Posts Tagged ‘false allegations’

Scores Die in Mexico Due to Flu–—Are We Facing a Bird Flu Pandemic?

Saturday, April 25th, 2009


Are we witnessing the beginnings of the throes of a possible flu pandemic? 


Of bird flu? 


Or swine virus? 


Avian influenza A (H5N1) virus outbreak?


Or a super bug combining the terrible (as in “terror”) features of all three???


Why has the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano recently changed its policy from an emphasis upon preventing terrorism to a policy emphasizing natural disasters, such as a national emergency due to health issues including bioterrorism?


Did you know that the motto of Homeland Security under a Google search is “Preserving our Freedoms?”


Why has Janet Napolitano failed to close our borders in the face of an outbreak of the world’s most feared type of flu?


Scientists have been warning us about the bird flu for years, yet neither Napolitano nor Obama will give this matter the time of day.


There have already been victims in the United States and many more victims AND deaths in Mexico, yet why has Homeland Security done nothing?


From the DHS website itself we learn that the mission of the department is:

Preparedness & Response

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will provide a coordinated, comprehensive federal response and mount a swift and effective recovery effort.

The Department assumes primary responsibility for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation.

Shouldn’t Napolitano and Obama be closing our border with Mexico and curtailing all exposure possible to this infectious agent to prevent a flu pandemic in the United States of America?

Oh, I forget!  Obama considers himself President of the World, the New World Order.  And Janet thinks of herself as a member of the global elite.

My, Janet, “you’ve come a long way baby” from representing Anita Hill and attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with false allegations of sexual harassment!

Why don’t you mention your real claim to fame on your bio page?

Representing Anita Hill put you in the eye of the public and brought national attention to you.



ADOC Internal Affairs Investigation #2004-1446 Part III (The Really JUICY STUFF!)

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009


ADOC Internal Affairs Investigation #2004-1446



Another interesting aspect is that Lt. Lisa Johnson’s participation in this matter becomes problematic, not for me but for Lieutenant Johnson and the entire administration of ADOC! You see, Lieut. Lisa Johnson has been utilized, most definitely over utilized in the past to set up officers whom ADOC administrative staff deemed “undesirable” and the administration has used the “services” of Lisa Johnson to set them up and entrap them in false allegations of sexual harassment.


In this manner ADOC is able to effectively (yet wrongfully) terminate undesirable employees.  For the most part ADOC targets employees who will not knuckle under and play their games replete with generating false allegations against other employees and inmates as well.


I first met Lisa Johnson in 2001 when I was working on North Unit at ASPC-F. At the time Ms. Johnson was a sergeant and I was impressed by her. What I found attractive in her was what I thought might have been her character. Let me tell you a story.


I arrived at work that morning to face a new nursing supervisor who was adamant I needed to see a particular inmate & back her up and her claim the inmate was “Malingering.” But in fact what was happening was the inmate was dangerously delirious.  Upon conferring on an emergency basis with the head physician, Dr. Osteen, my suspicions were confirmed: the inmate was suffering from acute liver failure due to lack of treatment for hepatitis C. The ammonia circulating in his bloodstream was overcoming him and he was at risk of dying. That particular inmate had been scheduled to be transferred inside “The Walls” to Medical to receive critically needed treatment approximately 3 hours earlier!


What drew me to Lisa Johnson was the fact that she did what was right and I mistakenly thought she might have been a woman of character and I was interested in getting to know her. Sure, I found her attractive but I am very cautious. I invited her to lunch just like I did the Warden and left it at that.


Apparently the new nursing supervisor for North Unit was trying to establish her dominance in order to impress her subordinate nurses and as a result misjudged and the inmate later died. Interestingly, I ran into that particular nurse in Wal-Mart after she had been discharged. Without revealing her name, I can tell you that she was very distraught and she explained to me how ADOC had targeted her and her family—wrongly—unfairly!


Not only had they terminated her from employment at ADOC but somehow this nurse’s 19-year-old daughter had been charged with a “sex crime” because when her daughter was under age (a minor under 18) she had engaged in sex with her boyfriend who was of the same approximate age as her. According to this nurse somehow ADOC became involved in this matter in order to retaliate against her.


But to get back to my story, I had been warned by another female corrections officer that the former sergeant and now lieutenant at South Unit was used by ADOC administration to harass fine upstanding corrections officers and run them off! But, I forgot about the warning yet according to my usual standards I heeded professional boundaries and thus Lieut. Lisa Johnson was unable to entrap me as she had so many others before me.


Perhaps more interestingly, another corrections officer on the yard at South Unit informed me that Lieut. Lisa Johnson was engaged in an unprofessional sexual affair with Warden Kleck! Johnson was the Warden’s girlfriend.


As I left on October 12, 2004 for an interview with Investigator Phillip Schonig the Padre, that is, the minister in the office next to mine joked and asked: “It wouldn’t have anything to do with Lieutenant Lisa Johnson, would it? The lieutenant has a very nice body.  The problem is more than 95% of the time she is using it to advance herself (within the ranks of ADOC).”

ADOC Internal Affairs Investigation #2004-1446 Part I

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009



ADOC Internal Affairs Investigation #2004-1446


My comments on this first Internal Affairs Investigation will be limited. First and foremost as the reader reads through the investigation it becomes obvious that this was a setup based upon false allegations and in apparent retaliation. It was in retaliation for turning in a contract psychiatrist for fraud.


The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiner’s Response to RFI No. 05-02 ARNOLD

Sunday, December 28th, 2008


The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners dismissed my Request for Investigation (RFI) against ADOC Supervising Psychologist III Susan Arnold, Ph.D.  for failing to report her subordinate Psychologist II Ann Middaugh, Ph.D. for a set of serious boundary violations after Dr. Middaugh married her inmate patient in approximately May 2004.  Under the Rules & Regulations that govern psychologists licenses in the State of Arizona Dr. Arnold was obligated to report such a serious breech of ethics & professional boundaries.

On the morning of August 17, 2004 during our regular Mental Health Staff Meeting in the basement of the administration building at ASPC-Florence, I first learned of the marriage of Dr. Middaugh to her former patient.  Upon hearing that report from other staff, I immediately informed our supervisor Dr. Susanne Arnold of her duty as a psychologist to report this egregious matter to our licensing board. 

However, Dr. Arnold indicated clearly she was busy working on “a special assignment for Dr. McCauley” and she was leaving shortly to go downtown per Dr. McCauley’s directive.  It was during that trip that I believe Dr. Arnold posted the anonymous letter to ADOC Director Dora Schriro making false allegations that became part of the investigative file against me.  Mike King, MA, LPC, Psychological Associate II provided Dr. Arnold with some trivia about me which Dr. Arnold and her sidekick transmogrified into false allegations about me.

For the next few months, from August through November, I called Dr. Arnold on a regular basis, at least every other week, and on those occasions I implored Dr. Arnold to do her duty and report this serious breech of ethics and perhaps violation of Arizona Revised Statues.  On more than one occasion I reminded Dr. Arnold that at the least she needed to bring his to the attention of our superior Dr. McCauley. 

Finally, Dr. Arnold told me that I could report it myself.  However, that was problematic as ADOC requited following the chain of command.  Nonetheless, after being framed on false allegations of sexual harassment in obvious retaliation and after the relationship with my superior deteriorated to the point of name calling and improper use of psychological nomenclature in attempt to inflict harm on my person, I reluctantly and with great reservations finally filed my complaint.

As we shall see the matter was not addressed fully by ADOC staff to the Arizona Board of Psychological Examiners until the following year in May 2005.  More importantly, the first complaint was filed against my license in direct and obvious retaliation for my having filed my report as I was obligated under the Rules & Regulations that govern psychologists licenses, yet the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners in all its wisdom and accumulated intelligence failed to recognize that complaint for what it was—using them, the Board, to harm me.

This is the irony of “groupthink” and is just what happens when you get a bunch of liberals sitting in judgment of those with conservative values, especially when called to defend “other party members,” i.e. fellow liberals.

Attached above for your convenience is an accurate .pdf file of the Board’s letter.  A converted version is also posted below; however, it lacks the accuracy of the scanned .pdf version.  Nonetheless, it is included in the body of my blog to make it more searchable for internet search engines.



Maxine McCa-thy Executive Director

Marcus E. Ha ‘vey Deputy Director

David S. Shapro Investigator

Shari S. Cour.nay Administrativ( Assistant

Board Members

Maryann Santos de Barona, Ph.D. Chairperson

James J. Cox, Ed.D.

Vice-Chairperson Joseph C. Donaldson


Wil R. Counts, Ph.D. Miki Paul, Ph.D.

Byron N. Rimm

Michael J. Rohrbaugh, Ph.D. David P. Yandell, Ph.D. Vacant — Public Member


State of Arizona
Board of Psychologist Examiners

1400 West Washington, Suite 235
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

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

January 18, 2005

John Kent, Ph.D.


Cook Unit, P. 0. Box 3500 Florence, AZ 85232

Re:            ARNOLD/Kent

RFI No. 05-02

Dear Dr. Kent:

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has received your letter requesting an investigation regarding Susanne Arnold, Ph.D. The Board does not have jurisdiction over the conduct you describe in “Part 1” of your December 29, 2004 letter, but we have opened an investigation regarding Dr. Arnold for the conduct you describe in “Part II” of your letter. A copy of your letter 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 provide supplemental complaint information or documents at this time, the Board will be required to provide copies to the psychologist for a response and this may delay the resolution of this case. Audiotapes, 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 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 (CSC) 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 staff. Presentations are limited to five minutes. 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.


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.

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 contact the Board’s Investigator, David Shapiro at (602) 54 3018.



Maxine McCarthy Executive Director

WI/CSC complaint la boilerplate