Thursday, December 24, 2009

Commissioner-psychologist conference call

I just had a 30-minute conference call with Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, the psychologist he is appointing to do an evaluation, and my ex-wife. Cmr. Joseph treated it as a regular court session and said that he had a court reporter on a speaker phone.

The purpose of the call was to clarify the evaluation order. The psychologist had several questions. The order says that the psychologist has very broad authority to do whatever he pleases, and most of the questions consisted of asking whether he really has the authority to do things the way he likes to do them. Cmr. Joseph kept saying that he is trusting the professional to use his discretion to do what is best.

For example, the psychologist questioned whether he was required to do psychological testing, considering that testing was previously done. Cmr. Joseph instructed him to call the psychologist who did the previous tests, and come to a joint conclusion about whether additional testing is necessary.

The psychologist asked what to do with his report when he was finished writing it. This question baffled me. The guy has written 100s of reports. How could there be any doubt about this? Cmr. Joseph said to send copies to the court and to the parents. What other possibility could he have been considering? Has he ever done anything else with his reports?

Cmr. Joseph did say that he was issuing a protective order on teh (not yet written) report. We can only show it to our lawyers. I guess he said that to pacify the psychologist.

Cmr. Joseph asked us to waive all privileges. When I asked about the scope of waiver, he said that he meant all possible waivers, including a confession that I might have made to my priest. I thought that it was odd to hear him make such an anti-Christian comment on Christmas Eve. When I objected to waiving an attorney-client privilege, he said that no one is asking me to waive an attorney-client privilege. I also think that it is odd how lawyers have been brainwashed to think that the attorney-client privilege is more important than anything else. My ex-wife and I agreed to waive the privileges, assuming that the psychologist gives written notice about whom he wants to contact.

Now I wait for the psychologist to mail me his contract and his instructions.


Anonymous said...

So, no one is held accountable in the end. The comm. gives full discretion authority to th e evaluator, who then is to rely on the tests/results of the previous evaluator, right ?

You were forced to waive away everything, or there would be no progress, as a result of George, right ?

Why are we NOT to expect more of the same in the future, while we wait for the asset/income raping that's being set up ?

It's all a camoflage !!

George said...

I don't mind the waiver because the previous reports are in my favor, for the most part. I just didn't like the way the Commissioner acted as if I had to give up my legal rights.

Yes, you are right -- they try to avoid accountability.

Anonymous said...


I use the word "camoflage", because there's a lot of it being used here. If everything that's happening appears to be peculiar, than no one action really stands out much from another.

Consider, that a magician uses distraction and slight of hand to trick an audience.

Look, it christmas eve ? Do you think it's the best time to choose for the comm., parents, psych. and court reporter ? The reference to the confession and the priest ? The psych. asking what to do with report after it's completed ? the consulting of the previous' evaluator's test results (that may not be a distraction though) etc.

If everything is weird and unorthodox, it's difficult to distinguish the slop from the incompetence, or the red tape, and from the SLEAZE, taking place.

They also want to bait you, as to make you appear as nitpicking, argumentative, and a sort of conspiracy-lunatic, type, too.

In the end, it's unimportant what you say about the results, as you've critisized so many people and their methods, it must be George, not everyone else that has some sort of problem. And, if there WAS a bias against George, maybe it's because he pissed everybody off all along the way, arguing about trivial procedural matters.

Again, examine these folks' careers. It's not as though they had any sort of thriving practices, with a schedule filled with patients or clients before holding this positions, right ?

Anonymous said...

if someone has any background info on JJJ it would be really helpful to have it all out here. I've only seen bits and pieces on this and one or two other blogspots. Thanks. Also, if anyone has any info on Kast-Davids (Dept 10 commissioner for support issues) as well as Salazar that'd be helpful to have. Know thy enemy.