Posts Tagged ‘psychologists’

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.

“The Trial”

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Since I am unable to mount the mass of funds necessary to bring my case to Arizona Superior Court and eventually the Arizona Supreme Court, I will be presenting it here on Dr Kent’s Blog for you the public to decide.  You, my readers, get to judge whether or not certain crimes were committed and then the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners was utilzed to damage and discredit moi thereby aiding & abetting in a series of massive cover-ups.

As I previously posted, I will now call my first witness, my star witness:  Maxine McCarthy the former Executive Director for the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners for several years.

So, allow us to proceed.

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.

 

 

 

 

The Psychologist’s Dilemma: Psychosociopolitical Warfare

Friday, April 24th, 2009

 

The dilemma all psychologists face today is that we have capitulated and given our crown of science & arts to psychiatry and the Medical Model.

 

While psychiatry has usurped the role of leading provider of mental health services in the maintenance of the public health and welfare from psychology, psychiatry accomplished this without having to put up much of a fight. Indeed, the betrayal came from within—from within the ranks of psychology itself.

 

Returning that crown to its rightful owner may prove next to impossible. Certainly, there is a lot of truth to the adage:

 

It takes a man a lot longer to get himself out of trouble

Than what it took to get him in trouble in the first place

 

So it will be with the return of psychology and behavioral science to its rightful place as King.

 

In part, I predict this will require the awakening of the public at large to the fact that behavior, character, and moral choices make differences in one’s life trajectory, outcomes; and in one’s mental health.

 

There may be certainly some modicum of credence in the parallels between the deterioration of culture in the United States and the deterioration of mental health, stability and well-being of the individual.

 

If one reflects upon current world situations and especially the fragmentation, if you will, the Balkanization of the United States, one realizes quite quickly how the conflicts within the individual may be reflected in the conflicts within society.

 

It is this particularly poetic justice and beauty of reality that allows one to judge the status of both “the status quo” and the status of the individual within “the status quo.”

 

It is difficult to over generalize and it is difficult to oversimplify, but sometimes the reduction of both the health of the society and the criteria for the mental health of the individual allow for succinct and salient comparisons. However, it is extremely difficult, neigh impossible to determine cause.

 

Think of this as a chicken and the egg question: which came first? In other words, did the mental health of the individual deteriorate first or did the culture deteriorate first?

 

Truly, the status of the culture and the individual mutually impact each other. More importantly, we need to determine target goals and the intervention in order to improve both the health of the culture and individual within the culture.

 

 As is typical in health interventions, we wish the least invasive intervention and leverage that for the maximal outcome. The problem becomes one of ethics because in the typical clinical setting it is requisite to obtain “informed consent to treatment” before intervening.

 

In today’s society, we have had decades of “intervention” without “informed consent.” Allow me to explain:

 

We have had decades of “intervention” and “social engineering” without the consent of those being treated!

 

Moreover, during the last century not only has the electorate (Forgive me folks for getting political.) not been in charge of who has been elected for almost a century, especially President of the United States; more importantly, we have not been in charge of our fate since then.

 

At this point in time I would like to introduce the reader to the concept of psychosociopolitical warfare. This is not my term, nor is it a new term. In fact the first evidence of it I have found is in the title of an article published anonymously in 1936. It was a title of an article which described part of the undermining of America.

 

However, the credibility of the article is challenged because there is neither authorship nor publisher associated with it. Moreover, the largest concern regarding its credibility that I have personally is that the strategies announced in this article (purportedly written in 1936) predates the discoveries of most of the modern agents which the article advocates for use in undermining the health and welfare of the best and brightest Americans.

 

Those agents are drugs, more specifically, psychopharmaceuticals. Most of the psychoactive drugs which are employed in the treatment of mental illness have been discovered since the 50s.

 

Nonetheless, one must consider the possibility that this article published in 1936 entitled Psychosociopolitical Warfare might be exactly what we have been experiencing for almost a decade.

 

I am a behavioral psychologist, and as such, I look at function. In other words, I conduct a functional analysis in order to determine what the most salient interventions might be.

 

I’m also a trained musician, a composer. And during my training as a musician at Berklee in both classical and jazz, I learned that “functional analysis” is paramount in understanding music and its structure. Hence, all things come down to function and function dominates any analysis and understanding.

 

While we may discount and attack the credibility of Psychosociopolitical Warfare based upon several features including (1) lack of authorship, (2) lack of publisher, and (3) historical features, we may not ignore reality.

 

One must not ignore the actual impact such proposals as contained in Psychosociopolitical Warfare might have and have had. I advance the fact all of the strategies recommended in Psychosociopolitical Warfare have been implemented!

 

What do you think?

 

Feel free to call me paranoid.  But remember, it is a healthy paranoia and an informed skepticism.

 

 

 

Friday the 13th: Call for Information about Crimes Covered Up at ADOC

Friday, March 13th, 2009

 

In light of the recent response by Attorney Amin Aminfar of the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigations Office, I ask that anyone with any information, especially witnesses of any crimes committed in any Arizona correctional facility including the private prisons come forward and report.

                      

Should you fear retaliation, I will understand.  Look what they have done to me!

 

Nonetheless, you have the address and the name of the Trial Attorney who will bring this to court and press for justice.  You also may contact me and I will help you in any way I can.

 

The crimes which I reported include:

 

Rape of an inmate

Sex with a patient

Fraud

Malfeasance

Medical Neglect

Manslaughter

 

-And –

 

MURDER!

 

All in the plural.

 

Meaning many crimes have been systematically covered up thanks in a large part to Dora Schriro

and

her lover and literally “partner in crime”

Janet Napolitano!

US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Investigations Section

Friday, March 13th, 2009

 I received this letter in the mail yesterday.  This is not the response to the letter I wrote DOJ but materials forwarded apparently last summer from the Arizona District of the US Attorney’s Office.  Indeed, I am eager to see the Department of Justice response to the letter I wrote them.  actually, I may have received that.  I’ll have to look around and see if I have that.

IF YOU KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO SEE JUSTICE REGARDING ABUSES WITHIN The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO COME FORWARD and do your civic and moral duty.

 Here is the accurate pdf of the converted & scanned letter below.  Remember:  The pdf file is more accurate and some formatting is lost in conversion but this  cut and paste Word Doc allows for more open searching.

20090309-0011

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

 

 

SYC:DHW:AA:PC:db DJ 168-68-0

Special Litigation Section – PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

 

March 9, 2009

John Taylor Kent, Ph.D. 933 West Azalea Place Chandler, AZ 85248-3811

Dear Dr. Kent:

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona has referred your letter of August 15, 2008, to us for a reply. In your letter and accompanying documents you allege that the Arizona Department of Corrections has engaged in corrupt personnel practices and improper medical practices.

Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, the Special Litigation Section of the United States Department of Justice has authority to investigate conditions in state or locally-operated correctional facilities where it is alleged that inmates are being deprived of constitutional rights pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of those rights. We will consider the information you have provided, along with other information we may receive, to determine whether a pattern or practice investigation is warranted.

The Section’s authority does not, however, extend to investigating the personal grievances of a single individual. Moreover, the Section is not authorized to represent individual citizens in legal matters or to give them legal advice. You might consider contacting a private legal representative for possible assistance with your individual concerns.

Thank you for bringing this information to our attention. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may be of assistance with this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

 

Amin Aminfar

Trial Attorney

Special Litigation Section

Why Did Sandra Bolf Leave the Position of Executive Director so Quickly?

Friday, March 6th, 2009

This is the question and I do NOT have the answer!

Sandra Bolf seemed like a nice person.

Did she become ill?

Why did she leave the Board of Arizona Psychologst Examiners?

Could someone please tell me?

Ms. Bolf if you are out there & aware of my blog, cold you tell us what happened?

Are you OK?

Board Notice RFI No. 08-07/SILBERMAN

Friday, March 6th, 2009

rfi08-07silbermannotice-001

While I really do not like having to post this publically about Al Silberman, the story really would be incomplete without it.   Dr. Silberman is a moral and ethical psychologist and should not be cast in with the lot.  And Al is likeable.  However, Silberman’s contributions were significant.

Above is the scanned accurate .pdf file giving notice of what is cut and pasted below:

March 25, 2008

John Kent, Ph.D. 933 W. Azalea Place Chandler, AZ 85248

Re:                RFI No. -08-07

Dear Dr. Kent:

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has received your Request for Investigation regarding Adolph Silberman, Ed.D., and an investigation has been initiated. A copy of your complaint has been sent to the psychologist who will be required to respond to the Board, in writing. The psychologist’s response is confidential by law and will not be provided to you.

Please note that if you submit additional complaint information or documents, the Board is required to provide copies of that additional information to the psychologist for a response, which may cause a delay in the resolution of the case. Audio tapes, video tapes or compact discs submitted as part of your complaint must be accompanied by a certified transcript of the entire (not excerpted) proceeding or conversation.

Please be aware that once this case has been scheduled to be heard by the Board’s Complaint Screening Committee (CSC), the Board will be unable to accept additional information regarding this matter. Therefore, no supplemental documents or information will be accepted within ten (10) days prior to the scheduled CSC meeting date.

Please be advised of the following information regarding the Board’s investigative procedures: All investigative materials are reviewed by the Board’s investigator who may then contact the psychologist, the complainant and others to obtain additional information or clarify specific issues. The investigator then writes a report and provides the report and documentation to the Complaint Screening Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting. This is the CSC’s initial review of the case and is not a hearing. Please note that witness testimony is not taken unless the case proceeds to a formal hearing. Each and every time that a case appears on the CSC’s agenda, the complainant and the licensee (or their representative) who are present at the CSC meeting, and who wish to address the CSC regarding the complaint may do so by filling out a “Request to Speak” form (which is available at the CSC meeting) and providing it to Board’s staff. Presentations are limited to five minutes and there is no question/answer interaction with the Committee members at this time. An audiotape or CD of the Board’s discussion of the case may be purchased for a charge of $10.00 per audiotape/CD. Copies of the CSC Minutes may also be purchased at $0.25 per page; however, the Minutes often do not contain the details of the audio recordings.

RFI No. 08-07 Page Two

The CSC can vote to dismiss the case if it determines that the complaint is without merit, or refer the complaint to the full Board for further review and action. You will be notified in writing of the CSC’s decision. Enclosed is a schedule of the CSC’s meeting dates. You will receive a written copy of the CSC’s agenda indicating the date of the meeting in which the complaint will be reviewed.

The Board’s mission is to protect the public; however, the Board can only take action against a licensee when it has been determined that there is a violation of the Board’s statutes or rules. The Board cannot remove a psychologist from a particular case, overturn opinions or decisions made by a psychologist, or influence a court of law or a judge to disregard the opinion of a psychologist who has been appointed by the court.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (602) 542-3018. Sincerely,

 

Victoria Kamm, CI Board Investigator

Enclosure

Rev 1/08

Board Notice RFI No. 08-08/ARNOLD

Friday, March 6th, 2009

rfi08-08arnoldnotice-001

Above is the scanned accurate .pdf file giving notice of what is cut and pasted below:

State of Arizona
Board of Psychologist Examiners

1400 West Washington, Suite 235
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Phone: (602) 542-8162                    Fax: (602) 542-8279

‘N,                         psychboard.az.gov              in fc*psychboard.az.gov

Staff

Sonja M. Bolf Executive Director

Meghan Hinckley Deputy Director

Victoria Kamm, CI Investigator

Steve Schroeder Administrative Assistant

March 25, 2008

John Kent, Ph.D. 933 W. Azalea Place Chandler, AZ 85248

Re:     RFI No. 08-08

Dear Dr. Kent:

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has received your Request for Investigation regarding Susanne Arnold, Ph.D., and an investigation has been initiated. A copy of your complaint has been sent to the psychologist who will be required to respond to the Board, in writing. The psychologist’s response is confidential by law and will not be provided to you.

Please note that if you submit additional complaint information or documents, the Board is required to provide copies of that additional information to the psychologist for a response, which may cause a delay in the resolution of the case. Audio tapes, video tapes or compact discs submitted as part of your complaint must be accompanied by a certified transcript of the entire (not excerpted) proceeding or conversation.

Please be aware that once this case has been scheduled to be heard by the Board’s Complaint Screening Committee (CSC), the Board will be unable to accept additional information regarding this matter. Therefore, no supplemental documents or information will be accepted within ten (10) days prior to the scheduled CSC meeting date.

Please be advised of the following information regarding the Board’s investigative procedures: All investigative materials are reviewed by the Board’s investigator who may then contact the psychologist, the complainant and others to obtain additional information or clarify specific issues. The investigator then writes a report and provides the report and documentation to the Complaint Screening Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting. This is the CSC’s initial review of the case and is not a hearing. Please note that witness testimony is not taken unless the case proceeds to a formal hearing. Each and every time that a case appears on the CSC’s agenda, the complainant and the licensee (or their representative) who are present at the CSC meeting, and who wish to address the CSC regarding the complaint may do so by filling out a “Request to Speak” form (which is available at the CSC meeting) and providing it to Board’s staff. Presentations are limited to five minutes and there is no question/answer interaction with the Committee members at this time. An audiotape or CD of the Board’s discussion of the case may be purchased for a charge of $10.00 per audiotape/CD. Copies of the CSC Minutes may also be purchased at $0.25 per page; however, the Minutes often do not contain the details of the audio recordings.

RFI No. 08-08 Page Two

The CSC can vote to dismiss the case if it determines that the complaint is without merit, or refer the complaint to the full Board for further review and action. You will be notified in writing of the CSC’s decision. Enclosed is a schedule of the CSC’s meeting dates. You will receive a written copy of the CSC’s agenda indicating the date of the meeting in which the complaint will be reviewed.

The Board’s mission is to protect the public; however, the Board can only take action against a licensee when it has been determined that there is a violation of the Board’s statutes or rules. The Board cannot remove a psychologist from a particular case, overturn opinions or decisions made by a psychologist, or influence a court of law or a judge to disregard the opinion of a psychologist who has been appointed by the court.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (602) 542-3018. Sincerely,

Victoria Kamm, CI Board Investigator

Enclosure

Rev 1 /08

Board Notice RFI No. 08-04/TREZISE

Friday, March 6th, 2009

rfi08-04trezisenotice-0011

Above is the scanned accurate .pdf file giving notice of what is cut and pasted below:

March 25, 2008

John Kent, Ph.D. 933 W. Azalea Place Chandler, AZ 85248

Re:           RFI No. 08-04

Dear Dr. Kent:

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has received your Request for Investigation regarding John Trezise, Ph.D., and an investigation has been initiated. A copy of your complaint has been sent to the psychologist who will be required to respond to the Board, in writing. The psychologist’s response is confidential by law and will not be provided to you.

Please note that if you submit additional complaint information or documents, the Board is required to provide copies of that additional information to the psychologist for a response, which may cause a delay in the resolution of the case. Audio tapes, video tapes or compact discs submitted as part of your complaint must be accompanied by a certified transcript of the entire (not excerpted) proceeding or conversation.

Please be aware that once this case has been scheduled to be heard by the Board’s Complaint Screening Committee (CSC), the Board will be unable to accept additional information regarding this matter. Therefore, no supplemental documents or information will be accepted within ten (10) days prior to the scheduled CSC meeting date.

Please be advised of the following information regarding the Board’s investigative procedures: All investigative materials are reviewed by the Board’s investigator who may then contact the psychologist, the complainant and others to obtain additional information or clarify specific issues. The investigator then writes a report and provides the report and documentation to the Complaint Screening Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting. This is the CSC’s initial review of the case and is not a hearing. Please note that witness testimony is not taken unless the case proceeds to a formal hearing. Each and every time that a case appears on the CSC’s agenda, the complainant and the licensee (or their representative) who are present at the CSC meeting, and who wish to address the CSC regarding the complaint may do so by filling out a “Request to Speak” form (which is available at the CSC meeting) and providing it to Board’s staff. Presentations are limited to five minutes and there is no question/answer interaction with the Committee members at this time. An audiotape or CD of the Board’s discussion of the case may be purchased for a charge of $10.00 per audiotape/CD. Copies of the CSC Minutes may also be purchased at $0.25 per page; however, the Minutes often do not contain the details of the audio recordings.

RFI No. 08-04 Page Two

The CSC can vote to dismiss the case if it determines that the complaint is without merit, or refer the complaint to the full Board for further review and action. You will be notified in writing of the CSC’s decision. Enclosed is a schedule of the CSC’s meeting dates. You will receive a written copy of the CSC’s agenda indicating the date of the meeting in which the complaint will be reviewed.

The Board’s mission is to protect the public; however, the Board can only take action against a licensee when it has been determined that there is a violation of the Board’s statutes or rules. The Board cannot remove a psychologist from a particular case, overturn opinions or decisions made by a psychologist, or influence a court of law or a judge to disregard the opinion of a psychologist who has been appointed by the court.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (602) 542-3018.

Sincere
, A

Victoria Kamm, CI Board Investigator

Enclosure