI claims they had nothing to do with the operation or the decision to have my brother committed.

As already mentioned, someone at the home and later at the emergency room said or strongly implied they were FBI. Everyone from the police officers to the mental health professionals at the hospital acted as though they were doing so at the behest of the FBI. I can believe that this was a misunderstanding.

Comments

Although the FBI disavows any responsibility for the actual injury to my brother, I submit it is incumbent upon a federal agency to make clear when they are not directing action be taken. For example, as a federal acquisition professional I constantly have a responsibility to clarify the limits of my authority with respect to contracting and contract modifications. In the case of federal acquisition, misunderstandings about what has actually been authorized can obligate the government to pay millions of dollars they never intentionally authorized. In this case with the FBI, I submit the tasering and involuntary institutionalization would not have happened without the inferred direction from the FBI.

Leaders are often blamed for the actions of their followers or constituents, even when the leader can’t be proven to have ordered those actions:

– Early Utah leader, Brigham Young, is commonly presumed to have ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre despite lack of positive evidence.
– During the Vietnam War, Lt. William L. Calley tried to blame his role in the My Lai massacre on orders from his commanding officer, CAPT Medina.

There is hope. Government entities have been known to apologize for past behavior. Since these events occurred in Utah, I’ll use two examples that might resonate with Mormons.

1) Missouri finally rescinded Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order, though it took almost 138 years for them to decide it wasn’t cool to have a law stating Mormons could be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace.

2) Illinois adopted a resolution expressing regret for the 1840’s violence against Mormons, including the events leading to the death of church founder, Joseph Smith. They even came to Utah and apologized in person, albeit 160 years after Smith’s death. A full reading of the Illinois resolution (HR0793) is instructive. “The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened age… caused unmeasurable hardship and trauma… by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past… we acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of a people of faith and hard work.”

The collected set of authorities has managed to separate my brother from his liberty, home, and the arms of a large, extended family that unilaterally loves him and treasures him. One can hope that the government’s distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions towards my brother will end sometime sooner than 100 years from now.

Tags: Writing