Nicholas and Tucker3

Alahverdian case update

In a January 23 hearing, the terms of Nicholas Alahverdian’s probation were altered by Judge Carl Henderson. The change was made in response to a complaint by the Chief Probation officer Joel Zeugner regarding MrNick and lawyer. Alahverdian’s holiday travel after receiving a travel pass. Both sides of the case were in agreement that the trip did not violate the terms of Mr. Alahverdian’s probation, but the court determined that the officer’s objection to his route merited limiting his travel to only what is necessary due to legal action in Rhode Island.

Following that, Judge Henderson asked about the other stipulations in the probation order. Officer Zeugner informed Judge Henderson that he has been sending requests to see Nicholas to doctors in the area, but Zeugner added, “…however, you know, I feel that I’m under some obligation to give full disclosure to these doctors that I’m interviewing.” Previously, Mr. Alahverdian filed legal action against Dr. David H. Roush over ethics violations. Officer Zeugner is choosing to call Mr. Alahverdian a litigation threat when contacting doctors about his treatment. According to officer Zeugner, for that reason, none so far have been willing to take his case.

The “treatment” in question is a standard thing in people who have been convicted; the courts will routinely order psychiatric evaluation, which can only be performed by court-approved psychiatrists or psychologists, and the court usually has a very short list. These psychiatrists evaluate and recommend treatment, and if they say none is needed then there will be none, but if they recommend treatment the probationer has to comply, and continue to pay that psychiatrist, or face jail time.

Judge Henderson responded to this information by stipulating that jail time would result if a physician is not found who will take Mr. Alahverdian’s case. This was followed by the statement that if Mr. Alahverdian does “anything to interfere” with the next doctor, that would also result in jail time.

This places Mr. Alahverdian in a precarious position; whether or not he is considered compliant with the requirements of his sentence is now out of his control. Because his treatment is court ordered and specific in nature, he is required to treat with a state-approved physician, meaning that he must depend on the state to contract a physician for his treatment. The ruling makes it possible for Officer Zeugner to use Mr. Alahverdian’s history with Dr. Roush to make put him in violation of the terms of his probation through no action of Alahverdian’s own. Further, if Mr. Alahverdian encounters another doctor who violates standards of ethics the way Dr. Roush did, this ruling is an order to tolerate the abuse, or face jail time.

The American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics states that a physician must “recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost,” and “shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.” Ordinary patients can abandon treatment with a physician who they feel is not upholding those standards. A patient ordered by the state to be treated by a specific physician, however, cannot. The judge’s order negates the patient’s legal right to refuse medical treatment.

This type of treatment is unlike ordinary medical care. A physician treating a patient ordered by a judge to receive treatment has, in effect, a captive audience. Treatment is over when the physician says the patient doesn’t need further treatment. An ethical physician will honestly evaluate and treat patients ordered to see him or her just the same as any other patient, but an unethical physician could extend the patient’s treatment (and therefore, his obligation to pay the physician) indefinitely with a variety of claims about evaluation and treatment. Because the patient’s right to refuse treatment has been denied under threat of incarceration, his only recourse, should a physician misstate his condition in order to continue collecting payment for treatment, is legal action.  Refusing Mr. Alahverdian the right to recourse for ethics violations–Alahverdian reports abusive behavior and demands by the physician that he “admit” to things that were not true–in effect removes all oversight from the equation. Anyone with whom the state orders him to treat is now free to violate the patient’s human rights without fear of any repercussions.

The American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics states that a physician must “recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost,” and “shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.”

It is troubling that the courts can specify a small number of physicians whom they will be acceptable, and these physicians know each other, and have a financial motive for negative findings on whoever the court assigns them to. This is yet another aspect of why cases like Nicholas’ are so important.

We will continue to support Nicholas in his quest for justice, and will continue to provide updates as we have them.

About Hannah Wallen

Hannah Wallen (aka Della Burton) became an MRA after weathering the direct impact of feminist advocacy on her family for years. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. She also writes and comments on as oneiorosgrip.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Do you want to publish a book?


    This is an early call for manuscripts. AVFM Education, LLC is opening a publishing house in the near future. Zeta Press (under construction) will house a wide range of literature addressing issues faced by men and boys. It will include literature not acceptable for mainstream sensibilities, which means it is the stuff you want to read. It will also host an array of other interesting nonfiction and fiction offerings.

    Simply put, we want to build the red pill library from hell.

    We have agreed to contract with a highly experienced editing team and will provide cover art graphics for those who desire it.

    Our contract with authors will be very competitive. We will provide you with extras like an editing progress account (RT) that allows you ongoing communication during the editing process and automated...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Correctrix

    Not everyone knows about this mysterious medical situation.

    • DragonFire

      How on earth is that relevant?

      The details of his condition are in no way relevant to the issue listed above, which is the state threatening him with jail if a physician doesn’t take his case.
      And likewise, he has no option to change physicians if he’s uncomfortable with the one who DOES take his case, unlike you or me.
      That is the issue raised in the article. How do the details of his condition matter?

    • Dean Esmay

      The courts will order “sex offenders” to undergo “psychiatric evaluation” to determine if the offender is a deviant evil pervert. They select a small handful of psychiatrists they consider qualified. If the psychiatrist finds nothing then it’s only one visit, if the psychiatrist finds something wrong that requires ongoing treatment, he will report that to the court and the offender will have to take whatever treatment the psychiatrist deems necessary or risk going to jail.

      The conflict of interest inherent in all that, and the inherent dangers, hopefully don’t require explanation.

      • Eizieizz

        So let me get that right,
        he was ordered to compulsory psychiatric evaluation and treatment
        for supposedly kissing a girl against her will?

        This is totally insane!

        • Dean Esmay

          Yes, that’s correct.

          This is one of the multiple layers of evil in the entire system. Put in place for putatively noble intent–help offenders get better so they’re less likely to reoffend, rather than just incarcerate them–it has in many places turned into a Clockwork Orange scenario, with people forced into treatment and that treatment had better be whatever the doctor says or you go to jail.

      • nawotsme

        I think it is important to note that this is in relation to court ordered “treatment” and not evaluation.

        No details are given about this in article.

        Is the court ordered treatment a ‘chemical castration’? I know of cases here where that is what is ordered by the courts.

        • Dean Esmay

          No, it is not chemical castration.

          It is an evaluation in which the doctor gets to decide whether or not you’re an evil pervert and if he decides you aren’t, he never sees you again, but if he thinks you are an evil pervert he gets to recommend a course of treatment and the patient will be ordered to take said treatment.

          Since Nicholas and those in his situation are not allowed to choose their own physician but must choose from a short list of cronies to the court, you can see the problem.

          • nawotsme

            Our systems are radically different.

            Evaluation here is done post conviction and pre sentence, and the court’s order treatment based on this evaluation. Treatment is at the discretion of the psychiatrist, but as you point out they are picked by the court’s and therefore tend to be biased in favor of harsher methods. I do know that the system here has created a ‘limbo’ into which anyone convicted of a sex offence falls into in many cases.

            After reading about the “verballing” by Quatman, and the decision of the judge at trial to deny trial by jury, and then imposing a sentence fitting a serious crime I hope Mr Alahverdian does not fall into a further trap set by the system.

        • sungecko

          Holy crap! Thanks for mentioning that Nawotsme. I didn’t know castration is actually used as a legal punishment in the USA. How can this not be considered cruel and usual punishment!? I found an overview of statues by state. Florida seems especially egregious, because they will imprison you, then castrate you just as you are about to finish your sentence. I found this story about man who was sentenced to 25 years in prison and will be castrated just before his release:

          “If you’ve been convicted of a sexual battery and then you’re convicted again the second time, chemical castration per the statute is mandatory,” [the judge] said. “And for first time rapists or sexual batterers, it’s up to the court’s discretion.” According to the statute, Odermatt will receive castration injections 90 days before he’s released from prison. By that time he will be 85-years-old.”

          Of course, I don’t know of any statues that allow the government to forcibly, permanently cripple the bodies of female sex offenders. I don’t think this should be done to male offenders, so I don’t think something similar should be done to female offenders. However, it’s one more very obvious double-standard against men in the criminal justice system.

          • nawotsme

            Cruel and unusual punishment indeed. And the Special Reporter on torture has said that this may constitute torture..

            A little history on the subject of psychiatry.

            40% of German psychiatrists joined the Waffen SS during the war and were central to the implementation of the final solution. Racial eugenics.

            Breshnev and political dissidents, psychiatrists involved in implementing the treatment of these thought criminals.

            Homosexuality/bisexuality are mental illnesses and are treated via chemical castrations and ECT. 1971 it is decided that these choices are no longer an illness, and require no treatment.

            ADHD is defined as an ‘illness’ and requires ‘treatment’. Early intervention gender based eugenics? Couple this with the increasing medicating of ‘toxic masculinity’.

            The Royal College of Psychiatrists have been open about their aim to achieve gender neutrality in their profession. This has almost been achieved, 54% males and 46% females, and will be achieved with the next group of trainees. What is of concern is the number of male psychiatrists who support feminist ideology . What are the consequences of this? Psychiatrists are ideally positioned to impose their definition of what a man is on society, and define anything that they dislike as an illness and force compliance with it. This concerns me greatly, as i do not agree with the feminist position on what a man is, and do not wish to be forced to comply with these notions.

            Given the history of psychiatry, and recent developments, i have to question if this is the emergence of a gender based eugenics movement, advancing the feminist ideological cause. Sadly it would seem so.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        That’s the scam. The “client” in some states, or the state itself pays the “Service Provider” for “services”. Of course, sex offenders are openly declared “uncurable” – the system allows them to provide treatment for ten years(as long as they try to be compliant) then revoke their probation/parole and send them back to prison at the Treatment Provider’s whim.

        The “treatment” also includes periodic polygraphing by a short list of “approved” polygraph “sex offender experts” because sex offenders are so magical and special regular polygraphers can’t be trusted.

        An innocent person going through this system cannot “comply” with “treatment” since confessing to the crime is required. A polygraph by a special polygrapher will “out” them if they try to admit the crime even if it’s a lie.

        They generously “allow” the offender ten years guarantee income to providers before pulling the plug on them.

        Yes,Virginia. The system is fraught with corruption.

        Just for fun, here are a couple of stories you might enjoy. Yes. This IS happening in the United States.

        A Senator tries – and fails miserably – to promote legislation allowing “choice” for “clients” – This “service provider” is attempting to create his own private For Profit sex offender work camp permanent detention prison:

        Most people have NO idea the horror show going on behind the scenes will all this.

        • nawotsme

          This documentary really does explain how the system works.

          My concern for men is that the medicalisation of sex offences to include “toxic masculinity” will be expanded and that larger numbers of men will find themselves in this position of being forcefully medicated for the illness of being a man.

          This of course will require very little infrastructure, as it can be done via community treatment orders. No need for court approval, and the coercion can be done via the threat of detention without any criminal conviction.

          Can’t happen? It already is here in Australia, via CTOs. Psychiatrists are labelling ‘aggressive men’ as being a danger to self or other, and placing them on CTOs, which, if not complied with means detention and forced medication until you do comply. The figures hide that this is occurring, because many comply voluntarily, knowing that failure to do so will result in force being used. It looks like it’s not happening.

          Very similar to the system implemented by Breshnev for “sluggish schizophrenia” and political dissidents, and an effective way to subvert human rights and ‘treat’ those guilty of thought crimes.

    • JJ

      To anyone, I just posted this after seeing a billboard sign by the Big Brothers and Big Sisters group telling me to “Man up.”

  • Aimee McGee

    Being a practitioner who has worked in detention settings, it is often difficult to explain about decision-making competence and about individual consent to treatment, which is still a fundamental human right unless it is possible to prove that the patient is not competent. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times when we determined there was no competency and enforced treatment outside cases of anorexia nervosa and severe dementia. So I am deeply sickened to read of someone being legally forced to treatment. The right to NOT be treated is a valid decision, and one I would make myself in certain circumstances (did it over the attempt to remove a benign breast cyst, because the scar tissue would have affected both appearance and the ability to interpret future mammograms).
    Can state or local law override a human right like this?

    • Dean Esmay

      They can and do. He has a right to refuse treatment of course, in which case, no problem, he can just go to jail.

      Yes, it’s that spooky.

      • Aimee McGee

        Hmmmm….so just asking…what categorical objective test can prove or disprove any psychological condition?

        • nawotsme

          The categorical objective test is the measure by the psychiatrist if you have a “potential of harm to self or other”. Of course it has been established that psychiatrists are no better at determining this than anyone else, ie they don’t have a crystal ball, but are likely to treat or detain as they may be liable for anything that occurs if they don’t.

          This method of detention in the community has exploded here in Australia by the use of Community Treatment Orders, and is in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

          • Aimee McGee

            Ah…like the assessment for likely suicidal action. 50% failure in high risk cases!

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        And you are deemed Too Dangerous to ever get released from jail until you DO accept “treatment” which is much worse in prison than out.

        More and more states are setting up permanent detention centers.

        It’s really no big deal for a true sex offender to admit the crime and get treatment.

        It’s impossible for a truly innocent person to “comply” with treatment. It’s like requiring a person to undergo chemotherapy and then prove they were indeed “cured” of a disease they never had in the first place.

        You do NOT make a fool of the EXPERTS by being INNOCENT. Innocent people are regarded as WORSE than actual offenders – they make a mockery of The System if they try to comply or not.

        This is EXACTLY a resurgence of the old locking away of perfectly sane people in insane asylums in the old days – the more they protest their innocence the more GUILTY and DANGEROUS they really are!

        This is EXACTLY the old Soviet Union political prisoner tactics unfolding here, and anyone who tries to protest must be a “pedophile protector” or a rape apologist themselves.

        I apologize it annoys some for me to keep speaking about this but…there will be none left to speak out soon enough.

        • Lucian Vâlsan

          „This is EXACTLY the old Soviet Union political prisoner tactics unfolding here, and anyone who tries to protest must be a “pedophile protector” or a rape apologist themselves.” <<– Yep. The intellectual Gulag of political correctness.

          Been saying this for quite some time now…

          • nawotsme

            The Rosenhan experiment.


            Once detained anything you do will misinterpreted within the framework of illness. This experiment made absolute fools of psychiatrists, and those within the institutions. Of course, if you confess, we will let you go.

          • nawotsme

            Sorry should read “will be interpreted within the framework of illness”.

  • criolle johnny

    The Ol’ Soviet Union would be so proud of their students!

  • justman

    Yes, it does appear that probation is the equivalent of being sent to a Gulag in many cases. Basically, you are not in jail, but you do not have any freedom either. It is like being in house arrest in Siberia.

    Overly lengthy prison sentences coupled with probation can turn someones life into imprisonment. Even no prison sentence but probation can be used as a horrible oppressive tool.

    • nawotsme

      Probation is for a fixed term. The diagnosis, pre sentencing, and treatment can be continued indefinitely. Once the probationary period ends a person is no longer subject to the court’s, but does still carry the diagnosis.

      As a result of the diagnosis by a psychiatrist you are still subject to the possibility of involuntary treatment, if you are deemed to be a threat ofharm to self or other.

      You no longer need to be proved to have committed an offence to be detained and forcefully medicated. If, in the opinion of a psychiatrist, you might commit an offence, then they can detain and treat you. It is an effective way of detaining someone minus any offence, and removes their right to liberty and bodily integrity for the rest of their life. You are now subject to an opinion, and not evidence.

      This situation is unique to people convicted of sex offences. Louis Theroux explored the situation in the US in his documentary A Place for Pedophiles.

      • Dean Esmay

        It’s worse than that. During probation you can be forced into the treatment or go to jail and, further, the judge at his discretion can extend the probation. if he deems it necessary, and refusing to comply with medical treatment can be a reason.

        Nicholas faces something like 70 days in jail instead of probation, and if it were not for the fact that he is small and has severe health issues that would make him very vulnerable, he would probably be better off just going to jail. He faces many more years of torment by the court system otherwis.e.

        The fact that he may be raped or killed in jail, on the other hand, makes that hard to swallow.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Symposium: Preventative Detention: Sex Offender Exceptionalism and Preventive Detention

          Corey Rayburn Yung
          University of Kansas School of Law


          Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 101, No. 3, July 2011

          The emerging war on sex offenders, as typical of wartime mentality, has been marked by substantial deviations from established legal doctrine, constitutional protections, and the rule of law. Because of a high level of panic among the general population about sex offenders the use of preventative detention for sex offenders has received little attention or scrutiny. While the population of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has slowly decreased, the number of persons in state and federal detention centers dedicated to sex offenders has continued to climb. With the courts largely rubber stamping the federal civil commitment of sex offenders allowed under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA) in 2006, the path has been cleared for an enormous expansion of sex offender detention.

          Because of the limited attention given to these detentions, they represent a particularly dire threat to American liberties. The normal societal and institutional checks against government abuse embodied in the media, public, Constitution, and courts have essentially been removed. We authorize government to detain indefinitely those who are deemed “sexually dangerous” at our peril. Instead of waiting for someone to commit a wrong, the government acts to restrict liberty of persons who have yet to commit a wrong (but the government believes will likely do so in the future). The criminal justice system offers plenty of opportunities for the government to prosecute someone before harm is done using inchoate and conspiracy crimes. To go beyond those already broad tools, the circumstances should be highly exceptional, the danger should be real and imminent, and the net should be cast narrowly. In the case of sex offender civil commitment, the circumstances are no more dangerous than for other serious crimes, the risk is speculative based upon pseudo-science, and the net is far too broad. Because of these aspects of sex offender civil commitment laws, America should fundamentally reconsider its approach to fighting sexual violence. Laws like AWA, premised on myths that allocate substantial resources in a never ending war, do not create a just or better society.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I don’t think you are EVER better off going to jail. Once inside, they don’t ever have to let you out. It’s just too much of a risk to ever consider, which is why innocent men routinely accept guilty pleas for no jail time.

  • justman

    Nicholas Alahverdian was denied his right to a jury trial and found guilty by a judge-as-jury based on some very questionable evidence. Alahverdian was then sentenced to probation with some very onerous terms including travel restrictions and a court-ordered medical evaluation.

    I think it would benefit Nicholas greatly always to include a small backgrounder when providing updates, so as to provide context for new readers, of which there are many these days.

    Thanks for keeping us updated!

    • Cam

      “I think it would benefit Nicholas greatly always to include a small backgrounder when providing updates, so as to provide context for new readers, of which there are many these days”
      Yes that’s right Justman.

      However, it would help if there was some more information provided so people really knew what happened here other than just the false allegations, unreliable or dubious evidence, etc etc

      1. Exactly what was Mr. Alahverdian ultimately convicted of as a result of the false allegations and what was the sentence handed down. Details on these pages have been light.

      2. Importantly, in his defense, just what did Mr. Alahverdian actually do in this altercation with the accuser as spelled out to the court. He just innocently kissed a girl and she went running off to the police to claim sexual assault? There seems to be more to this case than that.

      I am still at a loss to know what he actually did to set off the accuser in this instance to go running to the police. Probably won’t be revealed here though. There has been so much written on these pages but nothing really explaining this.

      • Dean Esmay

        Actually it’s been explained repeatedly. He was convicted of “sexual imposition.” The exact details of what he was accused of changed no less than a dozen times (15 total I think) by the accuser. The event happened on a college campus and campus police, a short walk away, made the arrest after questioning the accuser. The accuser was, so far as we can tell, cheating on her boyfriend at the time, which Nicholas also did not know but which came out later, which gives her motivation to file a false report. In any case, she walked over to campus police, who, with no evidence, no tapes, no anything, appear to have hammered her repeatedly to provide justification for an arrest.

        The arresting officer has a long history of unethical and criminal behavior but was hired anyway, and at that time was looking for a promotion. That information was known by officers of the court but not disclosed to the defense.

        These have all been detailed in our previous coverage of the case, and are all on Alahverdian’s site. It may be that what we need to do is start including a link roundup on these things on the end of every update we do, but this was in fact just an update that assumed people had been paying attention up til now.

        • TonyS

          Actually Mr Esmay I think that is just half of what Mr Alahverdian was convicted of.

          According to court documents I have read there were 2 convictions he was subject to under Ohio law:

          1. A charge and conviction on one count of sexual imposition in violation of O.R.C.

          2. A charge and conviction on one count of public indecency in violation of O.R.C. 2907.09.

          Both of these are categorized as misdemeanors by the Ohio Revised Code.

          Sexual imposition is a third degree misdemeanor carrying the possible punishment of
          60 days in jail.

          Public indecency is a fourth degree misdemeanor carrying the possible punishment of 90 days in jail.

          In the case of sexual imposition, interestingly, under 2907.06, the statute provides:

          “(B) No person shall be convicted of a violation of this section solely upon the victim’s testimony unsupported by other evidence.”

          So yes – an interesting case. A judge cannot convict, in the case of sexual imposition, solely on the basis of the victims claims.

          Apparently Mr Alahverdian was granted probation of 6 years total and no jail time for either of the 2 convictions.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Your’e kidding, right?

        Locally, a juvenile male was convicted, put through treatment and lifetime SO registration for putting a girl’s cell phone down the front of his pants and jokingly teasing her to get it out herself.

        A 12 year old boy is undergoing the same punishment for “mooning” out the back window of a school bus.

        Wake up and smell the fascism.

  • justman

    A good idea would be simply to link to the AvFM wiki entry about the case:

    I ended up reading also one of the wiki links which contains the appeal filed in May 2013:

    The appeal is very detailed and very specific about what the exact errors of the Alahverdian prosecution were. In my view, the two main objections are

    (1) that Alahverdian was not allowed to testify in his own defense, nor to have effective counsel in the case.

    (2) that Alahverdian should not be denied a jury trial, although the sentence of the case was lower than the 6 month limit that constitutionally demands a jury trial. The reason being that Alahverdian was put in jeopardy of a much lengthier sentence by being required to register as a sex offender (for life?), as well as strict conditions of probation, including being subject to a pshyciatric evaluation that could potentially force him to undergo involuntary treatment for the rest of his life.

    The wiki itself could need an update and expansion. Feel free to update the wiki with the above information — cut and paste if you like.

  • JinnBottle

    Just call him Randal Patrick McMurphy.

    A long time ago – during the heyday of Mothers Against Drunk Driving; wherein there were programs where the mothers of victims killed by drunk drivers got to have screaming sessions, or guilt=sessions or whatever with the perps – sometimes in addition to jailtime, sometimes in lieu of – hearing about that put me on the fence as to whether I’d rather be screamed at and have my mind violated day in, day out, or do the fuckin time. That’s easily said, I know – jailbirds, especially those convicted of “Rape” have their bodies (at the very least) violated day in, day out.

    The point is that feminist governance has put a whole dimension of laws in place that allow the state to get into a man’s *mind*. Women talked incessantly in the 80s about their Boundaries; the word disappears once it goes to surround & protect a man, any man.

    “‘They can make you say anything,’ she had said; ‘but they can’t make you believe it. They can’t get into your mind.’ But they could get into your mind…” – Orwell, “1984”