Archive for the ‘Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP)’ Category

Let the Public Trial Begin

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

We are about to begin a new path on Dr Kent’s Blog. Actually, this is the old path, the old issues I sought to make public. However, there is a lot to the story. It is very involved and it is much harder to understand it in it’s entirely than it is to convey it. Even trying to covey it is difficult.

For one, it is emotionally charged for me. It not only involves my professional life but my personal life. This includes my failed attempt at marriage; I tried to marry what turned out to be a sociopath, a scam artist whose only interest was in predating upon men. This is rather involved but we are going to get into it all. Well, most of it.

I am still recovering from the whole ordeal. Ultimately, it resulted in severely compromising my health and it may yet kill me. Nonetheless, I shall be posting as much of the hard evidence and documentation as I can publically. Please bear with me as I try to organize my presentation. My purpose is in merely getting this info out there. Others may organize it into a story or stories or a play or a movie later.

My purposes in this are (1) to make the story and the evidence available so that those who lost their loved ones to wrongful death may pursue justice. However, there is fat chance of this in Arizona! The courts and State bureaucracy are loaded with self-protecting fools who now suffer because of their dereliction of duty at the fate of the invading horde (illegal alien Mexicans and all) and ultimately nuclear annihilation.

Also, (2) I publish these matters to clear my name and reputation. I am merely a man, a sinner, a work I progress like all of you.

Finally, (3) I want to get this behind me and move on with my life. You see, the best revenge is to live a good life. Let the LORD Our God have all the vengeance.

About that nuclear annihilation, this (future) will not be the first time use of a nuclear device has been attempted on the Greater Phoenix Area. I blogged about the (past) first attempt years ago. It was a “dirty bomb” hauled in a foot locker by four Iraqi’s who were trying to get close to Palo Verde (the nuclear plant) to detonate it—only a sheriff’s deputy (one of Arpaio’s men) stumbled upon them.

The sheriff’s deputy was astounded that the four “Mexicans” did not respond when he told them in clear Spanish that they should unload the trunk and carry the load on their backs. That’s how close we came to getting “nuked” on our own soil!

Napolitano was Governor at the time and you never heard about it. I heard about it because people talk to me and tell me everything; moreover, God guides my steps and places me where He wants me—to hear from others and to help others—to receive His messages and, more importantly, to deliver His messages.

Obama’s ASU Commencement Speech Holds Neither Water or Substance

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

 

Liar-in-Chief President Obama continues in his fine tradition of lying and deceiving.  Even I must admit Obama’s presentation is great.  But Barrack Hussein Obama’s teleprompter reading talents belong on the evening news rather than in the office of the American President!

 

Take my life as an example:  I lived for greater causes and, more specifically, I lived to help others better themselves.  I did this in the Alaskan Bush, in the Deep South and in Indian country. 

 

What I learned is that the world is ruled by raw power and those “illiberals” in political office abuse their power to protect their fellow criminals.

 

Take the Arizona Department of Corrections for example. 

 

While I made major contributions as best I was allowed to providing better services and releasing a “safer product,” the graft & greed in ADOC Mental Health and Counseling & Treatment Services was only exceeded by their audacity in using raw power to harm anyone who did his job according to the Arizona State Revised Statues (ASRS), all the Rule & Regulations and ADOC Policy.

 

In fact, Obama rewarded those culprits by appointing their chief-in-crime to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  And Janet took her lover Dora with her to Washington, DC. 

 

None dare call it nepotism.

 

While the minions below got away with murder, fraud, theft, rape, and all sorts of felonies. 

 

So, crime does pay—at least for those “illiberals” sharing the same philosophy—while lying, cheating and deceiving America and the US Treasury!

 

However, President Obama’s commencement address at Arizona State University is for me personally inspiring:

 

I shall continue to give my all to bettering those poor people who have been unable and are unable to defend themselves—especially those dead inmates. 

 

Schriro allowed the cover ups and ultimately Director Dora Schriro covered those murders up! 

 

While they literally buried the “evidence,” ADOC and Dr. Susanne Arnold and Dr. Pamela McCauley allowed the culprit to continue practicing & harming inmate patients and defrauding the State.

 

 

 

 

Coming Show Saturday February 21

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Having been notified by email that our new Governor can not or will not meet with me, I called NW in the Governor’s office.  We are at an impasse after it was suggested I meet with the new Director of ADOC.  Therefore,

BE ADVISED DURING THIS NEXT SHOW I WILL NAME NAMES AND DISCUSS OPENLY THE CRIMES THAT WERE COMMITTED INSIDE ADOC BY ADOC PERSONNEL!

Tune in.

Frankly, I think our new Governor is in over her head.  While I had hoped to be restored and employed correcting the messes within ADOC, the revelations during this next show are likely to result in major financial losses for the State of Arizona at a time when it can ill afford it.  Nevertheless, these people (ADOC and the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners) have damaged me and done their best to destroy me.

Be advised:

We are talking about several frauds & malfeasance, sexual battery, rape of a patient and MURDER.

Many will come forward, rightfully so, seeking justice from an unjust system.  Expect the State of Arizona to pay Big Bucks in damages and costly fighting in the United States Supreme Court.  Why?  Because there is no Sex Offender Treatment Program in ADOC, especially since ADOC and the private prison fired Dr. Susanne Arnold!

Then there are those who were brutally murdered!

By ADOC guards.

By Medical Health Services.

By medically induced leukemia because of the ignorance & negligence of contract psychiatry AND the supervising psychologists (Arnold & McCauley & company) who covered it up, literally burying the evidence, and allowing the culprit to continue practising for more than another year during which he killed more inmate patients.

They weren’t sentenced to DEATH!

They weren’t given sentences of EXECUTION!

Nonetheless, they died.  Some horribly, miserably.

Let the State of Arizona pay the price.  I am tired of being the brunt of their terror.

Folks, this is “bureaucratic tyranny.”

We have become a communist country.

Wake up!

Wake up!  America.

Before it’s too late!

“America, America, where are you now?

Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?”

Monster~Steppenwolf

Correction ADOC Interim Director Chuck Ryan: Advice for Governor Jan Brewer

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

 

Correcting the record per the disclosures posted by Iris on:

 

http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=2957#comment-102524

 

There is an error regarding Mr. Ryan and this is the only possible error of all that was posted.  In other words, all of it is true with the possible exception of the one statement that Mr. Ryan had been forced out of ADOC or ADC as the current web page under construction calls the Arizona Department of Corrections. 

 

I call ADOC or ADC something else, as one may see from the categories on my blog.  And the rest of The Valley shall soon refer to ADOC as the Department of “Corruption.

 

During my interview I mentioned it had been reported to me one of the superiors in ADOC had been “forced to leave ADOC upon threat of death;” however, my ability to recall names is somewhat impaired. 

 

I do not recall the name of the man who was forced to leave “due to his lack of support for Governor Napolitano” and walk off from ADOC and his ASRS retirement.  Perhaps it was Terry Stewart.

 

However, I recall the name and attributes quite well of the officer who confided those things in me.  It was given somewhat in confidence and accompanied by emotional frustration and disgust at how corrupt ADOC was and remains.

 

Nonetheless, I can tell you that Mr. Ryan has been the “Interim Director” of ADOC in the past, perhaps even many times.  Moreover, there is one hallmark, one characteristic that is unforgettable about Chuck Ryan:

 

Chuck Ryan was not well liked by the rank & file. 

 

In fact, to say that Mr. Ryan was “hated” would not be too strong.

 

Allow me to paraphrase a lifetime ADOC employee who knew Chuck Ryan intimately: 

 

‘Chuck Ryan was an asshole.  He was born an asshole and he’s always going to be an asshole.  He’s a short man.  He has “little man syndrome” (and “tan hair”).  He’s always going to be an asshole.  Everyone hates him!

 

Chuck Ryan has been disliked for years by the rank & file of ADOC security officers, administrative support & health services alike.

 

My advice to Governor Jan Brewer:

 

DO NOT CONSIDER CHUCK RYAN FOR DIRECTOR OF ADOC!

 

Unless the Governor wants to send a message to the hard working men & women at ADOC that the Governor doesn’t give a hoot for the men & women who work hard at ADOC!

 

 

 

January 24, 2004 (2005) Request for Investigation (RFI) MCCAULEY, GOLDE, HOLLY-REPS

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

 

rfix320040124-001

 

 

 

Scanned Document

 

 

 

 

The Converted Document Below Lacks Accuracy; Therefore, Please see the Attached .pdf file and/or Scanned .tif file above for an Accurate Account.

 

 

Box 2325

Florence, Arizona 85232-2325 January 24, 2004

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 1400 West Washington, Suite 235

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: Unprofessional Conduct
Ethics Violations

McCauley, Pamela #1949

Arizona Department of Corrections

1110 W. Washington Avenue, Suite 310

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 364-2912

Golde, Jeffrey #3421 Health Services

Cook Unit

P.O. Box 695

Florence, Arizona 85232

(520) 868-0201

Holly-Reps, Sherry #1254

Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman P.O. Box 695

Florence, Arizona 85232

Dear Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners:

From the EPPP all psychologists know that the purpose of licensing and regulating psychologists is for the safety of the public. This complaint is directly related to our responsibility as psychologists to protect the public.

Attached is a copy of documents in support of my claim of violations in ethics and in exerting undue influence upon a supervisee regarding responsibility, control, oversight and review [32-2061.A.13.(q)and(y)]. These are copies of my copy of the PACE entry in my ADOC Personnel File and my response.

I requested a copy of the original complaint by Dr. Jeff Golde; nonetheless, Dr. Holly-Reps, my direct supervisor, declined to give a copy of that written complaint to me. It appeared that Dr. Golde had either taken a complaint from an inmate patient and had typed it up or had joined with his inmate patient in writing a complaint about me.

On the day I was observing the Parole Board hearings for the first time, I was summoned to call Counseling and Treatment Services Program Director Dr. McCauley. Dr. McCauley called to inform me that because of what I wrote in my PACE response, she was going to

have to address some clinical issues with Dr. Golde. I informed Dr. McCauley that I would have preferred that Dr. Golde would have confronted me informally face to face as required by the APA Code of Ethics before writing it up and taking it to Dr. Holly. But as he had not allowed me the opportunity to clarify issues with him, I had not approached Dr. Golde informally.

Moreover, I do not believe that these are matters that may be addressed informally due to Dr. Golde’s violation of the APA Code of Ethics that requires an attempt at informal resolution prior to making a formal complaint. More importantly, it would have been beneficial for all involved to clarify the actual issues prior to escalating the false elements of the complaint into a written report.

Therefore, I wish to cite a violation of the American Association Code of Ethics, the standards that dictate the behavior of psychologists and distinguish psychologists from all others. Furthermore, when I called my immediate supervisor Dr. Holly to inform her of the telephone conversation with Dr. McCauley, Dr. Holly indicated that Dr. Golde had approached Dr. McCauley first with the complaint.  It was intimated that Dr. McCauley ordered
Dr. Holly to write up a PACE complaint and place a negative entry in my file. I will concede that I have no idea of exactly what was said to whom and in what order.

Accordingly, as Psychologist McCauley failed to redirect Dr. Golde to address me on an informal basis, I find Dr. McCauley also to have violated that provision of the APA Code of ethics as well. Even though we are working in a military styled bureaucracy, having and using the APA Code of Ethics and abiding by them would avoid much misunderstanding and the unnecessary escalation of complaints.

However, then is a more grave offense:

I felt pressured, and my master’s level colleague concurred independently and expressed concern that I was being pressured to write this inmate patient a clean bill of health without the benefit of being able to fully assess the inmate patient, to make this star graduate of the Sex Offender Treatment Program not-SMI.

As the inmate is fast approaching the date when he may appeal to the parole board, it appears he is attempting to minimize anything that might preclude his release, including his mental health status and history.

As a licensed psychologist, I am aware that I may NOT sign off on any work for which I have NOT assumed supervisory review, control and authority according to the Arizona Statues. Nonetheless, the Policies and Procedures of the ADOC appear to be contrary to the Rules and Regulations that govern our license as psychologists in Arizona. Therefore, I seek Board clarification on this matter.

According to ADOC Policy in the Mental Health Technical Manual written by Dr. Lutz and Dr. McCauley (April 1, 2000) under Local Procedure 4.1.3.2:

The actions of the treatment team .        . shall be arrived at

by  consensus.

This appears in contradiction to the ADOC organizational chart, which places psychologists at the head of the treatment teams and in contradiction to the Rules and Regulations under which our licenses are held, the Rules and Regulations that govern psychologists’ licenses. Moreover, I was not afforded the time necessary to make a reasonably certain decision regarding the inmate’s Severely Mentally Ill status. Nor should I have been pressured to make the inmate not SMI by the psychologist who had been treating him over a long period of time, who was more familiar with and knew the inmate patient better. And, especially not by a professional who had the authority to make such a determination and sign off on it himself as a psychologist.

These are delicate matters that may only be understood by other psychologists. Accordingly, I respectfully appeal to the board to review these matters and place my confidence in the Board of Examiners to decide and direct us to improve services for inmate patients and for the safety of the public at large.

Sincerely,

 

John    or Kent, Ph.D.

Psyc Slog1st

ENCLOSURES seven pages

NOTE TO PACE

December 22, 2004

EMPLOYEE COMMENTS

The accounting and_comments from the outset are not accurate.

Regarding the theokelitiCguggestion of charting one’s own course, the question of what one

would do ifoneaAaaaiiiiiilL on his path is a long standing therapeutic anc1AUOINational query. I

 _

did not inVentiii-41,               .        ur Free-II-fan (Beck, Freeman & AssocLatm-Gognitive Therapy

of Personalty DM G -rs;4990 ) readily employed it in training. And I have                     elsewhere.

 Upon review oftlaaxIatajw,- I observed-that the inmate had not been seenin accordance with the SDS Standards._ Therefore, I scheduled this inmate patient in order to comply with the standards. Both the master’s level therapist and administrative assistant told me Dr. Golde was the only one to seejhisinmate in therapy and that Dr. Golde did not want anyone else to see this inmate. This smacked of an inappropriate proprietary relationship; however, I needed to assure that we were in compliance with the standards as it is my responsibility. The inmate was not “referred to me for me to change his SMI status.’ Rather, I initiated the scheduling of the appointment and:s-avV the inmate.

However, after scheduling the inmate, Dr. Golde came in for his weekly scheduled day at Cook Unit. I consulted with Dr. Golde informing him that I had scheduled this patient, and then Dr. Golde told me he wanted fue to make the inmate NOT SMI. I felt an inordinate pressure from Dr. Golde to change this inmate’s SMI status. When I suggested to Dr. Golde that since he knew the inmate, and moreover since he wanted the inmate’s. SMI status changed that he [Dr. Golde]

should be the licenced psychologist signing off on this action as (1) I did not have the opportunity to observe the inmate over time and, more importantly, (2) the inmate did not meet the usual criteria under which we psychologists at DOC practice, Dr. Golde pressured me further to change the inmate’s status anyway.

This inmate patient did not meet the typical minimal criteria under which we practice. This inmate had not been successfully off psychiatric medications for a period of at least six months and, in my opinion, and as is the prevailing practice within DOC, it was premature to change the inmate’s Mental health score from a 3 to a 2 under such circumstances.

I was informed, perhaps incorrectly, that this was the number two graduate in the Sex offenders’s Program and that he is schedule for a review by the parole Board and has a fast approaching released ate. He is a short timer. When I suggested to Dr. Golde that he should be the one to change this inmate’s SMI status because he had seen him and knew him best, Dr. Golde urged me to sign off on making the inmate not SMI. I felt a pressure from Dr. Golde to sign off on this inmate– to, in effect, give him clean bill of health.

The inmate also pressured me to change his SMI status. Because I did not know the inmate and

q/7

because I was ill that day, and due to the seriousness of the possibility of changing this inmate’s SMI status, I ended up spending more time than usual with that inmate. Also the inmate took as much time as I was willing to give him as he had an agenda and a goal. In the process I learned quite a bit about this inmate and my sense is that inmate may NOT have benefitted from the Sex Offender’s Treatment Program and may in fact remain dangerous to the public.

I assessed the inmate’s gains and resped for the SOTP by asking the inmate to explain the program he had graduated. I know nothing of the program. Part of the complaint was that I

disagreed with the diagnosis. How was Ito make this inmate NOT SMI if his Bipolar Disorder _      

diagnosis was not in question? Anotartzi-the complaint was that I questioned the

of the SOTP programeti-VOCal in seeking out information aboarn… the program, it has not been forthcOnung: IVIOreover, how can Idisagree with the philosophyZifi

- program when I do not know the philo§ophy of that program?

During the PACE entry time with Dr. Holly, she, too, emphasized that I should have changed this inmate’s SMI status to no longer SMI. She said it should not have taken as much time as I gave it to change the inmate’s status. When I vocalized that I did not know the inmate and that the inmate did not meet our usual minimum criteria to be changed from SMI to non-SMI, Dr. Holly informed me that ‘Dr. Golde was no longer practicing general services on the unit.’ It was implied that I was to make the change in status on an inmate who had not met the minimal criteria by which we practice: He hadlibt been off psychiatric medications for at least six months and there was no indication that he did not need counseling services.

While treating the inmate, he continued to talk even when I became ill abruptly and had to rush for the sink. There was time to excuse neither myself nor the inmate. It was a brief period of time for my stomach upset, certainly not prolonged. I cleared my throat of minimal material. It was not fun. It was not pleasant. But I knew over the weekend that I was sick and I knew I was the only psychologist to cover the entire Eyman complex that Monday. However, because I had agreed to cover for another psychologist in advance, I went to work ill.

In fact, the FHA was present at Cook Unit Medical and I inquired as to how he thought I should handle it when I was sick and I knew there was no one else to cover. Rod Norris remarked, “You tough it out.” Rather than be applauded for my dedication to the team and my service, my sacrifice, I am being given a disciplinary PACE entry.

Notwithstanding, because I was able to give that much time to the inmate and observe the inmate patient under those circumstances, because he never stopped talking about himself even while I hit the sink and vomited, my provisional impression is that this inmate may have a 301.5 Histrionic Personality Disorder, Manipulative Subtype (Millon) and as such is not a candidate for psychotherapy. Moreover, because of the failure of the inmate to brag about the program he had just completed and his inability to explain the program to me, I surmise that the inmate may not have been treated successfully. Rather, the inmate’s talents in manipulation precluded him from successful treatment. In other words, had he been assessed by myself or a competent psychologist, the inmate may not have been considered for treatment. He certainly would not have received priority consideration for placement. Should there have been a waiting list, this

 

inmate may have been placed at the bottom as an unlikely candidate for therapy.

I could not sign my name onto this inmate’s plans for early release and place the public safety in jeopardy.

Finally, when my master’s level colleague informed me of her concerns that I might change the inmate’s status from SMI to no longer SMI, I listened. And I learned. She said that she was hoping the inmate might tell me himself He committed his offense while in a manic episode.

Frowaedge of the literature (Goodwin and Jameson), the classic manic episode occurs once E

-.-Thdefore, six months is insufficient-to detenninekwhether or not the

person  as amc-Depressive - Illness and thus qualifies for S statim. In other words, six - -

months.is_an Indequate test for the possibility of a Bipolar Type ,I Disorder. One must be obserAr.ed_ovesignificantly greater period of time.

_

Moreover, since the inmate had plenty of opportunity to establish rapport with me and since he didinof seek to work openly and honestly with me, I concluded that the SMI status should remain positive.

It saddens me to think that a fellow psychologist would pressure me to make his star pupil no longd SMI when he probably knows that the inmate represents a risk. It saddens me that my fellow psychologist and my supervising psychologist would both intimate that I failed by not changing the status of this inmate patient. I dare say that the treating psychologist may be too invested in himself and in his program to admit that this inmate may still be a danger to the

public. Why does he not sign off on the change in SMI status himself since he knows this inmate so well? Could it be that he is overly and inappropriately invested in the graduate of his Program?

pro        .

Moreover, I have a complaint against my colleague: If I suspected a fellow professional of knocking my program, I would approach him or her myself directly and inquire on an informal basis first before taking this to a higher lever. I would do this because it is required by the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics—Our Code of Conduct that defines what we do and who we are as psychologists The APA Code of Ethics requires that one psychologist approach another psychologist and seek to resolve ethical issues informally before making a formal complaint. Dr. Golde did not do this and as a result we have a gross misunderstanding—at my expense, of a disciplinary PACE entry.

More to the point, I do not think that Dr. Golde believes I knocked his program or he would have confronted me. Rather I think that Dr. Golde may be overly invested in his inmate patient graduate and may have taken this shot at me in retaliation for my having failed to follow his directive to make his prized student no longer SMI. Or perhaps his officemate down the hall in Central Office may have influenc

John Taylor Kent, Ph.D. Psychologist II