Posts Tagged ‘Dr. Scherzer’

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.

March 4, 2009 Board Deadline Morning Notes

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009
Today is a wonderful day.  While my spirits have been admittedly low, I hold onto the concepts of ultimate justice & divine retribution.  This is the day of the deadline the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners gave me to cough up $15,000 in retainer and be examined by their chosen psychiatrist.

Now, I wouldn’t mind it so much but (1) I don’t have the money and that’s just a “retainer” as Dr. Anna Scherzer might actually require more!  And the reason it is so high is because the Board wants to send TWO CARTONS of documents for their good psychiatrist to review at $375/hour!

And (2) I don’t like the Board’s method of swamping their “Independent Medical Examiner” with papers because their procedure is (a) biasing.  Is the Board trying to overly direct their IME psychiatrist because they are trying to achieve a particular outcome?

(b) Might the Board and the State be trying to break me in every manner possible, particularly financially?  Since they can’t break my spirit.

Also, (c) we did not like the fact the Chairman of the Board, “Larry Loveboy” at the time, refused to share with me or with my attorney the documentation the Board was going to submit to their designated examiner.  Does this smell like a setup?  Of course, those good folks would never do such a thing!  It must be my paranoia.

Since (3) (a) I am unable to afford the Board’s indulgent [$15,000 is just the “retainer.”  There is no limit to the expense.  I sure wish I could get a job that paid like that!] and (b) potentially biasing methodology [The Board should be required to submit the names of three Independent Medical Examiners just like they required of me in the past.], there is no way I may prevail.  Is that what the Board wants?  Certainly, not.  What am I thinking!  After all, these are good people.

And (c) as I do not have adequate representation nor the resources to proceed to court, a new phase has begun.  That is (4) my bringing my case before you, the public right here on my blog.

In short order I will call my first witness:

The former Executive Director of the Board, Mrs. Maxine McCarthy.