ruse: (noun) An action intended to deceive; a trick., Near-synonyms: ploy, stratagem

In spite of Romanian internal propaganda, Romania has a long-standing history of medical abuse, with Romanian medical professionals being, well, less than professional when investigated under a closer loupe. One of the interesting facts that make Romanian medics stand aside from others in other countries, concerning abuses, that are sometimes incidental or even by mistake, is that Romania has had a long list of "doctors", some of them not even registered or lacking the license to practice medicine, that have carried out medical experimentation or even operated on human beings without any sort of accountability from the state. Even currently, Romania has a situation where there still are "makeshift ambulances" around, that are owned and administered by private individuals. The "makeshift doctors" on the other hand, are not necessarily the product of communism, given that some of these have lived and been active after the fall of communism. Interestingly, or rather, "conveniently" these doctors that were completely unaccounted for have vanished entirely off the planet and even if Romania has the largest amount of registered spies per capita on the planet, these espionage services have not been able to locate them in order to hold them accountable. The story of one such "makeshift doctor" mentioned by "Recorder" in their "30 years of democracy in Romania" documentary, had absolutely no qualifications yet performed an impressive (competitive?) amount of surgeries on people, yet in particular, children as a pediatrician.

Most medicine and pharmaceutics rely on statistical data in order to make an "educated guess" on what medicine would be most suitable at the lowest amount of risk. However, in order to get to that point, new and better medicine must be first tried out, and typically with rigorous legislation in order to prevent abuses. However, the internationalization of markets has allowed companies to allocate clandestinely, in states with weaker or jurisdiction preferable to companies, thereby sometimes brushing over the ethical requirements to carry out experiments. Here is an example of a statement of income of one "assistant medic" in Romania that makes their own base-salary many times over by just catering to experimental pharmaceutical companies:

The knowledge of patients on the type of treatment they will receive is less than sufficient, many times the patients trusting the medics wholesale (or rather, being swayed to do so by societal tropes and implications of non-existent hierarchies) whilst the medics treat the patients with experimental medicine and then report the results to the pharmaceutical company for the buck. The patients themselves, never even find out that these medics are, in fact, catering to the pharmaceutical companies, with the "statement of income" being the only "hint", albeit public, that they do given that the medics are obliged to write up their sources of funding.

A lot of "clinical trials" turn out to take place in Romania within hospitals dedicated to mental health, such that the patients are often unable realize that they are essentially being used as part of a trial. These are patients belonging to people such as Ms. Simona Trifu, or Ms. Camelia Petcu, the former being one individual with a pending court case due to her shady dealings with real estate. At best, the patients that are experimented upon have family, that need to consent for them as a legal guardian (yet from a judicial point of view such arrangements seem dubious at best and seem to conflict with the constitutional right to "the integrity of body", as will be spelled out, such matters being mentioned at the Nuremberg trials).

The incidents of clinical-trials applied to patients with varied degrees of consciousness is not new in any way, and they date back to World War 2 with the conditions of experimentation being spelled out at the Nuremberg trials and now part of the Nuremberg code of ethics governing medical trials, citing:

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."

and interestingly even spells out as part of the same paragraph that legal delegation is forbidden and immutable, with the patient explicitly needing to consent:

"The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity."

However, in case the patient is mentally disabled, there is no way for the patient to even give consent, such that most of the experiments carried out in Romania in institutions dedicated to mental health, directly infringe the Nuremberg code of ethics. Furthermore, it needs to be stated that the finer points of "consent" need not even be mentioned given that most hospitals in Romania dedicated to mental health are plagued with abuses reaching up to physical violence from the staff, such that the Nuremberg code is violated from the very first sentence, without even having to debate whether a patient is lucid or not to consent.

Medicine is often administered on a do-or-die, under duress and with the threat of the hospital bodyguards beating the patients up (perhaps a variation of the troubles of a Soviet system where bodyguards are employed instead of police such that the police cannot be blamed for brutality, even if in many cases the police are the ones to bring people to such institutions due to not being able to press charges upon them but wanting to lock such people up).

A weak state like Romania is highly susceptible to corruption, and the extent thereof can only be observed by people using Google Maps to offer "reviews" of hospitals that in any other country would rather constitute the basis of a police investigation. Interestingly enough, the European Court of Human Rights is distinctly still on such issues, with the press doing the heavy lifting and the ECHR being in contempt with such acts and with people in charge such as Ms. Pauliine Koskelo, a judge at the European Court of Human Rights attempting to shut down as many cases as possible. Here is one such rejection by the European Court of Human Rights, that, after the former issues have been brought to the attention of the EHCR, Ms. Pauliine Koskelo closes with (in brief) the mention that "[…] from all the provided data, no human rights seem to have been violated".

Unfortunately, people like Ms. Koskelo set a precedent where the ECHR ends up in contempt and corrupt, being tagged by various people as "EuroVision", some political organization that deals out preferential treatment on criteria that is yet to be established. There are some mentions in the Romanian press, albeit silenced and hard to find, that the ECHR has had various dealings with corrupt Romanian prosecutors, including the exchange of bribes and favors, such that a bunch of cases unrelated to the topic at hand got closed by the ECHR prematurely. It is uncertain whether Ms. Koskelo has any connection to the cases of corruption, yet even the youngest of human beings are able to tell right from wrong such that closing a case with such imagery provided, with a long-wound pretentious phrase claiming that "no human rights have been violated" is too far a stretch to not spell at least some level of collusion.

Albeit written with anger (and a large dash of humor), www.editiespecialapress.ro does not talk too highly about Ms. Koskelo, claiming that Ms. Koskelo has received large sums of payments from Romanian governors, in order to reject cases upon demand such that, as unpopular as it seem to criticize Finland for undetermined reasons (126 dislikes to 4 likes, for a joke, seriously? you think that is organic?), it very much seems that (even) Finland is susceptible to corruption. The article on www.editiespecialapress.ro claims that various highly placed individuals within the judicial system, such as prosecutors Ms. Monica Macovei or Ms. Laura Codruța Kövesi being implicated with bribing Ms. Koskelo via the E.C.H.R. for the purpose of arbitrarily rejecting or accepting various cases.

The "www.editiespecialapress.ro" website also names many other cases of abuse, corruption and fraud that involve the E.C.H.R., Romania and various prosecutors with a very colorful language, indicating that they would be fairly sincere and truthful about their reports. Either way, the pattern that "www.editiespecialapress.ro" brings to light, where cases are accepted, then the Romanian governance is admittedly contacted and negotiations ensue, seems to match the pattern that has been observed regarding the cases of abuse at Obregia. Incidentally, the "larger Romanian press" joined-in on the hospitals late in the story, by comparison, during the COVID pandemic where cases of abuse were found in hospitals, other than the infamous psychiatric hospitals that are well-known within Romania and as much as plagued with human rights abuses as much as being known for being "political institutions", rather than hospitals.

The issue with the prosecutors is well-known and also documented, and describes very well the past decades of "celebrity politics" in Romania, also, to the extent of being almost automated as part of an algorithm:

• some dude climbs out of nowhere on the political scene,
• the dude wins the elections and brings in his own prosecutors,
• he uses his own prosecutors to chase after this enemies

and then, eventually:

• he steps down from the peaks of the political scene,
• his enemies catch up and climb on top and bring in their own prosecutors,
• his enemies now run after him instead,

with a scene that strongly resembles any generic episode out of Benny Hill.

Regrettably enough, this sort of show has fallen out of fashion, even with business people (cite) stating that the Romanian "secret services" have declared war upon their own population, citing "se iau la tranta cu populatia". Whilst that is humorous, it is easy to understand, recalling Molvania, that given the large number of "secret service" agencies, as well as Romania being the country with the most declared spies, that the sheer number of resources allocated to spying constitute a surplus that just sits there being bored and that the only "escape" from this boredom, is to randomly chase individuals within Romania. In other words, keeping the money and power to themselves, has become insufficient and the Romanian governance is just dying to drag everyone in on their petty squabbles.

One of the constant strives of Romania after accession to NATO and the European Union, has been an overwhelming attempt to get Romania and Romanian institutions "legitimized" at all cost. However, given that few-to-none ongoing cases pertaining to the crimes of communism, the Romanian "minderiad", or, in context, the status of "makeshift doctors" that have never been found, it stands to reason that Romanian legitimacy is simply vaporware and does not exist except within the bounds of Romania. For example, during the presidency of Mr. Traian Băsescu, many journalists claim that the prosecutors that he selected were no more or less hitmen that essentially sent to court long-standing criminals that were already well-known to be involved with crime thereby giving the whole operation of jailing these individual a political taint rather than judicially valid weight. One other very elucidating example is the sheer quantity of "requests for attestation for the G.D.P.R." emitted by Romanian institutions contrasted to the quantity of "G.D.P.R. violations taking place in Romania". The discrepancy shows that, in spite of hefty G.D.P.R. violations, Romania is the top-most country where the institutions request "G.D.P.R. attestation" from the European Union. In other words, they would like to be attested as G.D.P.R. compliant, in spite of the G.D.P.R. violations that do not meet any resolution.

In terms of hospitals, there is one institution, the "National Authority for Management of Quality in Health" (Autoritatea Națională de Management al Calității în Sănătate, A.N.M.C.S.), that is responsible for being a front of mediation between hospitals, the government and individual citizens. Our first contact with the A.N.M.C.S. was when we noticed that the A.N.M.C.S. accreditation logo, that attests to the quality of hospitals, had been plastered allover websites that belonged to hospitals that were infamous for abuses during communism, as well as after communism, such that the A.N.M.C.S. seemed a more "for-profit" organization rather than an organization that would provide a measure of accountability in order to hold people responsible for abuses. However, with the best intentions, we submitted a complaint against some of these hospitals, with backup from press resources that confirmed actual abuses and used the online form of the A.N.M.C.S., in spite of our best judgment that the A.N.M.C.S. is just a thugopoly such that the complaint would, at best, just result in us being harassed by the Romanian police. The A.N.M.C.S. is obligated by law to respond within 30 days, however, as we thought initially, the A.N.M.C.S. did not respond. We extend the complaint to another one of these "medical accreditation" companies, this time in Switzerland, that fortunately answered the request and said that they will talk to the Romanian A.N.M.C.S. in order to determine why they are not answering. We managed to petition Mr. Carsten Engel, the chief-executive officer of ISQua, the institution in Switzerland that collaborate with A.N.M.C.S., citing:

Dear [...],

We will keep following up with ANMCS and keep you informed. Unfortunately, we have neither the resources nor the powers to review a decision by the European Court of Human Rights.

Regards,

Carsten Engel
Chief Executive Officer 

For a period of about three months, we exchanged E-mails back and forth between ISQua and ISQua apparently tried to reach someone within the A.N.M.C.S. in order to determine why the A.N.M.C.S. is not responding. The procedure for this was almost algorithmic and repeated several times (three, to be exact) for the duration of three months:

• we were asked by ISQua to file yet-another complaint with the A.N.M.C.S.,
• we filed a complaint with the A.N.M.C.S.,
• the A.N.M.C.S. did not reply for a month, so we contacted ISQua again

Given the legal obligation of the A.N.M.C.S. to respond to petitions, we even went as far as raising the issue with the Romanian police and the Romanian police communicated that they forwarded the complaint to the A.N.M.C.S., however, of course, without pressing charges or opening a case, which is what they should have done given that the A.N.M.C.S. was late to respond.

To be complete, we let ISQua know that a police complaint was filed and that the A.N.M.C.S. has been contacted by the Romanian police as well. At the end of about three months, the A.N.M.C.S. finally replied, stating that they did not receive the online complaints and that their IT "specialists" consider that it might have been due to the attachments that, citing, "might have been rejected by the firewall". Obviously the firewall has nothing to do with attachments and typically we just use file sharing instead of passing around large files such that any attachments uploaded would have been PDF or image files such as JPG and/or PNG, as indicated by the form instructions.

Ultimately, what seem plausible is that the complaint form at the A.N.M.C.S. either never worked or all the complaints were just being thrown in the bin, which is pretty alarming consider that we might have not been the only people to file complaints. It stands to reason that all the people that complained online to the A.N.M.C.S. were either ignored or their complaints did not reach anyone that would at least take a look at them. Knowing the Romanian ethos, this is pretty much in-line with the generalized feeling of entitlement and surrogate privilege of … "governors", to not use the word "oligarchs" or "petty celebrities" to cite Molvania, governors that would have added this complaints section "just for fun", but did not bother too much because of their dealings with ISQua and other international bodies that seemed much more "lucrative" than bothering with the complaints of regular people, the later being unfortunately exactly what their purpose is for. Reaching back to the previous section, putting and putting the fact that the complaint form did not work at all in context, it is pretty alarming that the only possible way that people have found to whistleblow about such hospitals, was to write… "reviews" on Google Maps, as if leaving a review for a restaurant or a hotel. You can read abusive crimes ranging from homicide through malpraxis and up to denial of liberties, casually, on Google maps, maybe as a pass-time late night horror read.

After yet more delays, the A.N.M.C.S. manages to formulate a response, most of the response seeming, to our senses, like an invitation to a "golden relationship" that would be mutually beneficial, and makes it seem like the A.N.M.C.S. is both dazed and confused how someone just dares to criticize them, yet at the same time, being fully aware that they have been drawn out in the public, with ISQua more than likely receiving their (at least official) response. We mention that because in the reply from the A.N.M.C.S. there was not even a sliver of worry about the actual contents of the complaint, namely the actual "Soviet brutalism", to use a term, facts that were highlighted by various people on Google Maps, there was no incentive to be read along "oh my God, let us investigate as fast as we can!" and not even a shimmer of curiosity yet just some self-obsessed indulgence with the institution itself and the fact that at the time they were losing faith. We can even contrast that with the response from ISQua that was not entirely alarmist, but at least they hanged on as we kept petitioning the A.N.M.C.S. and for the purpose of finding out what the A.N.M.C.S. has to say. In reality, we eerily felt very much the same, like catching our parents having some perverse indulgence and not really knowing what to say. Or ending up in a Nazi bar, shrugging, scratching our heads and heading out the way we came in, because the bar is full of them, clearly-themed one way, such that we and our investigation, in spite of the gruesome facts, seemed more like the "intruders" than them!

Interestingly, the response from the A.N.M.C.S. claims that what caught their attention was the complaint filed with the Romanian police, such that the Swiss-based accreditation institution ISQua was unable to reach the A.N.M.C.S. (the very same people they work with, and whom they attest) in the total time of about three months.

All things considered, we sent the response to ISQua, that already had all the files, evidence and data, as passed to the their secretariat and to Mr. Carsten, the CEO, and specified that the A.N.M.C.S. finally replied formally and that they request us to send the complaint yet again, this time to their E-Mail address, promising to emit a registration number and then formulate a response. Naturally, with the boilerplate phraseology that states how they are sorry for the inconvenience.

Recalling that we felt like the ones intruding, we told ISQua that they have all the files and proof, such that they can now follow-up with the A.N.M.C.S. but that we will be skipping this phase because it is going to lead to negotiations along the lines of "how much genocide is genocide", "how much homicide is homicide" and how much proof or witnessing must be provided, either by the press or us, for medical assistants to not take out their frustrations on medically impaired individuals. Ultimately, we personally consider that at the age (as in years) of the people involved, no amount of explanation on our behalf, could possibly educate or re-educate them in terms of medical ethics or general moral virtues - after some age, the discussion is just redundant and degrades to what teenagers label both as cringe and creepy. Bear in mind, that one of the press-releases was about an individual that was found deceased on the Obregia hospital grounds and the … person working at the CEO of the Obreiga hospital, claimed that the individual must have been kidnapped from the hospital, killed elsewhere, and then even brought back and dumped onto hospital grounds, such that we consider the discussion along the lines of "we must do what's right" to be more than likely promptly met with "the ends justify the means".

Leaving Romanians aside as a well-defined parameter, it still stands as a question on the level of involvement of ISQua and similar other organizations with Romanian governance and the state of such "facilities". Naturally, we raised these issues with the European Community as well, albeit that being trivial given that we approached the E.C.H.R., with the European Community extending their usual "apologies but this is a national issue, such that we cannot intervene". All the former statement sounds pretty upright and even cool, given that the EU cannot indeed intervene in national matters, however if we were to pull up the sources of funding of such hospitals, it leads to European institutions or institutions such as ISQua that, even disregarding the funding, implicitly grant some sense of legitimacy to places in Romania that are infamously bad. ISQua itself, is this massive charity conglomerate that distributes a bunch of money to various regional institutions in many countries.

The question that arises is whether Romanian propaganda is so good that Romanian governance managed to fool (or bribe, does not matter) ISQua and others, such as the European Community that stated that Romania now has the rule of law, or whether ISQua and the EU are actually directly complicit with such actions. Unfortunately for the European Community, large-scale financing is definitely an interventionist measure (for instance, many case where various individuals have been arrested for not actively taking part in terrorist acts, yet just "financing terrorism") that can even be used in reverse, as a means of sanctioning Romania in order to enact change. It would have been trivial for the EU or ISQua to cut their funding or make their funding contingent on the resolution of such cases, yet it seems like … the only option short of becoming conspiracy theorist, is to infer that there has been some massive negligence on the part of financiers that must have been fooled by Romanian authorities (and in spite of all the watchdogs, control organizations in Romania, and so on).

Coming back to the fact that many Romanian doctors unwavering participate in clinical trials on patients with dubious states of mind that would have hard time consenting, it stands to reason that the interest goes both ways, and that pharmaceutical companies are very much seeking a decrepit and weak country where they would be able to coax governors and be able to carry out medical experimentation upon unsuspecting or trusting individuals. Just like there are no well-defined rules on how to present the weather, with experts claiming that Mexican ladies are the best at presenting the weather, it just seems that the same degree of subjectivity can be found when trying to evaluate or reason about how to present "psychology" - for example, here is a short clip from Aurora Simigiu's YouTube channel, starring Ms. Simona Simion and Ms. Aurora Simigiu on the importance of hobbies:

and given that subjectivity, it is tough to decide on the actual intent as well as the validity of outreach of power of such individuals. At this time, Romania only needs the signature of an individual like Ms. Simona Trifu or Ms. Camelia Petcu in order to be able to hold an individual and deprive them of their liberties for up to six months, without the need of a trial, evidence nor official formal complaints to the police. In one phrase, this is exactly the "political psychiatry" that have been meticulously described by individuals such as Robert Van Voren. "Political psychiatry" with roots in the former Soviet union is unfortunately not mediatized enough with most of the West being more than likely appalled at the treatment - for example, in one instance we posted some of the discoveries on Reddit and the whole post got flagged for moderation, with one moderator messaging us that what we reported is a defacto abuse of psychiatry such that our post will be deleted; only after having to explain that we do not condone the reported facts and that we are just reporting them, the moderators changed their minds yet flagged the post as being "Not Safe For Work" (N.S.F.W.) in order to not impress a young audience. Regrettably, we are reliving the resurgence of "political psychiatry" even with notable figures such as Donald Trump, during the Lex Friedman podcast, beating the tambourine and blanket-blaming "people that are insane" for all the flaws and the instability that they cannot explain as a sink of frustration, and the result of slavish act that promotes ableism just because it is convenient to blame an entity that cannot fight back. Perhaps it is the result of open-borders, where the ingestion of people accustomed to Soviet policies, have now become teachers of oppressive and tyrannical doctrines.

If you do not believe us, here is the police, themselves, citing the law that states "in accordance with law 487/2002, art. 54 "A person can be interned involuntarily only if a habilitated psychiatrist [has completed their doctoral residency] has given their accord for the internment", meaning that it only requires the signature of any psychiatrist to be able to arbitrarily detain anyone.

For other connections, in spite of the fact that the recent celebrity Andrew Tate has been jailed for six months without a trial, evidence or official court decision, Mr. Tate should rest assured that if the Romanian police would not have managed to jail him, "the police way", the police could just as well have asked for a psychiatrist to sign a paper and then detained him that way, just as well, on psychiatric grounds. Adding the fact that Romania is (apparently) deemed to be more corrupt than Kuwait and Armenia (that is a country currently at war), it stands to reason that the signature of a resident psychiatrist would not be too difficult to obtain by the Romanian police.

One other problem that might actually be worrying and is also fairly probable, is that figures such as Ms. Simona Trifu, being possibly held as some form of hostage and then blackmailed by… the powers that be, to use her leverage as the director of psychology ward at Obregia, in order to hand of various waivers, illegally detain people, and so and so forth. This could be justified by the discovery from the Romanian press that Ms. Trifu in fact has a dossier against her, being investigated for various underhand deals as reported by Adevărul. Connecting the infamous Romanian pervasive surveillance collecting data that can only be used for blackmail, it stands to reason that such affairs could be used to manipulate this individual or others.

Also interestingly, Ms. Simona Trifu and Ms. Camelia Petcu, both "doctors" that work at Obregia, seem to additionally have an academic career, with a considerable amount of papers being published in collaboration with staff at prestigious Universities, such as Tel Aviv University. However, even though Ms. Trifu has become a public figure, giving many interviews, some of which can be found on YouTube, there is not one single mention of her speaking or writing English, except in these "academic papers". For Romania, this seems in-line with the elderly population that Ms. Trifu and Ms. Petcu is part of, most elderly Romanians maybe being capable of some Russian, French, maybe some Italian or Spanish, yet rarely having the mastery of the English language to the level of what would be academically acceptable. It might just as well be the case that these papers signed by Ms. Trifu or Ms. Petcu are not exactly what they seem to be even though searches do not reveal much except more of the same psychological fluff to be found in other publications.

Yet, what about the actual diagnostic, in case psychology or psychiatry is not an entirely subjective domain where large-spectrum medicine is fed to various individuals, then surely a diagnostic would reveal whether these people should be taken seriously or not. Unfortunately, the situation is that most of the diagnostics being dished out are extremely vague such as "delirious turbulence", or some other very general diagnostic such as depression that would be a blanket-cover for right about any affliction. In truth, patients in Romanian detention facilities can be clearly split down the middle: those that clearly manifest some neurological disorder but then there are a bunch of people that are there for political purposes. In principle, numerous witnesses have reported that they were brought there by the Romanian police for reasons such as participating in political protests, or more generally speaking, people that did not commit any crime that the police would have on hand to be sufficient to prosecute, but people that the Romanian police would rather put away or do away with. "Diagnostics", given that this is not really any form of medical treatment, the patients are not really patients yet "detainees", and the "doctors" are mainly washed-up trash that did not make it past the Romanian border for whatever reason, scale to match. As an example, here is Ms. Magdalina Nicola, a psychiatrist (even, not a psychologist!) that states on the exit sheet of a patient that the patient had a "delirious turbulence and behavioral turbulence attached to the use of tobacco".

As for "lack of appetite", most of these "diagnostics" are just cargo-load statements added mechanically almost by using the dictionary of psychology or psychiatry and then just making the claim. If someone does not eat one day, or on several days, or let's say, the food is nasty (which it frequently is), then the psychologists and psychiatrists just write down "lack of appetite" as a diagnostic. Ironically, the person receiving this diagnostic was, in fact, working on a case involving illegally mounted cameras within buildings and was deliberately doubling down to receive a fine based on illegally mounted cameras, with full premeditated planning (even!), such that they were in full knowledge of what they were doing, with the results being sent to the press, such that all of the claims and the full "diagnostic sheet" with the "treatment" and everything else are simply based on a false premise and no more or less than a ruse. One problem is that the hospital practices a "do-or-die policy", very much congruent with Soviet methodologies, right from the start of the interment. Brought there you are presented the "option" of being "voluntary" or "involuntarily" interned; the former "voluntary" just means that you are allowed outside, as in, fresh air, and then "detained" (if we dare, instead of saying "treated", or whatever medical terminology should be used in context) for up to two weeks, whereas "involuntarily" means, for practical purposes, that you are "detained" for up to 6 months and within a closed space, a notch up from solitary confinement (typically, they place you in with the drug addicts). Obviously, the choice if you are rational is more than likely "voluntary", if you have the foreknowledge of what "involuntary" implies, however that is by default fraud and people are essentially coerced under the threat of mistreatment to sign a paper stating that you are interned "voluntarily". Then again, most of everything else is some sort of blackmail; for instance, most of the "psychiatrists" or maybe "political psychiatrists" such as Mr. Ene Florin ask private questions that the people interned there are supposed to answer, and, just like Ms. Nicola's diagnosis on a case of lack of appetite, if they do not answer then the doctor will write down that you are "uncommunicative" and thereby the patient will be detained for a longer amount of time. In fact, this is more or less overt, with the psychologist literally blackmailing you across the table: you either talk to us or we write down that you are uncommunicative, which, in spite of all the possible embellishment attempts of Romanian governance, is pretty much what a forced confession and forced interrogation consists in, in terms of end goals.

Similarly, if you think that it all ends there, and that there is no link to the Romanian underworld and with the direct participation with Romanian officials such as the Romanian police, where there quite is and surprisingly frequently the matter of being interned turns into a stratagem. One case that is brought up in a Romanian newspaper cites the case of Carmen an individual that was literally abducted by the Romanian police and brought to some psychiatric hospital where she spent about 10 years where the neighbors that interned her devised a plan to swindle her out of her apartment. The governance, including the police and the hospital were so adamant about covering up the case that apparently only with the help of some NGO, Carmen managed to get a secondary counter-expertise and escape the stratagem. However, one of the apartments under her possession was lost and had been already sold, and the other one was found in a disastrous state. Unfortunately, even though the article does not insist and only talks about her own damages, there is little mention of what happened to the police officers that took the decision, as well as little to no statements of the people that were involved with the case and had the power to decide in her case.

It is possible to somewhat trace down some of these individuals, for example, all these people are considered by the law to write a statement of interest where they would declare their source of income as well as their wages. The Obregia hospital even has a dedicated section where these papers can be found for all staff working at Obregia. As a direct example, one individual, Mr. Ene Florin, working as a "doctor in chief" at the Obregia hospital, is directly on the payroll of the National School of Political and Administrative Studies in Bucharest (both a politician and a doctor, to match the title of our article; very talented).

Others, have similar dubious connections such as being on the payroll of the Romanian military, or working within child-protection services or connected to pharmaceutical companies, etc. Otherwise, some people like Ms. Magdalina Nicola do not even show up, even if she would be obliged by the law to make her statement of interest public. In fact, crawling the Obregia website, only one single document is found, linked from the statement of interest page back in 2016 but all the following years, just by incrementing 2016 to 2017, 2018, 2019 and so on, up to 2024 do not include any statement of interest from Ms. Nicola. As Romanian society would have it, sometimes this sort of thing is used as a cover for people that work around the law; this is done by making a very old paper public but then not updating it at all. In the event someone asks, the hospital can point to the old paper from 2016. If someone insists that the followup years from a decade ago should be there as well, the hospital will just blame technical difficulties or similar and then promise to make the papers public in the future. Otherwise, a doctor like Ms. Nicola have a phenomenally clean Internet footprint and looking them up reveals next to nothing. Spook or anti-tobacco activist, you decide.

Similarly, it is also deliberate, that many of these people prefer to not list any career taking place before 1989 (the year of the communist revolution) - you will, for example, find the current… Romanian ombudsman, Ms. Renate Weber, listing her activities before 1989, as … just … "lawyer". Look, we won't insist on this point, but we shall delegate these "remarks" to the fact that the contents of this page are nothing novel nor new for Romania, with "institutions" such as Obregia and others being well-established and infamous for abuses that even exceed the Geneva treatment of prisoners (as in, during a war, where the hatred can be understood), such that whatever and whomever handles these issues, is simply not doing a good enough job, irrespective of their merits and accomplishments. It is difficult to stomach that after 30 years of European membership, these places are suddenly being "discovered" and, not by people such as the Romanian ombudsman that is literally paid to (proverbially) climb on top of a car and raise hell upon discovering such incidents, but rather by the meager press, many of whom have had to decouple from mainstream media and create their own platforms. Ms. Weber has heard about the cases we highlighted for sure, most of them being handed to the press, and to a large audience, as well as being formally sent to the E.C.H.R., such that Ms. Pauliine Koskelo more than likely had to contact her, with the European Community even hinting that we should contact her. We told the European Community that we would not contact her, pretty much due to the former and in particular due to the fact that our contribution is minor, along with the fact that she claims she was "lawyer" before 1989 and literally stating to the EU: "[what would you like us to do with her?] she knows, we know, do you know, though?". In other words, any followup on this topic, would just lead to a kangaroo court if the accusation is made by a Romanian lawyer, in particular, one that has been a "lawyer" during communism. Clearly, be the characters as they may, something is just not working.

Even if Romania to this date denies it but ironically enough the CIA itself admits it, Romania harbored political prisons, or black sites within Romania that functioned as illegal detention and/or interrogation centers. Ultimately, aside from recounting the medical experiments from Pitesti, as well as the continuation thereof through these hospitals, the unfortunate fact is that the comparison would be moot in terms of intent. CIA black sites were deemed as the original report to detain individuals connected to terrorism, with the event coming as a response to the 9/11 attacks where people lost family, property and if the attack would have been subsumed by a country rather than "generalized terrorism", it would have been a direct act of war.

… yet by comparison the former at the very least has an antecedent where the result seems to be a reaction or an over-reaction as, say, an act of vengeance, that even in terms of violence seems to connect the action and reaction easily. However with these Romanian facilities, the people being detained are not only… patients, first and foremost, incidentally with issues pertaining to mental health, but also varied others, such as criminals, political protestors, cancer patients as an overflow from other wards, etc, that are all being abused by medical personnel for absolutely no reason. You could watch an elderly lady, a medical assistant, beating the living crap out of a younger boy that clearly had issues and was not able to hold the spoon to his mouth in order to eat, resulting in him smearing his clothes with food. The result thereof, was that he was beaten to a pulp by the assistant claiming that she now has to wash his clothes yet-again.

We will not comment further on this, but the mind wanders it is imperative to set a distinction. Romanian violence against these people is without reason, without any precedent or antecedent, the patients being random and by definition unknown to the abusive staff which rules out any "revenge" or long-term held grudge. Similarly, one could state that the assistants and the staff are poorly paid, yet their wealth and income statements as employees of the hospital, with the salary being shunted by either clinical trials or side-businesses (no doubt, underplayed in a statement of wealth and typically hidden under the name of the spouse or children), place the assistants, doctors and the staff way above most wages in Romania! These people are hardly underpaid relative to Romanian wages, and the comparison is by a factor of 10 to 100. That being said, the violence carried out by Romanians in these places is simply gratuitous or malicious, with little justification, if even for the sake of logically connecting the dots as a motive. Similarly, whilst the US, in general, received a massive flack for their actions, many of these people involved have been peddling the same show for decades, being wealthy and powerful before communism and now being wealthy and famous after, without anyone, any court or even the European Community being able to hold them accountable for their actions nor prosecute the people responsible.

With that said, there is little-to-no-connection with black sites, even if there would have been some overlap between the two, the motives being entirely different, or, at best, only to be able to justify that Romanians are more prone to accept deals degrading to the human soul, by contrast to other nations that would maybe be less accepting of such deals.

The connections are off-the-charts, many of these psychologists spending their formative years at hospitals and/or institutions such as the emergency medical hospital Carol Davila, with connection to the Romanian army, both Ms. Trifu and Ms. Petcu being even part of didactical staff at Carol Davila. Unfortunately, the Carol Davila hospital refuses to give heed to the G.D.P.R. and release data belonging to patients. Similarly, the Obregia hospital outright refused to give due course to the G.D.P.R., and, upon a G.D.P.R. request sent back a letter that is signed by all the brass at the hospital, namely Dr. Andrian Tirbina, Dr. Dan Rosca, Dr. Simona Trifu, Reg. Med. Pr. Vasiliu Ionela.

In brief, the letter states that following the request, namely, the G.D.P.R. request that cites the G.D.P.R. articles:

• "[asking about] the categories of data being collected",
• "a copy of all data collected",
• "the deletion of all the data of a personal nature"

the following statements are made by the "Clinical Hospital of Psychiatry Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia" hospital:

• all the data that has been collected is confidential,
• the images that have been captured by the video cameras are being deleted every 30 days

which essentially constitutes both a refusal and an admission of guilt on behalf of the hospital that outright refuses to give due course to the G.D.P.R. To follow the story, note that you can see the A.N.M.C.S. logo, and the IQNet/IQua logo on the letter being sent back that refuses to give due course to the G.D.P.R.

Skipping over the entitled statement that the hospital mentions that "private data is strictly confidential", yet to the hospital, not to the patient, the situation with the video cameras is a very shady affair. The problem is that the hospital has all public and some of the private (ie: the "reception room"), lined with cameras. Whenever people request the video recordings, even within the 30 day term, as specified by organic local law, not even the EU G.D.P.R., the hospital either claims that "the recordings are deleted after 30 days", without pragmatically answering the request, or the hospital even goes far as laying down another "statement of guilt" on their behalf by saying that they lack the technology to censor individuals in the recordings other than the person requesting the recordings under the G.D.P.R.

The statement made is somewhat bizarre, in spite of the fact that apparently the Data Protection Officer being cited is some company "S.C. DAF CONSULTING &MANAGEMENT" that should known better.

In brief and to "out-psyche" the "psychologist" (ha!), the statement translated to English reads as follows: "In your particular case, we inform you that the Spitalul Clinic de Psihiatrie Prof. Dr. Alex. Obregia does not have the necessary technology to blur out biometric data of the other patients that appear in the requested recordings and, due to the large volume of data, the images being recorded have been overwritten, such that the recordings regarding you are not available anymore. To this date, the Spitalul Clinic de Psihiatrie Profesor Doctor Alexandru Obregia Bucharest does not process data regarding yourself collected via the video recording system. with the following remarks that can be made highlighting how ridiculous, yet more importantly, highly illegal the response is:

• "In your case in particular", why would the statement that follows regard just the person requesting the data, given that the hospital has an entire array of surveillance cameras? The statement is both ridiculous and trivially false. Even reading on they do state that other patients cannot be censored, such that the data pertains not only to the person requesting it but also to … all the other patients.
• "To this date, the Spitalul Clinic de Psihiatrie Profesor Doctor Alexandru Obregia Bucharest does not process data regarding yourself collected via the video recording system." showing that they are unaware what "data processing" means. If their statement were true, then there would be no need to extend the request in the first place. This statement is false. They think that "processing" is not equivalent with "recording", which it is as far as the G.D.P.R. is concerned (sharing data with 3rd parties is a different clause, whether you do or do not, you are still "processing" if you are "recording").
• "[…] does not have the necessary technology to blur out biometric data of the other patients that appear in the requested recordings and, due to the large volume of data, the images being recorded have been overwritten […]" making it unsure what they mean. Looking at the statement, the fact that they do not have the means to blur out other individuals does not imply that "due to the large volume of data the recordings have been overwritten" as the sentence would attempt to want to imply.

Coming to the core of the issue that is highlighted, the hospital states that they do collect data (implicitly, due to their response), but that they lack the technology to blur out other people, which essentially translates to their inability to conform to the law. In other words, iff. they would collect data legally, then they would necessarily have to have the technology to blur out other individuals. This statement essentially is an admission of guilt, that places the hospital outside of the law and makes them all outlaws.

If an allegory is needed, in order to transpose the situation into a context that would make the fallacy easier to understand, it is as if someone would admit that they did indeed drive a vehicle over the legal speed limit, but that is just because the breaks in the vehicle are defective, such that the driver considers that it is not their fault and not only that, but that they will be driving over the speed limit again, because somehow having breaks is not their responsibility!

We have made references to the Romanian "Integrated Information System" and it is tough not to do so again but lack of proof does not make facts neither true nor false, such that given the consistent refusals from Obregia, and with the additional information that Romanians have no qualms collecting data for the purpose of blackmailing individuals, both at home and abroad, it kips the thought over that these recordings are, in fact, being preserved instead of actually being deleted. Incidentally, on the matter of data collection with video cameras, we have a different case that involves, this time, the Romanian police refusing to give due course to the G.D.P.R., such that the illicit and illegal collection of data within the Obregia hosptial would not be a data point that would fall far off the trendline in Romania with regards to matters of privacy. Ultimately and all discussions aside, if these facilities were not illicit or just centres for information gathering and if one were to presume that these places would in fact be legitimate hospitals offering "patient care" and medical treatment, then why would any of these places so adamantly refuse to release the own records of the patients that request them? For example, the former source that blew the whistle on Mr. Hagiu, was left dumbfounded on whether they have an STD or not due to the hospitals self-admitted incompetence given that they messed up the bloodworks a few times leading to inconclusive results, which makes it even more weird that a hospital would refuse to offer the data collected on the patient. Why would so much resistance be put up and why would one even need to refer to the G.D.P.R.? It would seem natural to offer these papers to any patients that request them by default without any additional requirements or questions. There is no hippocratic oath exception that would state that patients should be forbidden to see their own paperwork - also with the consideration that these facilities also perform "medical analysis" such as blood-works and various tests, including illegal STD testing to which patients should be allowed to consent to, and not just … "Freudian analysis". Even if Romania would deny that these facilities would, in fact, be something else, there would only be denial to show, given that all the papers indicate a vehement refusal of cooperating with patients, along with the failure of all institutions leading up to the European Commission that are responsible to prevent such issues from arising.

To the hospital's defense, some form of "remote surveillance" is indeed convenient given that it would be difficult for someone to just sit down in every room and makes sure that everything is alright. The Obregia hospital has a very strong name (in fact) for receiving patients that suffer from drug andalcoholl abuse. Interestingly, when one of our sources was brought in, the source was promptly asked to hand over some urine for drug testing - incidentally, the check being performed for the first time, after the source told us that they picked up vaping. More than likely, the police were hoping to find drug usage in order to press charges. With that said, some sections of the Obregia hospital are literal arenas where badly trained personnel. coupled with bad policies that even exceed prison terms (such as locking people up, months on end without even taking them outside for a walk), coupled with addicted individuals, coupled with not letting the patients purchase anything at all (ie: cigarettes) frequently lead to mass-brawls breaking out that all end poorly.

Nevertheless, two different sources confirmed the tight coupling between Obregia and the police, and with police interests at hand, it is tough to err on the side of the hospital on whether these recordings will be abused or not, aside from being illegal as per their own statements. Similarly, it is also difficult to judge whether generalized Romanian stupidity do not help them much in such cases, with the bleak and weak possibility that, let's say, they are not really using the collected data, but that they are unbelievably entitled as oligarchs and tyrants that they just incidentally let their bad behaviors, for example, the complete and utter refusal to hand over any data or give due course to any point of the G.D.P.R., exceed the utility of their statements which casts some light of doubt upon them. Lastly, following this line of reasoning, the Obregia hospital is also not a point that falls off the trendline, given that comparable hospitals such as the Carol Davila military hospital also outright refusing to give due course to the G.D.P.R.

When petitioned, the Carol Davila military hospital was petitioned by a source that was a patient of Dr. Isacu Silviu, a colonel in the Romanian army, with a bunch of data being collected at the time upon them. The Carol Davila hospital has been petitioned many times, almost every year; 2018, 2021, 2024, and from year to year they have changed their statement slightly as to the reasons for their refusal to hand over a copy of the medical records. On the flip side, perhaps as one of those Google Maps reviews, the Carol Davila is less flamboyant in their replies, such that the first time they were asked to hand over the data, they responded by stating that, citing "at the time of your internment, the Spitalul Universitar de urgenta Militar Central Dr. Carol Davila (SUUMC) did not benefit from an electronic database".

In principle, just like the statement from Obregia regarding video recordings, the statement from Carol Davila seems equally stupid, and even trivially so, given that data collection is not necessarily contingent on "benefiting from an electronic database" and that paper-written notes or even Xerox copies of the data being collected is very much acceptable as the means to satisfy the G.D.P.R. There is no waiver within the European G.D.P.R. that states that if an institution does not benefit from an "electronic database", then the institution gets a waiver for having to satisfy the G.D.P.R. To make matters worse, the source claims that the hospital performed a full psychiatric and psychological profile, including noting down various tendencies and recalling seeing papers such a sliders from left to right where on each end of the slider some psychological notion was written, such as "X" vs. "Y" that would imply that records do indeed exist yet Carol Davila refuses to hand them over.

Col. Dr. (Colonel Doctor), although, more than likely by now it should be "General", Isacu Silviu, as per source witnessing, is an individual that was entirely bought-out by a company named Zyprexa. Sources say that Colonel Doctor Isacu Silviu's office looked like the full Kindeer-egg dinosaur collection, yet transposed in terms of the Zyprexa company. Mr. Silviu had, Zyprexa posters, Zyprexa ball-point pens, Zyprexa coffee mugs and even, the Zyprexa tie! Mr. Silviu used to bring in batches after batches of young teenagers at his cabinet at the Carol Davila military emergency hospital where he found new and novel ways (like a Soviet hero-scientist) in order to link each and every psychiatric or physiological affliction to pharmaceutics that were produced by his daddy-company, Zyprexa. For example, if a teenager came in with depression due to some disappointment in love, he would write the diagnostic as "depression with elements of schizophrenia" in order to be able to feed them pills for schizophrenia. Or, ADHD being treated as schizophrenia as well. You got it! It didn't matter! Even a dog bite would have been translated to "dog bite with suspicion of schizophrenia". As per witness recounting, Mr. Isacu used to call these teenagers "geniuses", so perhaps he knew something more along the lines of their presence there not being entirely organic. One source, for example, claims that while they were interned at the military hospital, they were approached by the military with the intent to recruit them, which falls very much within the modus operandi of the former communist system that used to pray on "good students" in order to entrap and ensnare them into governmental structures. Given all the other discoveries, it sounds more like the former, rather than his astroturfing on TV on general topics such as "fear". Mr. Isacu made bank on batches after batches of people by feeding them Zyprexa-Olanzapine pills, even if the reasons for the patients to be there were loosely varied. Upon further query, the justification would have been that, well, it is not really schizophrenia, but the medicine works just as well. Mr. Silviu left in the meanwhile the military hospital, even opened up his own cabinet and went full time, sent his children to the United States, showed up on TV a few times giving wise talks, and more than likely is now a military General. To clarify, the Romanian army is so-structured that you progress in rank depending on the number of years that you spend within the army and your ever-increasing rank is not contingent upon your participation in any active duty or any results that you might garner as part of your employment within the army. It is entirely possible for you to be an "active General" (not reserves) but be completely devoid of anything "military" given that your activity has been like, a researcher yet on the payroll of the Romanian army. Incidentally, this is also the reason why there is so much interest in Romania about employment with the military, because it is observable that you do not actually have to actively fight, but can linger around moving boxes around whilst having guaranteed wages and a "special" retirement fund; with NATO around, you also have more-or-less a guarantee that you will certainly not be the one to draw the shortest straw to be sent right to the front lines, in the extremely unlikely event of a war. As recent history currently confirms, even at the slightest buckling of the boat, given Russia vs. Ukraine, Romanian "governance" is immediately talking about reinstating military recruitment because it is highly unlikely that potato-Generals would now just have to go fight on the front lines, in spite of having amassed a fortune while being on military and NATO payroll, and also in spite of the fact that the switch to a professional army was a guarantee-into-the-future of NATO that given the attitudes is just hot air. Like everything Romanian, as expected, a con and a swindle.

On consecutive years, the Carol Davila hospital changed their statement, now simply claiming that they did not find any data which seems to contradict their previous statement.

Otherwise, there are other, similar individuals, even of a newer breed, for example, Romulus Hagiu. Sources recount how this person kept telling them that they can be, well, essentially abused, even if they do not consent. Mr. Hagiu seemed very upset every time he suggested that the source undertake some medical examination or procedure yet the source refused, to the point of loosing his nerve in his office and hitting his desk. "It was almost embarrassing", the source recollects, "even though the embarrassment was on his behalf because we were surrounded by other people and a lot of women, and this guy kept loosing his nerve and screaming how he can force them.". In other details, Mr. Hagiu extended a bunch of intrusive questions on whether the source frequented bordellos, right in front of his "students", which brings us back to "medical trials". You see, the source never consented to any medical trial, nor to be some sort of dummy for training students, nor to much else as mentioned above and as the story goes, such that even notions of "patient-doctor" confidentiality aside, there could have been no legal framework for Mr. Hagiu to ask these questions and/or use students for training. Students aside, you could see more of the same … collection of individuals in Ms. Trifu's arsenal, essentially, young ladies that would have had absolutely no scruples when facing interned patients. Maybe, who knows, it follows the sense of entitlement pandemic as described by "www.editiespecialapress.ro", where their privilege is so great that, well, they end up physically abusing patients in their later age, with everyone wondering how we all got here. It is tough to not recall Mr. Hitchens talking about North Korea, and somehow how being abusive just seemed to lack that little edge, which in this case means the bolting-on of sexual issues, just to make the whole affair vivid and also pornographic. As Hitchens said, the situation is not bad enough but it also has to be exquisite. For context, the Obregia hospital messed up the analysis (well, it's Romania) twice, and apparently they mixed the samples together with others resulting in some STD markers showing up in the bloodworks. Ah, no, in case you've stopped reading because you think that is in itself a violation, then rest assured that medical examinations are compulsory, just like in communism. In any case, our … Romanian doctor Hagiu, completed his residentiary by using involuntary patients as his launching ramp, and then left Obregia to work for "Medical Class Two", a private company. The source recounts that the last time they heard about Mr. Hagiu was when the source blew the whistle on his abuses, at which point Mr. Hagiu characteristically lost his nerve and started phoning people up. In fact as it turned out, Mr. Hagiu found out via other means that the source drafted a complaint to the E.C.H.R., and started phoning people up, screaming "they sued me, they sued me, they sued me!" even though, as it is even mentioned in this document, the E.C.H.R. rejected the case. It might so happen that Mr. Hagiu got some distorted news, mainly because he would only be mentioned as per his statements that were retrieved from Obregia, and was definitely not sued in any way (as we said, this is Romania…). To be fair, he seemed quite the proverbial peacock when holding the source down, yet otherwise he panicked extremely quickly, like nobody else given that nobody else complained that much about an E.H.C.R. case being filed against them. Hmm. Because this is the "privacy" section, and because the complaints are still … about matters of legality, although, given these antecedents, "legalities" are very far from the issues described, but upon requesting the data, and after serious fights with Obregia, the hospital even sent a full list of names of the people being interned and how, along with the state of the "trial" taking place in the background thereby doxing a large number of people that can be looked up (the black caret hides the names of the "patients").

It is one of those instances where the general concern is that, well, mistakes can be made, but there is something very systematic about this, where these people seem like some sort of floaters where they only commute when they are sanctioned, otherwise the people involved, no matter how high they are stacked, seem to have no compass whatsoever. It's like, if the person that just doxed all these people would ever be asked, they'd go like "haha, oh damn!", which seems more like the generalized attitude. Then again, it seems highly unlikely, just like Mr. Silviu Isacu, the abuses did not affect his career in any way and quite on the contrary, he made bank on it and arranged himself pretty well. Very far from being held responsible or anything of the sort.

To clarify what the "trial" means, essentially every decision has a mini-trial behind it, in this case, the source stated that the "trial" was something more serious, however it should definitely be mentioned that there was absolutely no invitation, nor offer of representation, nor lawyer, Miranda laws being read out, no talk with the lawyer that was assigned "in absentia" such that the contents of the trial itself is just a word salad of terminology with not even the "reason" or accusation being spelled out on the papers. Briefly, the source laughingly reported that Mr. Hagiu "offered his phone" to the source and sort-of bemusedly let the source know that they can call whomever they like using his phone. Oof, we guess that needs clarifying as well; well, "interments" in these facilities are "incognito", where your belongings are confiscated entirely, and no opportunity is offered by the staff to either place any calls nor contact anyone else. In fact, in case you are brought there by family, then the staff promise the family that they are just temporarily taking their belongings away but they will give the belongings back. However, that never happens, and effectively the staff holds onto the belongings till the "patients" are externed. It should not be underestimated how investigative journalist even managed to get "footage" from these places, because even if they went undercover, everything is confiscated, such that "phones" within the ward are a big no-no (obviously, the assistants are self-aware that they care committing abuses, even though they justify confiscating phones, cameras or whatever else as some sort of safety measure; also, lots of theft). Sometimes, some VIP gangbanger is incarcerated, whom the staff are afraid to mess with, well, "more or less", such that they let them have their phones. Then again, and unfortunately, old school gangbangers are well accustomed with toilets bubbling up fesces, and there is definitely no trace of the European Commission nor the awesome fine silks Ms. Koskelo is wearing around there, such that they consider such things to be normal and would not record them.

Aside from the Romanian Integrated System, Romania also has been reticent to open up the dossiers of the former Romanian Securitate (C.N.S.A.S., a requirement upon which Romania's membership to the EU was contingent upon as per the Copenhagen accords), with one of the major reasons for refusal to grant people access to their own file being that they did not find any data. Interacting with the C.N.S.A.S. is almost algorithmic, even as enunciated by the many E.C.H.R. court cases:

• a petitioner requests access to their dossier,
• the C.N.S.A.S. states that there is no dossier available,
• depending on the outreach of the petitioner, the petitioner can make some political noise or take Romania to the E.C.H.R.,
• suddenly, the E.C.H.R. finds lots of dossiers

and with one source in a different investigation confirming this exact pattern.

Again, given country metrics in terms of corruption, the relentless obsession of Romanians to conduct summary espionage even in terms of "moral policing", the C.N.S.A.S., the Romanian "Integrated Informatics System", it sheds a lot of bad light and skepticism on the actual usage of this collected data, even if, in legal terms, it becomes clear that we are now very far away from any law or legitimate juridic decision. That being said, such actions generally speaking, completely expose Romania, and the more precisely the Romanian judicial system, as a fraud. And then again, one cannot help but think about the implication of foreign powers that were meant to investigate, prevent and sanction such issues without "the press", ultimately, private companies, having to bring to light facts for which others that are part of prestigious and highly paid positions such as within the European Parliament and/or employed by NGOs are obliged to do as part of their normal work contract. To that end, here is a response from Olivier Micol, signing as the head of the Directorate-General Justice and Consumers, Fundamental rights and Rule of Law and of unit "Data Protection", that flat out refuses to investigate a G.D.P.R. case that involves data export from the European Community to the United States. In context, the refusal somewhat exposes "global governance" in the sense that the complaint filed with the European Community falls on the same line of reasoning where a huge scandal broke out revolving around Edward Snowden that exposed US espionage in Europe. Back then, the event led to the European Community vainly erecting a bunch of websites and tidy drawings on how they're now going to make good and prevent such incidents from occurring. However, a simple query (in good tradition, with provided witnessing and proof, which is already excessive to request from a civilian) such that the one in the following document, is flat-our rejected by the head of the "Data Protection" unit, and with full awareness that a cross-continental export issue exists given that the individual cites the report.

Mr. Micol makes a case that the European Commission is "not competent" and then delegates all the responsibility to local authorities. In essence, the response just exposes the European Commission as a fraud with regards to the Snowden debacle, showing essentially that the European Commission does not really care and/or perhaps they did because the surveillance (and data export) pertained to surveilling the brass at the European Commission, but when that is applied to anything else, then they are declaratively and officially "not competent". Mr. Micol, to our experience, is "even better" than Ms. Koskelo from the E.C.H.R. and regardless how flamboyant the reports are that he receives, the response is always some sort of denial, making one wonder why the European Commission even bothered to keep the shop open. As for underhand deals, we would not know if there is anything there, but needless to say that all these cases and the cringe situation did not get any better over the years, yet instead it has amplified and to the invariable detriment of the victims or claimants. Every single individual mentioned on this page, is doing very well for themselves, and irrespective of how graphic and/or corrupt their behavior has been, none of them have either been hold accountable or responsible (well, of course, hither and thither by journalists such as Dragoș Pătraru that have been chased around Romania and booted out of every single journalist positions due to their unbiased criticism of everyone). Overall, Mr. Micol and the the EU, in general, have begotten a strange taint as criminals or facilitators of crime, exposing and/or putting people in danger when it would have been easy and convenient to enact change. As much as Romanians manifest slavish behaviors, Romanians also typically give up when the funds are cut, just like every other person such that changing things would have just been a matter of not paying out taxpayer money to institutions that are provably useless and corrupt. Surely, it is the case that the average, say Spanish individual would be happy to pay to help people in need, but they would not condone anything of what the press discovered in Romanian hospitals, such that Mr. Micol's job is more of a gatekeeper, just as "www.editiespecialapress.ro" claims that Ms. Kosekelo is for arbitrarily rejecting or accepting cases.

Even calling Mr. Micol's bluff, and attempting to take the issue to the Romanian data-protection agency, is mostly a dead-end, given that the Romanain data-protection agency (officially, brace yourself for this awesome title, "Autoritatea Nationala de Supravbeghere a Prelucrarii Datelor cu Caracter Personal" A.N.S.P.D.C.P., that is "The National Authority for the Supervision of the Processing of Data with Personal Aspect").

The A.N.S.P.D.C.P. is even worse than the police, these guys always respond with a full treaty translated 1-to-1 from the European pages, on the various G.D.P.R. articles as a side-order of fries. In the response provided above, the green caret surrounds the pragmatic answer (well, to some degree, because, as discussed later, it is not an answer) to the complaint whilst the red carets surround fluff that is demonstrably useless to someone complaining because they could only complain to the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. iff. they already know that they have these rights. Quite trivially, in this example, a complaint was extended to the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. due to some cameras being placed within a building, with the building administration and complicit with the Romanian police, refusing to give due course to a G.D.P.R. request. As for the response itself (the one marked in the green caret), it is a purely deflectionary statement, with minutia and triviality where they state that stuff as dumb as "installing a video surveillance system might be necessary in case there is a legitimate interest of the association of tenants" (trivially true), "the decision to install such a system must be adopted by the general assembly of tenants", and yet, that does neither answers nor contradicts a G.D.P.R. request in any way. The A.N.S.P.D.C.P. was not asked to take down the cameras, or why the cameras are there, or questions upon the "general management of tenants", or to explain the articles of the G.D.P.R., or anything of the sort, but the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. was handed a complaint stating that the building administrators / association of tenants along with the Romanian police refuse to give due course to a boilerplate (almost template request, in the sense that there were no improvisations) of the G.D.P.R. If these individuals were ever school pupils or students, and if this were a test, they would flunk the test, not because they do not know their jobs, but simply because they did not even refer to the question / complaint being extended to them. Unfortunately, between Micol and these guys, a bureaucratic circle is established where Mr. Micol sends you to the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. and the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. … talks aside the point and with no action being performed (sources claim, that the G.D.P.R. still has not been answered and that the data collection is carrying on). Lastly, aside from Mr. Micol, the response from the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. is so weak and scared, tip-toeing around the subject, talking aside the topic, ending with trivialities such as, citing "the petitioner can sue the responsible parties", that outright make the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. obsolete - you can very much sue the building association yourself without having to go through the A.N.S.P.D.C.P. and even though the police (!) so, in that case, what usefulness is there in contacting these individuals? Half of the response is … borderline plagiarism, copy and pasted from the law and side the point, the other half explains how people can sue each other, and only a small corner only touches the subject but then deflects with generalities.

Then again, our friend Olivier Micol is not far off the same track and he conveniently suggests allows one of these sources to proceed with suing the, well, Romanian military!

Surely, picking some tricks up from our Romanian colleagues, ah, Tovarashi? The thing is that even if "at the outset" Mr. Micol does not provide legal advice and in individual cases, they have not provided any "legal advice" here either. This represents the same mistake, privileged thought or whatever else it may be, where these people, as highly stacked as they are, do not realize that the right to sue neither requires their consent, nor does taking people to court need or warrant the European Community, let alone justify a bunch of institutions tasked with "data privacy" that do not seem to do much except copy and paste laws to people that contact them (people that more than likely know the law in the first place, otherwise why would they contact "a data protection agency", to order some fries?). A tiny nitpick, of course, as the source confirms, the "right to erasure" was just one of the points being requested from the Carol Davila hospital, amongst all others, such that Mr. Micol more than likely did not bother to read the request. The source confirms that under advice, they just ask all the rights conferred to them by the G.D.P.R. without really picking apart one or the other, and, of course, under their cynical assumption that Romanian institutions will refuse and that international institutions will not care. Lastly, taking over from the source, and adding our own cents to the pot, something that seems consistently disgraceful about Ms. Koskelo, Mr. Micol and the rest of these people that to our impression seem more like gimmies, is that one can only wonder if they realize that someone managed to reach them, given that a population such as the Romanian population is not traditionally (even) an English-speaking population. Whilst Ms. Koskelo fills half a page with an ultra-defensive form of expression yet at the same time, self-aggrandizing, Mr. Micol "allows people" to sue, which is rather fascinating when you put in context the fact that none of these individuals, some of them being murdered (as per witnesses and with clear descriptions) in these hospitals, would barely satisfy the first requirement of being able to speak an international language to reach them, let alone take the time and fill in their… gracious forms and listen to their senseless prattle. We remember seeing a picture with European Commission figures with yellow crowns on their heads, admittedly, some poster on federalization of the EU - it seemed fake but we're still trying to locate it again, because it depicts the state of affairs, oh so very nicely.

In one recounting, whilst the press brought to light the abuse of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Romanian population met the news with some sort of skepticism, given that such atrocious deeds could not have been an overnight development, the judgement being along the lines of ethics not being able to be taught after some age, and that the abuse of patients having to be systemic, or, in case of places such as Obregia, institutionalized, instead of the actions of some proverbial bad apples. Surely, if it sounds as bad as it is, then it clearly is something that has always been this way, and how come nobody … noticed? Fortunately, Obregia is infamous for its bad treatment, being known as the former communist Hospital 9, that is well-documented to be a political prison such that it stands to reason that well, old habits die hard; however, the abuse of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic took place also in other hospitals without the political profile of the Obregia hospital which makes such events, at the very least, a property of the Romanian medical system, rather than a few statistical points that fall off the trendline of "those prestigious Romanian doctors" that Romanians otherwise love to show off with.

One of the sources that was brought to Obregia and talked to us, mentioned that they were brought to a psychologist that asked them about their former girlfriend, with terse details being given by the psychologist. The source states that it was a funny meeting because the details that were mentioned were never uttered by the source, at all. The source mentioned that they asked the psychologist how they know all that about them and their girlfriend, and the psychologist stated that, "oh well, we collaborate with the police sometimes", thereby highlighting the total blend of services within Romania that flies in the face of the separation of powers in the state. In other words, one extra complication of exercising free-speech, or bringing facts to light consisting even in very terse abuses instead of dire happenings, is that either due to the inability of the Romanian population to compartmentalize or maybe due to the deliberate desire to conduct espionage, blackmail and government-high racketing, one might find themselves in the situation where one could have doctors… "taking revenge" instead of performing their duties (with one notable case in history of one Romanian doctor with some, quite literal, penis envy and a botched operation). Whether due to excessive or blanket-respect granted to doctors, a lot of that just being just-granted due to cultural tropes, with the state backing itself up and the doctors with many hospitals being owned and operated by the state, many people end up in very tough situations regarding medical issues where it is dubious what degree of quality they actually benefit from. Another Recorder investigation reveals that many hospitals are being led, in fact, by non-medical staff, such as various political figures or friends of political figures that are being offered the leadership of such institutions as a trophy of being elected. Some of these individuals, that otherwise speak about themselves as "hospital managers" do not have any sort of education at all, lest medical, such that the responses that one could receive from them in a serious case would be useless.

For instance, Mr. Andrian Ţîbîrnă whom the press describes to be very rich and politically connected, having plagiarized their own mandate from the previous person occupying the job, as well as a described as a medic that has never been official employed and has not had any leadership experience as reported by Mr. Tolontan, an investigative journalist. It is important to understand that the accent being placed on "wealth" in the particular case of Romania, is more meaningful than "wealth" being discussed generally due to Romania officially and technically being a communist country where the wealth was therefore distributed out equally between individuals and any aberration therefrom, would pedantically be justified via Occam's razor as the wealth being obtained through fraudulent means (of course, this rules out incidents such as "winning the lottery", yet overall such cases would be few to be a consistent statistical bump).

Incidentally, one of the larger newspapers, namely "libertatea.ro" that describes Obregia as a "horror asylum", pictures Mr. Tirbina next to the current minister of health, Mr. Alexandru Rafila, a person that has very adamantly defended medics and medicine in Romania by sneering at the press when questioned about the (literal) execution of a patient by two Romanian medics (and with a dash of religious nuance, ie: the medics talked amongst themselves about "sending the patients to God's will"). With that being said, there are no particular qualms against Mr. Rafila, that is probably trying to just deescalate and the message coming across poorly due to his attempts hinging on the proverbial "how dare you […] accuse the medics", such that his intentions might be pure. However, regardless of that, the question is whether "deescalation" is what should happen, as a thought for those that actually care about Romania, in general and given that any "deescalation" would only work in favor of the perpetrators, but not to the benefit of the public. Quelling dissent, censorship and repressive measures only slide the problems under the rug, where they end up festering and reeking over time.

Compared to other countries, the age pyramid is heftily skewered in Romania towards elderly people, and due to cultural tropes, medicine is granted a high priority and blanket approval by the population in general, such that the pharmaceutical and medical scene is heftily overdone in Romania. People do not even realize but most cities are littered with 3 pharmacies per street and even ingesting TV advertisements the ratio is about 3 adverts for pharmaceutical products to advertisements on any other topic. The scene is more pronounced in other states, such as the United States, but rather in terms of intensity and money, but in Romania it seems like 80 of the street light being generated in cities and towns, is the light being emitted from cornerstore pharmacies. This is an event that compliments ghetto manifestations such as a food oasis, with the emphasis being placed on pampering the older population at the cost of the new, with large subsidies being handed out and frequently to no avail due to political reasons that make people like Mr. Issacu, Ms. Trifu or Ms. Petcu intangible.

Clinical trials are frequently even accepted by younger people that are in financial precarious situations, which is difficult to stomach on an ethical level, yet hospitals like Carol Davila or Obregia take the abuses to the next level where experimentation is carried out deliberately on patients that could not possibly consent to taking part. Admittedly, one would say that it just so happened that clinical trials happened to take place in hospitals with a psychiatric profile, just like in any other hospital, yet the income source of individuals such as the one for Ms. Petcu or Ms. Trifu clearly indicate that they double their wages just from clinical trials or private firms.

Ms. Trifu in particular, as per the recounting of a source that requested the G.D.P.R. broke down and totally lost it, staring to scream at the top of her lungs, and only then to settle down and state that "an arrangement should be made, such that you do not tell people about what goes on in here". This was said within her office at Obregia, full of dolls of various sizes, and with the witnessing of about a dozen young women that were admittedly her students. None of these students, as an array for about a few dozen young women, have never raised any hell for the mistreatment of the patients, all of them advertising themselves as experts, not one of them complaining about how patients are treated and all of them having the gall to consider themselves so elated from "the wretches" that shaking their cleavage in Ms. Trifu's office is about as far as they would go. Many of these students would follow people such as Ms. Trifu around, watch as patients are beaten by bodyguards, administered pills forcefully or otherwise abused but without any shimmer of protest nor regret. It is, highly disappointing. To follow the context, psychology is almost an "emergent domain" in Romania, like never before, with the highest number of students applying to the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Bucharest, almost rivaling IT, and given how rumors travel in Romania, for sure the interest is not along the lines of genuine interest in the domain of psychology.

Unfortunately, watching a YouTube video of Ms. Trifu reads like comedy. Watching the video sends you into the world of East European fraudsters, Bulgarian cryptocoin scammers, the lunatics obsessed with the self, francmasons, unironically glorified astroturfing even better than than on the Joe Rogan podcast (energy levels, self-regulating body systems, transcendentalism and other paraphernalia), mentions of Zen Buddhism, para KGB-agents and "remote viewing", parapsychology where chakras are connected to Freud, all of which is related with a tone of voice akin to the freakish Romanian schoolgirls that praised communist party members during communism when they were taken out to sing, dance and recite poems. Needless to say that the video makes adhering to "do not judge a book by its cover" extremely difficult, especially when the content seems to match the cover as well. It sounds by all cheques and balances, like a cult. As for the stringing of titles, one outranking the other, such as the title "Conf." preceding "Dr." being, on the sane side of academia, overkill, given that pedantically you cannot get to be a confereniary (an academic title, mostly pertaining to the French-side of academia and mostly outdated in other parts where it is equivalent to something between senior lecturer or lecturer) without holding a doctorate first, is just a little detail that can be overlooked given the rest of picturesque details. It is tough to criticize people such as Matei Georgescu (we surrendered and gave up on reading at "Acharya Guru Karma Tanpai Gyaltshen Rinpoche") or even Ms. Trifu, in terms of speech, however it is entirely palatable to do so when their own "freedoms" and "onions" infringe upon the freedoms, or are financed by the suffering of the people, in hospitals such as the Obregia and/or Carol Davila hospital. To add our own astrotufing, the phrase "live and let live" implies that you should also, additionally, not infringe on the rights of others, at which point "the call to peace" of these individuals seems to dull out. Or, more to the point, it is uncertain whether these individuals are to be the sole "guarranteurs" that the patients brought to them are, in fact, mentally impaired when faced with such word salads as displayed in the videos (ie: the blend of religion, with psychiatry, with Tantric gurus, etc). Of course, such a suave interview of Ms. Trifu offered by Mr. Georgescu, could simply not associate the elated music with Ms. Trifu's "other affairs", where she is found to swindle money via her own company, as reported by the Adevărul newspaper mentioned previously. Ironically, these are the people that talk about "schizophrenia".

More importantly, these people issue medical orders obliging people to ingest medicine, also with the cooperation of the Romanian police that always finds it convenient and a means to an end to jail people in case they do not take the medicine, making it thusly compulsive. Here is one police report, with censored locality that is irrelevant (could by any other number) where the police insists that the source has medical issues and even goes as far as look for witnesses that, in turn, state that the source is not taking their medicine, thereby attesting to the blend between the police and the medical branch of state-medicine. The document is legal and verifiable and on the top right, you can observe the signature of Ms. Trifu as well as her stamp.

This statement by the police is tough to digest, seeming extremely sketchy and anti-reason but here are some ideas to consider:

• Lots of sentences are not finished, right from the start, "din cadrul DGJMB Batalionul", which is the gendearmerie, yet fails to state which of the battalions they refer to. Or at the end, "in vederea unui consult de specialitate, unde DR …? a decis …?", translating "in view of a consult by a specialist, where DR …? has decided that …?" with literal blanks being left there in the final version of the document attached to the dossier.
• In the event that the case is litigious, the additional smear that the source is also mentally ill is not necessary because the police already have a case. However, admittedly, the smear is used to place the source under arrest without an arrest warrant which would take much more time, with the police having to pass through the judicial branch of the government in order to request an arrest warrant. Thus, the Romanian police is able to bypass the law, and is able to detain people, admittedly with the cooperation of medics and doctors that would just sign the papers.
• The main elephant in the room is the fact that the police use testimony from an individual named Georgescu Anny-Marie (to be contextualized a little later), that states, citing "[Ms. Georgescu Anny-Marie] the neighbor of the person being reported, that has declared verbally the fact that this person is known to have psychic issues and that they are not following the medical treatment". The most glaring issue is that this individual, namely Ms. Georgescu Anny-Marie, is just a neighbor and in the eyes of the law, this person is just a peer that does not even represent family, well-known friends, or otherwise. Even in a … physical sense, how does this neighbor, Ms. Georgescu Anny-Marie, peek or peer into the house of the person being accused, to be able to state under oath (which is that a police statement translates to in Romania) that the person being accused is not following treatment? Lest, let it be known that Ms. Georgescu is well-known to have been an informer of the Romanian police during communism, and an informant of the communist Romanian party. Incidentally, to follow the pattern, Ms. Georgescu is also known by people that know her, to have stolen items from their homes, as well as being lately caught for shoplifting, to a degree where she ended up being fired from all places where she worked as a house maid.

Otherwise, by the recounting of the source, the event was similar to events described in the far East, Russia, with the police essentially barging into people's houses and arresting them on various grounds. Psychology seems a good and subjective-enough domain that is easily used as a tool by the police to jail people without due process following political psychiatry. Again, one can only be reminded that very scarily these events do not take place in Russia, but rather that in 2023 when this police report is written, in Romania that is a country that has been within the European Union for more than three decades such that these incidents just cannot be isolated and should have been stomped out by the people responsible for such matters. Albeit, it is mostly Romanian education, from an early age, that people are dissuaded to talk or cooperate with state institutions, it is still extremely misleading for the European Community to state that Romania now has the rule of law when all of the former does not conform even to local law, let alone international law or ironically, the regulations suggested by the European Community. In other words, Romanians generally-speaking, can take care of themselves, being made aware and warned during the early formative years about, say, the police, yet the main question is whether an individual such as, say, picking randomly, Ursula von der Leyen would be to venture beyond her cushy chair and travel to Romania, party, get drunk and end up in a similar situation, would she still maintain that Romania has the rule of law from behind a week of solitary confinement, just like that? We do not think so. In that sense, statements, in particular official and formal ones, that range from misguided to false, grants a false sense of security to people that believe somehow that Romania is some sort of rehabilitated former communist country that has embraced the rule of law and maybe ending locked up within one of these "facilities" to never see the light again (a new Belize, if you will).

Otherwise, the police report itself is a double-whammy and violation of privacy, given the medical details that are flaunted around, even to neighbors and not even members of family. However, a lot of these ex-communist gangbangers generally pitch going to a psychiatrist to people and parents, by justifying that it is preferably to jail, and in several source recounting, on the shallow and loose promise that "nobody will find out" and with additional guarantees that these papers will not see the light of day. In other words, a state-wide groom that is provably false given that before the G.D.P.R. one of the batch of documents we received were the result of bribing the person responsible with the archives at the Romanian "Palace of Justice" - the reasoning is that, iff. we, with our modest means, were able to retrieve these documents, how about other people, say Mr. Tirbina mentioned previously that owns a Lexus and a Porsche. Surely, bribe values can scale with results. Following the canon, Romanian law is deliberately shabby with this "psychological" scheme acting as a backdoor, with also an additional effect that being interned at one of these hospitals and with the grace of people like Ms. Trifu, guarantees that any of their statements conveniently cannot be taken seriously, even in legal terms, due to mental illnesses such as schizophrenia that conveniently describe patients as having hallucinations and/or delusions. In other words, such people would not be able to talk under oath in court. As a fun fact, as per the Romanian constitution, individuals with mental illnesses are not even allowed to vote, as per article 28, point 2, citing "2) Nu au drept de vot debilii sau alienaţii mintal, puşi sub interdicţie, şi nici persoanele condamnate, prin hotărâre judecătorească definitivă, la pierderea drepturilor electorale" even though, given the way the phrase is skated into existence, it is everyone's best guess what exactly "debil mintal" means,or what "alienati mintal" means, and whether these two have to additionally be placed under interdiction (and if so, then wouldn't calling them out as "debil" or "alienat" be redundant, only exuding ableism) as the sentence continues "pusi sub interdictie".

Even so, the number of mentally impaired people, if that is what they mean, is still so statistically small that one can only guess whether this is just some ableist statement in a fascist sense, a slavish endeavor where the poor and the meek are just detested for their condition, or whether this clause truly provides some protection to the state. Most of the Romanian constitution is just that feeble, written by a person that seems afraid to express what they want to express, afraid to write down what they mean, with little gotchas, bingos and littered with backdoors, oscillating from showing off the greatness of Romania, to "perhaps we should not say this in case they come after us". For example, the Romanian constitution beats the tambourine how "forced labor is strictly forbidden" (!!!!!!) but then adds a counter-clause, you know, that moment when "except…" announces the sound of the other shoe. Just like the case of voting for people with mental disabilities, you can make the clause pan both ways, and you can see the conversation now: "Tavarish, mentally disabled people cannot vote, it says right there!" and then with the counter-point being made "But yes tavarish, but only if they are also additionally "prohibited", see, there is a comma here, indicating an addition of conditions!". It just shows that these laws were written by oligarchs, or copied from somewhere, and then heftily backdoored in order to allow them to swing the law either way they like. It grants little credibility to Romanian justice, if any, if your need to rig everything up anorganically is just that dire and it makes Romania look more like a criminal cult than a state.

Whilst in other places the talk is all about "big pharma", in Romania this is pharma for morons or, thug-medicine, with the same criteria not really applying and certainly not to this level most of which is just a page ripped out of the manual of Soviet subversion measures. It is also the case that places such as Obregia are used as "makeshift detention centres" where people with varied backgrounds are held. For example, during large scale protests in Romania, many people were "detained" at the Obregia hospital, along with, say, people that are non-functional and definitely need support thereby coalescing political protestors, with patients with medical illnesses, criminals of various sorts that were brought in beaten by the Romanian gendearmerie and held till they heal up so they cannot make claims, as well as patients that have nothing to do with psychiatry and are lumped in with the rest even if they are just cancer patients and need a whole different treatment. If a fight over a cigarette between a cancer patient and kleptomaniac tickles your pickle, the Obregia hospital is the place to go!

The sustaining propaganda employed by Romania typically plays out various derivations of "we are a poor and developing country", thereby downplaying the facts that take place within these Romanian hospitals and blaming the facts on the lack of funds, irrespective of the fact that, as mentioned, the medics working for these places are very much in the upper-to-very high salary lane compared to other Romanians, and irrespective of the fact that Romania constantly and consistently receives "development funds" from the European Community without the need to tersely justify how these funds have been used. This creates a competitive situation where the Romanian governance, the Romanian police, the Romanian services and more or less anything that is able to reach these money sources, not finding a problem with wiping out the population, in particular the middle class, given that their own sources of income are not contingent upon the actual development of the country. In other words, instead of constantly having to invest in the economy in order to hopefully grow businesses, it becomes more attractive to just loiter around, act busy and just normalize everything until the next fat slab of funding is received from the European Community.

Even though laws exist, EU regulations exist and international agreements, do, in fact, exist, the Romanian governance relies on people effectively not asking for their rights. Maybe, it just is the case that the diagnostic laid out by www.editiespecialapress.ro that the governance, due to the ignorance of international entities, have their sense of entitlement raised to the level of Gods. However, for all practical purposes, Romanians adopt and write laws but do not expect people to actually request their rights.

It is like a country-wide bluff, where "sure, you are entitled to your rights" but also, "if you do request your rights, we'll bring the boys round your house to honk day and night and we'll gaslight you with the police" which would be the "unwritten" text. On the surface though, the police will just refuse (they are actually legally entitled to refuse to enforce as they please, for some reason). The following is a response from the Romanian police to a source that petitioned the Romanian police offer the evidence based on which the source themselves was detained.

Translating, the Romanian police states that the video recordings that have constituted the basis of incarceration of the source asking for the evidence cannot be shared due to … the European G.D.P.R. which is complete nonsense given that the European G.D.P.R. would even more-so grant the source access to recordings of their own self. This is like a case of recursive stupidity with outer and then more and more inner circles of complete moronicity. Perhaps the response from the police was meant to be "snarky" in the sense that the source "dared to mention the G.D.P.R.", such that the police is now going like "Ha! Have a taste of your own medicine! We can't release them due to data protection! Have at you!". Although the former sounds humorous, the attitude is actually an embedded attitude in Romanian governance, and interestingly, the first time we heard a mention of this attitude was from Dragoș Pătraru, a journalist that has made the grand tour of all Romanian news outlets while being perpetually fired due to his humorous attacks on Romanian governance. The attitude pertains to the Romanian "authorities", this includes the many redundant "secret services", and the many "police branches" and "gendearmerie" that effectively approach justice and the law like some sort of "cops & robbers" game where the proverbial ends definitely justify the means. To exemplify, a Romanian governor would not see a problem with collecting evidence illicitly, perhaps through espionage, and then (ironically for those that do know justice) use the illicitly collected evidence to prosecute the individual that was spied upon. It is essentially like an over-amplification of "sting operations", where not only would a weapon be "conveniently made available", but the police would go the full mile to also kill themselves just for proving that the individual is violent (police performing "insurance fraud" has been spotted in Asian countries where it is in some places the norm). Similarly, and as it follows from the above, Romania is not a country that is a believer in the Magna Carta, such that "habeas corpus" is not sustained in any way, the police response above being exactly the rejection of a "habeas corpus" request.

Of course, officially, the police will just say that they "won't do", and good luck going after the police. Affairs in Romania are to this date "settled" through arrangements such that calling a lawyer has more or less the legal effect of calling up a priest, the former even being perhaps interchangeable in terms of practical outcomes and the final resolution of the problem. The lawyer will call up the precinct and then smooth-talk the police in order to reach an … "agreement". Romanian "agreement justice" is almost on par with the Islamic-Sharia law in terms of Lex Talionis where the victim decides the appropriate measures of retribution instead of an impartial court of justice with an impartial jury. Interestingly, due to an extremely wide net of criminality being laid out where all the individuals involved, including the police, the lawyer and both parties have legal antecedents, nobody actually wants to… digress and not reach an "agreement" because doing so would end up with a scandal of phenomenal proportions, long term effects and collateral of "féerique" proportions. You have to realize that whilst we were talking about, state institutions because they at least benefit from some bureaucracy that can at least allow us to reason about replies and responses, Romania is not entirely devoid of organized crime, such that interests in such situations would be distributed around very neatly for a powerful concoction. Ultimately, Mr. Andrew Tate traded a bunch of cars for his freedom, which is a great deal for him, and the police that were kvetching about "the poor vicitms" are, well, not kvetching anymore such that iff. the police and/or Romanian justice claims were, in fact, real, then all of Tate's victims just got the shaft or gotten sold-out in exchange for a Ferrari, which definitely rules out any sort of implied "moral qualms" on behalf of Romanian governance. To paraphrase Ceausescu when he said "you sold us out for a handful of money", "you sold the victims out for a few race cars"! Obviously, such attitudes put "doing business" in Romania into perspective and as fairly recent history shows, Romanians overall did not have a terribly good experience with foreign companies; in our opinion, because the mentality is different and generally speaking, Romanians expect to loiter around and be paid by the government (a "Narodny-Oligarch" dynamic, as per Mr. Kari, that applies fairly well to Romania).

It is very important to also realize that most of these investigations took place in a risky yet somewhat privileged environment given that the criticism was extended to hospitals operating in broad daylight and in the capital, Bucharest. However, someone that is a true detective would definitely want to look into the rural environment, with our educated guesses that more than likely Romanian harbors stuff like death-camps or unmarked extermination facilities. Remarkably, the press has made a few mentions in the past about various religious sects setting camp up in rural Romania, one of these camps being some German "work-camp" with children being sent there for some sort of "re-education". The judgment is made by realizing the "courage" of the individuals involved, in spite of them clearly violating the laws in effect, some of them being part of the state, others being part of the Romanian police, or others connected to the EU and then extrapolating that in distant parts of rural Romania, this "courage" would be amplified due to the difficulties of enforcing the law that far out, such that the gore and deeds should be more pronounced and amplified as well.

Perhaps one of the omissions made by the U.S. State Department in their yearly country report on human rights practices cited in the literature section and in particular with relation to the statement that "There were no reports of suspects detained incommunicado." is that these detention facilities acting as psychiatric hospitals have been functioning during and since communism very much on an "incommunicado" principle by default. This is a well-known fact that is even highlighted by the press at large, and not just one or two isolated incidents. For example, vice.com writes a story that is easy to corroborate of a woman that ended up in a psychiatric hospital and with no means to contact the outside world given that all her belongings were confiscated.

The text spells out a conversation between the patient at the interment commision that consists of two individuals and some external specialist, that translates to: "This commission was some sort of Godot, because I waited for the commission every day, and the dialog between us was akin to the absurd: [Staff] Without a commission you cannot get out. [Witness] Ok, but I want to let my folks know, may I place a phone call? [Staff] You are not allowed with objects, you are not allowed to call anyone. We will call. [Witness] You will read in the stars the [phone] number of my mother? [Staff] No, because you'll give it to us, and we will call at some point. [Witness] Ms., that is not possible, let me talk on the phone now."

Bear in mind that by bypassing the law, the standard procedure do not apply, such that people brought to these facilities are not read any Miranda rights, they are not allowed any sort of representation and the whole spectacle is organized in a "might makes right" fashion where your only option would be to plant Claymores in your garden to prevent the police from just yanking you away without any warrant. Since we previously mentioned the distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" as well as the fraud machine behind the scheme, it is worth stating that if you do end up detained "involuntarily" for whatever reason, then a sort of kangaroo trial is organized in the background, that is purely procedural and the person being interned has no saying in it at all because all of the trial is just automatic. Essentially, when it is official that you are interned "involuntarily", the case becomes a legal case and triggers an investigation, an investigation that is carried out by the very same people that detain you within the hospital, such that your release is pending and contingent upon the decision of the commission that acts as some selection of expertise for the court and the trial that goes on in the background. After a while, if the commission agrees, the lawyer in the background, that you never get to talk to or interact with in any way regardless, makes a suggestion that the preconditions for your "involuntary" interment does not exist anymore such that it is recommended for you to be released. Interestingly, it is for this reason that most old school gangbangers during communism even state openly that these places are worse than Romanian prisons with one professional pickpocket talking, for example, very fondly of some of the prisons he's been to and how even the guards were very amiable with the inmates, either offering them cigarettes or food which went well beyond their duty. In short terms, these detention facilities are all centered around shadow trials with little to no accountability, and, as you can observe, if one were to attempt and retrieve the records one would find a lot of resistance.

Come to think of it, maybe "human rights violations" is a little too mild or polite and perhaps it might just be the case that the people responsible for these facilities to be actually trialed for "crimes against humanity" instead, with the reasoning being that human rights typically refer to individual violations, whereas ll of this has been happening in bulk for a lengthy period of time.

Even though a conclusion, it stands to reason that the Romanian systemic and systematic abuses of the law do not set a stable environment for any sort of business to flourish. Trivially, if the police makes underhand deals with neighbors to act against a certain individual, and irrespective whether the statements are as cretinous as the example provided in the previous section given their monopoly of violence, what could a private employer do in case one of their employees is simply "abducted" by the Romanian police. It is true that the staff at such hospitals can provide a paper attesting to the interment of an individual, but even with legal justification, it is untenable for an employer to literally have to pay the employment of an individual that is illegally detained for up to six months, for whatever reason. It is even questionable, say, if the employer would seek to "fire" the person abducted by the police, whether the employer can do so without the Romanian government forcing the employer to still keep them employed in spite of an absence of up to six months. Clearly, a conundrum that more than likely can only be solved by breaking either this or that law, yet with some careful analysis, easy to determine whose fault it was and to what extent.

Such cases give a lot of merit to international agreements such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) or its US counterpart where an agreement is signed with failed states such as the Romanian state, that in the event of any toomfoolery or chimping, the Romanian state is obliged to pay the company money to cover the losses. Of course, by consequences, such agreements were met with a lot of propagandized hate from states like Romania, that know very well that they will end up overstepping the law, abusing power and generally speaking, attacking the population whilst the population is also involved in various transactions (such as employment) with legal entities that exceed Romania's jurisdiction. Canonically, these companies just packing up and waving goodbye to Romania, is also known by the Romanians to be to their own determent, such that Romanian governance cannot really tell the businesses to just leave if they want "special favors". Even without any conspiracy, due the abuses of the law, Romania is like, to follow the mind of the Yogins like Ms. Trifu and associated, in a state of flux, with two Romanias existing and occupying the same space at the same time. One Romania is this neolitical entity that follows some notions of accountability and responsibility, performing business transactions, or following the trends of global politics and one other foundational Romania that is essentially the corpus major of the country that incidentally is lawless.

It is even questionable whether Romania's rating and risk factor is the one officially stated, given these cases that denote major instabilities of Romanian governance. Perhaps the rating is externally boosted, or rather lives on borrowed prestige, given that the largest export industry in Romania consists in illegal foresting to sell wood off to IKEA. Were Romania to be evaluated at face-value, the rating would more than likely realistically plummet down the charts. Even so, the Perceived Corruption Index places Romania below (as in, more corrupt) than states such as Kuwait that have seen serious conflicts, or Armenia, that is currently at war.

At some point Romania was close to China on the corruption scale, yet without being a superpower like China that is the backbone or the creator … of right about any object on the planet. It seems overall eerie that anyone would choose to voluntarily have business dealings with Romania, except for the sake of "high risk" or "borderline legal" activities that perhaps would find Romania as an adequate milieu. Having your employees abducted by the police, hospitals mistreating your employees or not covering them medically in spite of performing all the required steps, or listening all night to illegal car races where the police join-in with the people racing is clearly detrimental to any form of business. One could claim that all the above is tolerable, given that Romania would have had an good infrastructure, yet the infrastructure is so bad that Romania has been consistently unable to provide basic facilities such as hot water even to residents of the capital, with all system running on legacy and/or being passed around from political patron-to other political patron, very much like the leadership of Romanian hospitals or the leadership of institutions in general (for instance many police chiefs being just named into their positions without any sort of competition; maybe even worse as during communism, where for some reason the communists even allowed other parties to exist, organic or not, regardless of the fact that the Romanian communist party won every single election). More to the facts though, companies and corporations that have tried to be active in Romania typically had to bring along their own infrastructure, essentially having to demolish the old legacy systems and build on top; this consists in assets such as roads, pipelines and even traffic signs.

And then you have cases where the Romanian police pretend that they cannot speak English. All comments aside, English is still an European language, such that if one were to consider Romania as part of the EU, then at the very least the state would have the obligation to address claims in European languages.

For the record, and if need be, the reply from the police is false to some degree, because they mention "petitie […] redactata in alta limba" which translates to "petition […] formulated in a different language", however the petition itself was very much written in Romania, just that the proof submitted to back up the claims was mostly written in English. Just to be clear, the word "pretend" was used, because when the matters change from "matters affecting people" to "matters affecting the police itself" the situation changes and suddenly the police is very much able to speak English (that is a different case). That being said, rest assured that they do not "chuck the files away", but rather they will sit on them, perhaps even perform an investigation in the background, and then await the right opportunity to lash out at whatever is being reported. Given the blend of powers within the state, you could say that complaining to the police, is no more or less equivalent to collaborating with the "secret services" - given the number of employees, who knows, right about every single one of them might just be employed, so who is going to bother picking them apart.

All-in-all, Romania seems like bad business, with meager rewards and at a very high risk along with a hatred to match. Even though most diplomats have claimed that Romania is "catching up" or "making efforts", most of those evaluations are either deliberately misleading or not understanding the actual underlying problem. The underlying problem can be easily described via a communist joke where some individual is said to "help old ladies cross the street" with the turning point consisting in the addition "even if the old ladies not even want to cross the street", the former being a joke about communist moral police that made people go to extreme and ridiculous measures because their wages were contingent on "moral comport". However, for the purpose of the explanation, Romania figures to be the older lady in the joke; or, in other words, it seems that it is the case that the old lady might very well be able to cross the street, even on her own, and without help, it is just that the old lady does not want to cross the street. And, with what pertains to Romania, the unwillingness to cross the street representing the power and advantages that Romania gains by not conforming to the laws and regulations in effect. As mentioned, in case things go south, Romanians would typically blame poverty, claim their need for help and otherwise thwart off any responsibility or accountability by shifting blame to the effects of their own actions. Bear in mind that the very same people that are being mentioned now have a huge history behind them of similar transgressions and that these people have managed to still maintain their positions.

To that end, it would be difficult to convince the police and the judicial branch to give up this perfect little gadget (Apparatchik?) of being able to detain people in spite of lacking evidence, or witnesses or without due process. A Romanian governor would laugh at the proposal, and ask why, because there is absolutely no good reason to change the situation given that they have a perfect grip upon the populace with this gadget. Furthermore, due to political interests, Romania is legitimized by foreign powers such that even mentioning "political psychiatry", even though it has been thoroughly documented, or Russia has been accused many times thereof, makes someone sound like they are wired to the moon. Finally, it might even be the case that this apparatchik is being slowly "imported" by foreign powers at the dawn of repressive and authoritarian governments, such that Soviet tactics and East German Stasi measures are being made less and less visible, just like Romanian communist facilities deviling on torture and medical experimentation (ie: the Pitesti phenomenon) have not really been approached in a serious and systematic manner in order to hold people responsible. With the discovery that over the span of a few years, the Romanian "intelligence services" (one of the 35 of them) have been batch-recording phone conversations of over 300 000 people when even the NSA avidly insists that they just use metadata (ie: who called whom), to the point that they were complaining about running out of storage space, a bunch of Kompromat and Kompromat-like situations are created that are just waiting for some Romanian agent to be trigger them via blackmail. If you think that the situation is contained, unfortunately it is not, and with large-scale ambitions of "universally opening up borders", the very same oligarch that would be laughing about giving up on "political psychiatry" would laugh at you just the same, knowing that your own empathetic reasons are the ones that he, backed by a fraudulent country, will ultimately exploit as a weakness.

One interesting, and somewhat surprising in some cases, is that there is some degree of safety as a foreigner in Romania. The idea goes along the lines of "Der Untertan", a monumental book that describes the Romanian ethos perfectly, and with that knowledge and speaking loosely, Romanians tend to not attack foreigners for varied reasons such as their funding being contingent upon "foreign funds", as well as knowing fully well that they managed to shake off a very large trial to hold people responsible for communist crimes getting a very good deal, due to other shady deals that they make under the radar of the EU and NATO, and so on and so forth. In other words, Romanians are like the flip-flop switch of cowardice, they will attack their own, yet lower than them but they would not dare attack higher, even if it is their own. This is the same power-dynamic that allows stuff to happen like parents molesting their kids, but parents appearing very frail old and helpless when faced, if ever, with a police officer that would show up to drag them to jail due to having molested their kids. Obviously, the former never happens and is also the explanation for data being skewered in family disputes where violence against children is under-reported and, overall, one of the Romanian acceptable sins (just like ragging on the Roma, that represent Romania's "acceptable racism"). You also have to consider that Romania is more-or-less a monoculture (no foreign staff, at all) such that even watching a foreigner on TV being manhandled by the police, unless they are within the area such as Turkey or Arabic countries, even looks and sounds awkward, let alone appearing extremely suspicious ie: "Really? The Romanian police is sticking it to some dude whose parents were employed by the CIA? Hmm."

• Fighting Corruption with Con Tricks is a paper written by the Henry Jackson society that makes a case against overreaching and overzealous action on behalf of the Romanian governance (or, The Joker movie, but in real life). The paper loosely hooks into Romania's recent history, during the mandate of president Basescu that was known to have elevated prosecutors that then started to prosecute various corrupt individuals. What the paper does not mention (too much), is that given that Romania is perceived as a "poor" and "corrupt" country, perhaps even intentional as a Romanian tactic of self-deprecation for sympathies, any foreigner or international body that started hearing about "Romania's heroic attempts to curate corruption" would have been in awe and lauded Mr. Basescu and Ms. Kövesi's initiative. However, if one were to have gone beyond the curtains, the reality of the matter was that the "cleanup" was rather facetious and one-sided, with the people that got "cleaned up" being part of "the opposition", rather than a cleanup that would have, well, follow a balanced justice principle where everyone that is corrupt would have gotten the same sort of sentence. During this "Romanian purge" some of the people that were jailed were also very well-known, well, criminals, that turned into TV celebrities, such that jailing them did not feel too much like justice but rather some form of "revenge" or "excess" just to show good initiative and action. In fact, as it turned out later, the press claims that Ms. Kövesi, the prosecutor that was jailing, unfortunately, on request, a bunch of individuals, also had her thesis plagiarized as proven even automatically using software. On the other hand, the paper is fairly good at illustrating the sting operations, the gaslighting, the corruption within the judicial and legislative system, international agreements and so on, all the while being like a thesis more on the same lines as "you cannot obtain justice through illegal means".
• Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the United States Department of State is perhaps the best document that you can find that seems to walk though all possible domains and areas of governance with relation to abuses, corruption and overall fraud. it is an extremely well-written document, massively under-cited and perhaps deliberately so (we discovered these series of documents "by mistake") that tersely summarizes the state of affairs in Romania regarding human rights. Reading the document, we agree on all points with just a little criticism, even though it should be said that the document still has to be diplomatic, instead of a horror show, such that the Department of State would have to keep things as clean. There are statements that are either tricky or underplayed such as "There were no reports of suspects detained incommunicado.", from the aforementioned link, that are false but if and only if one considers "suspects" to only be restricted to strictly "legal detainees" and not people that are detained via political psychiatry. All the records, sources, witness and proof indicate that people detained via political psychiatry were definitely detained incommunicado and sometimes even up to weeks in solitary by medical staff. Ironically, the "overall aspect" of the document of the Department of State would end up tainted if one were to perform an analysis this deep. Otherwise, for other criticism, the document also has an "ethnic slant", which is a little bit characteristically American, but it should be said that, as an example, the people that staff these horror hospitals are interestingly multicultural, with ethnically Jewish people, some Roma being employed and definitely lots of Romanians, such that the events taking place within the walls of these facilities cannot be, at the very least, reasoned about in terms of "racial struggles". However, the document is still right on "racial struggle" in a more general sense, in particular in terms of Holocaust denial, the abuse of the Roma population and clashes with the Hungarian population - although, it must be said that scoping too much into "racial struggles" would prevent observing the larger picture and noticing that, interestingly enough, "organized crime" is almost on-par with the most liberal corporation you can find, where criminals work hand-in-hand irrespective of their ethnic background. Nevertheless, overall the documents spanning multiple decades back blow every single European Commission statement about Romania out of the water, and clearly expose Romania as being very far away from being a country that follows the "rule of law" and abides by human rights. The former being said, in a context where the European Community outright stated that Romania has the rule of law, a few years back, even officially which is massively misleading even from the cases brought to light via the documents posted on this page.
• The other hat kips would have to go to people like Robert Van Voren that expose political psychiatry and perhaps Martti J. Kari. that paints Soviet scociety in terms of power dynamics. The latter is a talk that paints Russia and is not applicable one-to-one to Romania, however a lot of the dynamics that Mr. Kari describes are definitely to be observed Romania, in terms of attitude of the people, attitude of "the governors" and governance in general. In principle, Romanian society is guided more or less via the same "Narodny-Oligarch" relationship that Kari highlights, including the TV shows where a bunch of "oligarchs" are invited and people phone to complain about their daily lives, which describes the actual state of almost all Romanian talk-shows that are mislabeled as "politics". Of course, in good Romanian tradition, this dynamic is massively underplayed by Romanian propaganda, with huge brainwashing efforts (that must cost a lot of money) to keep the population hungry, stupid and loyal. If you want to understand political psychiatry, listen to Mr. van Voren, if you want understand the power-dynamics within Romania (a lot of them answering Mr. Andrew Tates misunderstandings, even as low as "why aren't attractive girls attacked on the street in Romania"), then listen to Mr. Kari and just substitute every "Russia" word with "Romania" because the entire talk can be transposed into a Romanian context almost 1-to-1 (with a little mention along the lines of Romania not being too overt about the dynamics as Russia currently is).
• The Romanian online mobbing micro-investigation that we performed is a good reference to be able to comprehend the blend of the powers of state in Romania, as well as to highlight that China might not be the only one to dispose a "50 cent army". As uttered formerly, China has a blanket excuse given that they are not beholden to European and/or NATO principles and agreements, unlike Romania that technically speaking would have to label some of these activities as "domestic terrorism" by their own criteria or by the criteria that Romania has signed up with, obviously illustrating the irony. In any case, Romanians are massive critics of "individualism", "capitalism" and major enemies of "separation of powers", as directly admitted by many of the examples aforementioned, such that Romanains generally even prefer the total and complete blend of all the powers of state because it grants them power and leverage over the population. Romanian reactions during the online mobbing micro-investigation is even counter-intuitive if one were to assume that "Romanians are disappointed with their former communist leaders and are longing for democracy" given that the dislikes and criticism observed work against any form of democracy and rather highlight a desire for censorship, mass-surveillance and other assorted Soviet creepiness. The micro-investigation also clearly highlights long term brainwashing with myths and fallacies being spread around against any Western form of government. All of these myths, brainwashing or micro-development of cells of organized crime are mostly permitted by the Romanian governance, given that even if Romania is technically and ally of the United States, Romanians can only grin when some individual rants on about how AIDS was invited by the CIA, offering them a cheap jab at the US that is cheap to garnish and cheap to dismiss.