Posts Tagged ‘conflict of interest’

How Much Could I Expect to Bear & to Lose in Pursuit of Justice?

Friday, June 5th, 2009

In answer to that question, the first step, “a fair hearing” before an administrative law judge who is employed by the State (conflict of interest), would require a retainer of $25,000; however, due to the shear volume of material, I could see that quickly doubling or tripling.

The Attorney General’s Office for the State of Arizona is famous for “burying one in paper.”  The AG’s Office generates so much paper that one’s legal fees quickly become insurmountable.  And since one can not recoup one’s legal fees from the State, even when one prevails, one loses.

In my case, the secretary for the psychiatrist’s offices assigned to examine me informed me that their office’s “retainer” of $15,000 was required because the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners’ Investigator Victoria Kamm reported there were “two cases of documents” the Board was going to submit to Dr. Anna Scherzer for her review.

Two cases!  I wonder what the State has assembled?  Probably more falsified information and half truths generated by my detractors.

Yes, it was a “conspiracy,” but until you’ve had a chance to review all the material for yourself, reserve judgement.  Then you decide for yourself whether or not the term “conspiratorial” fits.

Thereafter, going to the Superior Court of Arizona where the real Rules of Evidence apply and one has a fair shot could cost between $170,000 and $250,000.

However, even that would not suffice because one has to appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona due to the Arizona Board of Psychologists Examiners Rules & Regulations as previously evinced by former Board Executive Director Maxine McCarthy and as advised by my former counsel Mr. Stephen Myers.

Even assuming the most conservative amounts, legal fees before getting to the highest court in the State easily exceed $200,000.

Now, how much do you think legal fees for an appearance before the Supreme Court of Arizona would add to that burden?

And all of this is merely for the “privilege” of practising psychology in the State of Arizona.

That is not for a position, nor is it guaranteeing income.

As we shall see, while we are all taught:

The purpose  of licensure is for the safety of the public.

What you shall see is that the function is entirely apposite–licensure protects the State & those corrupt politicians who run it–while making the public and professionals game for the terrorism of the state bureaucracy.

And the real answer to the question?

I lose everything.

My Presentation 17 Dec 2008 Before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners RFI No. 08-19 MCPHEE

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners

 

Complaint Screening Committee

 

17 December 2008

 

Re:     RFI No. 08-19, DAVID MCPHEE, PH.D.

 

 

In addition to what the Board already has in writing, the Board needs to know this.  It was not until our third 90-minute session Dr. McPhee failed to mention a possible conflict of interest.  During that next to last meeting, Dr. McPhee revealed he had previously hired and supervised Mary M. Desch, MD and in the past had worked closely with Dr. Desch. 

 

In spite of the fact it became apparent earlier during the assessment that I had had a terrible experience with Dr. Desch and there was a possible conflict of interest because of Dr.  McPhee’s prior relationship with Dr. Desch, rather than recuse himself from the case, a forensic assessment, and consider refunding my monies, Dr. McPhee continued to press on with his assessment emphasizing he thought he could help me with the Board.  “I think I can help you,” he said over and over until . . .

 

It was not until Dr. McPhee heard about the history of inmates’ deaths due to malpractice, other crimes and cover ups at ADOC that Dr. McPhee demonstrated a complete change in demeanor & attitude.  There was a significant transformation in his presence & presentation and it was readily observable.  It occurred right at and after the moment of that particularly sensitive & succinct disclosure.

 

Finally, I am not so certain Dr. McPhee did his own work and worked independently.  That is, rather than provide an independent workup and assessment, it appears Dr. McPhee may have relied upon the work of others, namely Dr. Desch.

 

However, let’s put this in context.  In contrast to Dr. Desch, Dr. McPhee’s conflicts of interest and Dr. McPhee’s conflicted nature (fear of involvement in a case of corruption of elected State officials and appointees) pales in comparison.  At the outset of the assessment Dr. McPhee answered my query and assured me he did not know my former wife Maria Kleine, whereas, Dr. Desch refused to answer my question in spite of the fact she had treated my former wife from October 2005 until approximately May 2006.

 

During her assessment Dr. Desch demonstrated gross counter transference often grimacing and she appeared deeply disturbed.  Desch repeatedly answered her own questions without giving me a chance to open my mouth, to respond.  Desch “fabricated” my “self-report” in order to support her erroneous conclusions and harsh recommendations.