Protect Your Children From Shady Shrinks
A. Every Child’s Nightmare
In the early spring of 2013, the newspaper for my local community published a disturbing story about a 9-year-old boy at an elementary school that is within 45 minutes walking distance from my residence. The story reported that this little boy’s elementary school had placed him on suspension for two months simply for something that he had said to a couple of classmates of his that truly amounted to nothing more than just tough kid talk. Because I feel that this child was violated, I am not going to mention any names herein, so that the privacy of this child and his family is protected. I also will not even disclose the whereabouts of this incident for the same reason. However, to make it easier for you to follow this news story as I describe it herein, I will refer to this boy as Alex.
The story begins on February 27, 2013 when a group of classmates were teasing then-9-year-old Alex about a girl in his class wanting to kiss him. Most of us from the male gender remember how it was back when we were that young and rumors getting started about some girl we didn’t like wanting to kiss us was the last thing we wanted. Anyhow, Alex responded back to his classmates by saying that if the above-described girl would have kissed him, he would have shot her in the head. Even though this girl did not hear him make that statement, somehow school staff members at his elementary school got wind of what he had said. They subsequently referred him to school administrators, and then to the county school division staff for a formal “threat assessment” per the requirements of the school regulations. A body of so-called professionals known as the “Central Threat Assessment Team” was to handle all these proceedings. Much to this poor boy’s father’s dismay, what at first appeared to be a two-day suspension for him turned out to be a two-month suspension. The school staff that initially addressed his verbal remark deemed it as a “substantive” threat. The school staff that initially addresses such situations has the option of categorizing an incident of this nature as either “low” or as “substantive.” Then the matter gets referred to the “Central Threat Assessment Team,” and a mental health professional performs an evaluation on the student in question and interviews anyone else who may be involved in the matter. That same mental health professional also digs into the student’s background as well. Then a decision is eventually made on what ultimately happens with the student in question. That is, the entire process was set up this way at Alex’s elementary school back in 2013.
Different school officials in my county of residence who oversee these “threat assessment” evaluations used the excuse that it had only been two months since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut when Alex was suspended from his elementary school because of the above-described incident. They claimed that the purpose of these threat assessments was to determine the level of risk that students posed to others and to determine what supports were needed to reduce that risk. Despite all of the lame excuses that these school officials could come up with, parents in my community expressed their disapproval over this so-called “threat assessment” program. Out of the 17 comments that this news story received online in response to it, 15 people complained about this so-called “threat assessment” program and vented their outrage over it. How can anyone rightfully blame them? Regardless of how well-meaning these “threat assessment” programs may seem, fact has it that this “Central Threat Assessment Team” is just another kangaroo court funded by taxpayers’ money so that a group of unscrupulous, greedy shrinks can profit from it at the detriment of young children.
First of all, the “Sandy Hook” hysteria among school officials in my community was completely unfounded in this particular situation, because the Sandy Hook shooter was not a 9-year-old boy but rather a 20-year-old man named Adam Lanza who was suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome and was heavily medicated most of the time. Adam Lanza had ready access to guns, and he was more knowledgeable about guns than the average individual. Alex probably had no more intentions than to “shoot” the above-aforementioned girl with a spitball, which would only have harmed her pride at the most. The average 9-year-old boy does not know how to use a handgun or a gun of any kind except, of course, a squirt gun, which is completely harmless. By the time the story about Alex had been published in my community’s local newspaper, there had not been a major story about a school shooting involving an elementary-school-aged sniper in the nationwide news in over a decade. Moreover, it was an underprivileged elementary school kid who had committed the mass shooting that had taken place in a Michigan elementary school back in 2000, and this troubled little boy in Michigan had spent much of his time in a crackhouse surrounded by drug traffickers and other undesirables. Alex did not fit such a description in any aspect.
Second of all, a local community does have the right to determine what can and cannot be done with their tax money. Despite how some publicists may candy coat the mental health profession, mental health professionals, more often than not, are in the business to line their own pockets; and they get dollar signs in their eyes whenever a group of paranoid individuals feel that their so-called services might somehow create a safer environment for them and for the kids in their charge. Children are the most vulnerable individuals to these same mental health professionals’ avaricious, self-serving interests. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to protect their children from harm in a school setting, because, after all, it is the duty of school administrators to keep the children in their educational institutions safe. However, putting an unlimited amount of power into the hands of overzealous mental health professionals is not the answer, and it can even cause further complications for children further down the road, when they are unjustly scrutinized in the manner that Alex was. If school officials are so concerned about protecting children from gun violence, then they can address the problem more easily and much more effectively by simply installing metal detectors in their educational institutions. Creating “threat assessment” programs is a recipe for disaster as well as an invitation to the exploitation of children for profit.
The main concern that so many parents in my local community had and likely still have about this so-called “threat assessment” program in the above-aforementioned local elementary school was that it appeared to single out innocent children simply for saying something that might easily be misinterpreted by others, while, at the same time, school administrators never seemed to do anything about bullies. Also, these school bullies always seem to know how to time their aggressions against children that they perceive as weaker than them whenever an adult in authority is nowhere in sight. Alex was not a bully but rather just some kid who did not wish to be made fun of. His father was rightfully appalled with the way his son had been treated throughout the entire process. At the time of this incident 3 to 4 years ago, Alex’s father complained that there was such a backlog of kids to be “assessed” that it was becoming like an epidemic. Even though Alex was permitted to continue his studies at home, his father didn’t feel that he was getting the education to which he was entitled.
I was unable to find any follow-up article to this news story on the Internet. However, the possibility that this “threat assessment” program could still be in existence in elementary schools across the United States of America has me greatly concerned. Those of you who are reading my article and have no children should still be concerned about that same possibility, because such nonsense will needlessly continue to absorb a great amount of tax dollars from our local and state governments. Higher-than-normal taxes will result from it, if they have not already resulted from it. Also, it could have societal repercussions for the entire United States of America further down the road. Those of you who are reading my article and do have children will likely have at least something to say about this problem.
B. The Origin of Threat Assessment Evaluations
Many of you are probably questioning whose bright idea it was to put a central threat assessment team in any elementary school here in the United States of America. In other words, who originally came up with this bright idea? To answer that question, we have to go back to the year 1987 when a forensic psychiatrist named Dr. Park Elliott Dietz founded an organization called the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) in California. If you look into the background of this same organization, you will find that the Central Threat Assessment Team in Alex’s elementary school had to have been designed after this same organization in California. However, before I go too deeply into the purpose and the professional reputation of the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.), I would like to bring your attention to the founder of it himself – Dr. Park Elliott Dietz.
Dr. Park Elliott Dietz can be best described in the public eye as a forensic psychiatrist who makes a living out of performing “threat assessments” in workplaces as well as testifying as an expert witness, mostly for the prosecution, in criminal cases across the United States of America. The Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) is a team of individuals that he assembled to assist him in performing these so-called “threat assessments” for both the private sector and the public sector. He also owns and operates a separate company called Park Dietz & Associates (PD&A) where he supposedly performs forensic analyses for either side of the legal battle line in criminal court cases, but mostly for the prosecution. Park Dietz & Associates (PD&A) is headquartered in California and has a branch office in Washington, D.C.
C. A Review of Dr. Park Elliott Dietz’s Background
From the late 1970s all the way up to 2004, Dr. Dietz was a highly acclaimed “expert” in the field of forensic psychiatry. By 2000, publicists and journalists were even making him into an icon of American pop culture as though he were the next Elvis Presley of the mental health profession. However, there was a questionable side to him that the general public seldom ever saw up until a major scandal broke in his career in 2005. In 2002, Dr. Dietz testified as a mental health expert witness on the side of the prosecution in the Andrea Yates murder trial in Texas. He testified under oath on the witness stand that shortly before Ms. Yates had murdered her children, the television crime drama franchise Law & Order had aired an episode about a woman who drowned her children and was later found innocent of the related murder charges in a court of law by reason of insanity. The prosecutor in that matter, Harris City Assistant District Attorney Joe Owmby, invoked this same piece of testimony of Dr. Dietz in his closing argument at the trial. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that no such episode of Law & Order ever existed, and an appeals court eventually overturned Ms. Yates’ 2002 murder conviction accordingly.
When Dr. Dietz had to answer up to the court for the false testimony that he had provided in the 2002 Yates murder trial, he and the prosecution passed the blame for it all back and forth to each other. Dr. Dietz eventually insisted that he had made an honest mistake in the form of what he called a “source attribution error” and that he was going to ensure that he would take every measure to prevent it from ever happening again. Okay, I get it. Even experts make mistakes. However, what makes Dr. Dietz’s denial of any wrongdoing so suspicious is that he was a consultant for the television crime drama franchise Law & Order, and it would seem that he would, therefore, have known all the episodes of that series that had aired on television up to that point in time better than anyone else who was involved in the 2002 Yates murder trial. Although the court never convicted Dr. Dietz of committing perjury in the 2002 Yates murder trial, they still found themselves obligated to overturn Ms. Yates’s 2002 murder conviction and grant her a new trial in the interest of justice.
Meanwhile, derogatory comments about Dr. Dietz were flying all over the place throughout the press and the media. And why not? His false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial had angered two different groups of people who had followed the trial. The first group of people who were angry with him was the one that was sympathetic with Ms. Yates; and they wanted to see him charged and punished for perjury, because his false testimony could have wrongfully sent Ms. Yates to death row. The second group of people who were angry with him was the one that wanted to see Ms. Yates prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; and they feared that because his false testimony had caused a reversal of her 2002 murder conviction, there remained a chance that she could ultimately be set free altogether and her children’s murders would then go unpunished. In either event, Dr. Dietz’s professional reputation was never the same again from that point on.
The attorneys for Ms. Yates accused Dr. Dietz of being a “spin doctor,” and they stressed that he was paid at least $50,000 for his participation in the 2002 Yates murder trial. Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York, who has performed extensive research on Dr. Dietz’s testimony, was able to identify various flaws in his professional integrity. She pointed out that his credentials to testify are, in large part, that he has testified before, and she described it all as “circular.” It should be noted that he acknowledged during the 2002 Yates case that he had not seen any patients of his own since the early 1980s. Ms. Denno was quoted in the January 7, 2005 issue of The New York Times calling him, “a hired gun in the worse sense.”
On an evening edition of the Fox News Channel program On The Record with Greta Van Susteren on January 7, 2005, a panel of experts appeared to agree that the best years of Dr. Dietz’s career might have just as well been behind him. Interestingly enough, a high-gun attorney named Geoffrey Fieger described Dr. Dietz as an “insidious guy” and as a “very, very bright guy.” Also, Mr. Fieger complained that Dr. Dietz didn’t appear to have a soul. Dr. Dietz once stated that if he had any bias in the Yates case, it was “compassion for Andrea Yates.” However, Mr. Fieger appears to believe that Dr. Dietz doesn’t fit the mold of a compassionate individual in the least; and in view of the other facts that I have found out about Dr. Dietz, I would have to agree with Mr. Fieger.
For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Fieger, allow me to provide you with some background information on him. Mr. Fieger represented Scott Amedure’s parents in their lawsuit against The Jenny Jones Show for the wrongful death of Mr. Amedure. The trial in that matter took place in Pontiac, Michigan in 1999. Dr. Dietz testified as an expert witness for the defense in that matter. In response to Mr. Fieger’s criticisms of Dr. Dietz, skeptics argued that Mr. Fieger was well-known for his over-the-top putdowns of witnesses averse to his case. However, when an attorney feels passionate about a case he is representing, then, naturally, he is not going to befriend his adversaries with sugary sweet compliments. Moreover, I have never known an attorney who became successful by being submissive with his opponents and his opponents’ supporters. In response to Mr. Fieger’s criticisms of Dr. Dietz, skeptics also argued that even though Mr. Fieger highlighted the fact that the jury in The Jenny Jones Show civil trial had ignored Dr. Dietz’s testimony and had ruled that Mr. Amedure’s parents be awarded in excess of 29 million dollars back in 1999, the fact that the Michigan Court of Appeals eventually overturned the trial court’s ruling and gave Mr. Fieger “29 million reasons” to be annoyed with Dr. Dietz might explain Mr. Fieger’s criticisms of Dr. Dietz. However, I read the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, which can be found on the FindLaw website on the Internet, and there was no mention therein of Dr. Dietz’s expert testimony having had any bearing or influence on the appellate judges’ decision to overturn the trial court’s ruling. Moreover, among the 3-judge panel that reviewed that same case on appeal, Judge P.J. Murphy dissented sharply from the other two appellate judges, and he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. He also implied in his written opinion that the other two appellate judges in their decision did not give the deference to the trial court jury that it so deserved. Also, there is nothing to say that Mr. Fieger would have any different of an opinion of Dr. Dietz than he does now if the 29-million-plus-dollar judgment that he won for Mr. Amedure’s parents had not been overturned on appeal.
Nevertheless, what was so interesting about the previously aforementioned episode of On The Record with Greta Van Susteren was that Greta Van Susteren seemed particularly concerned about the amount of money that Dr. Dietz was paid for his work on the 2002 Yates case. Her concern was and still is well warranted. Public records show that Dr. Dietz was making $87,721.00 a month in his capacity as a forensic psychiatrist back in 1999. That’s more money than many of us probably make within a year. As a matter of fact, he is raking in more money each year than any president of the United States of America has ever done in a year’s time. Dr. Dietz’s earnings back in 1999 added up to $1,052,652 a year, whereas the current salary of President Barack Obama is close to $400,000 a year, which is less than half of what Dr. Dietz was raking in each year 17 years ago. Currently in 2016, Dr. Dietz earns $600.00 an hour for his services as a forensic psychiatrist. Therefore, it is safe for me to conclude that Dr. Dietz was not living in the poor house back in 2002 when he testified as a mental health expert witness for the prosecution in the Yates murder trial. As a matter of fact, he has been living in the lap of luxury for some time now.
Am I saying that Dr. Dietz’s financial success as a forensic psychiatrist makes him a charlatan or a scam artist? Well, the point of the matter is that his receiving such an astronomical amount of money for his services would be an incentive for him to be less than truthful in his expert testimony at trials. It would also be an incentive for him to be less than truthful in his “threat assessments” of employees whose employers accuse of being a potential threat for workplace violence whenever a public sector agency or a private sector entity hires him and the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) to evaluate someone on their payroll. I would not doubt that he compensates his employees at the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) quite generously, and they also feel tempted either to stretch the truth or ignore it altogether whenever a “threat assessment” assignment comes their way concerning an employee who either has been accused or has been suspected of being a potential risk to commit violence in the workplace.
Despite whether or not anyone still continues to idolize or put Dr. Dietz up on a pedestal of grandeur to this very day, the scandal that ensued from his false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial forever changed his image in the eyes of both the medical community and the legal community. Between 2005 and 2006, I noticed that a whole boatload of cable television networks that used to invite him regularly on their shows to interview with their team of news reporters, all of a sudden, dropped him from their lists of future guests. He was suddenly no longer the glittering prima donna of his profession in the eyes of the press and the media that he used to be.
Back on January 6, 2005, Nancy Grace invited a panel of legal experts onto her television show that she had at the time on the television cable network CourtTV (now TruTV), to discuss Dr. Dietz’s false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial. On her television show were Lisa Bloom (a trial attorney and the daughter of the famous attorney Gloria Allred), Nicole Williams (a former prosecutor), David Schwartz (a criminal defense attorney), Jack Zimmermann (an appellate attorney), Christopher Tritico (a criminal defense attorney), and Lauren Howard (a clinical social worker). Most of Ms. Grace’s guests did not have very positive things to say about Dr. Dietz concerning his notoriety at that time for providing false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial. Ms. Bloom referred to Dr. Dietz’s false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial as “a big lie.” Mr. Tritico also said that he believed that Dr. Dietz had “made stuff up” in the 2002 Yates murder trial. Mr. Schwartz stated that he had come across situations in which doctors, mental health professionals, and other similar experts had lied their heads off on the witness stand in criminal trials. Mr. Schwartz then said that at $500.00 an hour, these same experts should not be “paid pit bulls,” and for that reason, it was important that Dr. Dietz’s false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial not be overlooked. Towards the end of this same television show, Ms. Grace came out and admitted to Ms. Bloom that she had finally agreed with her that Dr. Dietz’s false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial had warranted a new “clean trial” for Ms. Yates. It appeared that everyone on that television show, including Ms. Grace, had at least one concern or another, if not more, regarding Dr. Dietz’s lack of trustworthiness as an expert witness in a criminal trial.
Right after that same television show that Ms. Grace hosted on CourtTV, yet another television show, which Catherine Crier hosted, on CourtTV came on that involved a discussion about Dr. Dietz’s false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial. Ms. Crier’s guests on that show were Harris City Assistant District Attorney Joe Owmby (the prosecutor of the 2002 Yates murder trial), Brian Wice (a defense attorney who had observed the 2002 Yates murder trial in person), and Lisa Pinto (a former prosecutor). Mr. Owmby appeared to be visibly upset about Ms. Yates’s murder conviction being overturned as a result of Dr. Dietz’s false testimony in the 2002 murder trial. Mr. Wice pointed out that Mr. Owmby’s use of Dr. Dietz’s false testimony concerning the fictitious Law & Order episode in his closing argument was what sparked the higher courts’ interest in the matter as well as the reversal of Ms. Yates’s 2002 murder conviction. Ms. Pinto expressed no anger towards Dr. Dietz when Ms. Crier spoke with her, but Ms. Pinto did vent her outrage that Ms. Yates’s 2002 murder conviction had been overturned, which is something that could likely have been prevented if Dr. Dietz had not provided false testimony on the witness stand.
By the late winter of 2005, it had seemed as though Dr. Dietz had become a persona non grata in both the medical community and the legal community. The negative publicity regarding his false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial caused him to be dropped from the 2005 Marcus Wesson murder trial as an expert witness for the prosecution in Fresno, California. This event was likely a major blow against Dr. Dietz in terms of his career ambitions. However, after what I have told you and what I am about to report herein, all of you must ask yourselves whether or not he really deserved this major fall from grace. My answer to that question is yes.
Even though Dr. Dietz had never been involved in any scandal of such an earth-shattering magnitude until he was publicly exposed in 2005 for providing false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial, this particular chapter in his career had not been the first time that his professional integrity had ever been brought into question. A little over a decade ago, I was watching a television show called True Hollywood Story that aired regularly on the E Entertainment television cable network. That particular edition of that television program was titled “DARK OBSESSION: THE REBECCA SCHAEFFER STORY,” and it provided videotaped clips, details, and interviews pertaining to the murder trial of Rebecca Schaeffer’s killer, Robert John Bardo, that took place on September 19, 1991. For those of you who are not familiar with who Rebecca Schaeffer was, allow me to describe her to you. Ms. Schaeffer was an actress who appeared regularly on the television sitcom My Sister Sam back in the 1980s. She was only in her early twenties when Mr. Bardo murdered her. Dino J. Fulgoni presided as the judge over this same murder trial. Marcia Clark, who back then was the Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, was the prosecutor in this matter. Stephen Galindo, who back then was the Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender, was Mr. Bardo’s criminal defense attorney in this matter. Mr. Galindo hired Dr. Dietz as an expert witness for the defense in this matter at the taxpayers’ expense, which is cause for concern on how many tax dollars got dumped into Mr. Bardo’s criminal defense as a result of Dr. Dietz’s participation in his murder trial.
After the prosecution and the defense both completed their proceedings and rested their respective cases in the 1991 Bardo murder trial, Ms. Clark complained in her closing argument to the judge that Dr. Dietz’s expert testimony was a “gross exaggeration of Bardo’s medical history and mental state at the time of the murder.” Judge Fulgoni’s comments about Dr. Dietz during an interview on camera was even more interesting than Ms. Clark’s remarks about him during her closing argument at the 1991 Bardo murder trial. Judge Fulgoni had found Mr. Bardo guilty as charged. Judge Fulgoni explained in his interview on camera that one of the reasons for the guilty verdict was that Dr. Dietz had said that “the killing was not the result of that deliberation and premeditation, stating that Bardo had decided not to kill her. That when he decided to kill her, it was as a result of an insult by Ms. Schaeffer delivered to him . . . her intentions of being called out of the shower and that he did it impulsively.” Judge Fulgoni then proceeded to complain that “[t]hat’s not in Dr. Dietz’s field” and that “Dr. Dietz didn’t have sufficient command of the facts as testified to, to even make that kind of determination.” Not only did the prosecutor in this same murder trial question Dr. Dietz’s expert testimony in terms of his line of judgment or lack thereof, but the judge in this same murder trial also appeared to be not at all impressed with Dr. Dietz’s qualifications as an expert witness.
Over a decade ago, I stumbled across a website on the Internet in which a man alleged that he was serving a life sentence in a Massachusetts correctional facility for a murder that he did not commit, because Dr. Dietz had lied about him on the witness stand during this man’s murder trial. This same man explained therein that Dr. Dietz had railroaded him at his murder trial in this manner after Dr. Dietz had threatened him that he would make up lies about him in testimony if he didn’t cooperate with him in an interview in which Dr. Dietz was to ask him questions upon examining him for the prosecution before the trial. Since the time from when I had stumbled across this story, I have been unable to locate the website where I had read the story on the Internet ever again. In any event, in view of everything that I know about Dr. Dietz, I feel more inclined to believe this Massachusetts man than not to believe him; and if what this Massachusetts man claimed is true, then the American criminal justice system is in deep trouble so long as Dr. Dietz continues to be involved in court proceedings in any capacity.
If Dr. Dietz could not be trusted to provide accurate and truthful testimony at the 2002 Yates murder trial and he has engaged in less-than-ethical conduct in his involvement in other trials, then all of you must question whether he could be trusted in any other capacity of his profession as a forensic psychiatrist. Mike Tolson appeared to plead in an online article of his for people not to compare Dr. Dietz to the late Dr. James Grigson, a Texas psychiatrist who was also known as “Dr. Death” and whose professional misconduct got him kicked out of two professional associations. However, too many incidents give indication, if not evidence, that Dr. Dietz is not much different than the late Dr. Grigson in so many ways. Dr. Dietz doesn’t appear to care much about the truth in any criminal trial, and he cares mostly about raking in however much money he can do so in exchange for his so-called expert witness testimony. This mindset of his places his ethical responsibility also into serious question as well. All of these same concerns bring us back to the subject of his organization named the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.), which goes to the heart of your questions on whether an “assessment threat” program or a “Central Threat Assessment Team” should even be allowed in elementary schools at all.
D. The Truth About Dr. Park Elliott Dietz and the Threat Assessment Group, Inc.
If you go to the website of the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) to look into what it is all about, what you’ll find is a description that it is “the leading provider of workplace violence prevention services for large organizations, including corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies” and that it “provides training and consultation to employers and to attorneys representing endangered clients.” Once you notice that among its clients are “educational institutions,” it becomes no mystery that similar animals have been designed after this same organization. The Central Threat Assessment Team at the previously aforementioned elementary school in my community is likely one of them.
The Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) presents itself to the public as a group of psychiatric analysts and experts who evaluate an employee’s mental and psychological fitness to remain on staff at their place of employment whenever an employer believes that this same employee may become a violent threat to the safety of their office. Among those so-called psychiatric analysts and experts is Dr. Dietz. What this organization will not disclose to you is the reality that its members alongside Dr. Dietz will say anything about an employee that an employer pays them to say. In other words, they are like a group of predatory shrinks for hire. If an employer doesn’t like the way an employee parts his hair and that same employer wants to find a foolproof way of firing him from his job position, without running the risk of being slapped with a wrongful termination lawsuit, T.A.G. will fabricate whatever that same employer pays them to do so about an employee and never check the accuracy of any allegations that have been made against that same employee. That is, even news reporters for tabloid rags have more scruples than Dr. Dietz and the members of T.A.G. do.
How do I know all of these things about the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.)? I know about them, because I know of a specific situation in which Dr. Dietz in his role through T.A.G. had recommended that an employee be terminated from his job position under the false pretense that this employee was a violent threat to others in his office. To protect this same person’s identity inasmuch as he is my confidential source, I will use the fictitious name “Wayne” to refer to him as I describe how Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. victimized him in this manner. Wayne described Dr. Dietz to me as the Charles Manson of both the mental health profession and the forensic psychiatric profession. After Wayne described to me how Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. had ruined both his career and his life, I had thought that such a description of Dr. Dietz was way too kind of a statement about him.
Before Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. were ever involved in Wayne’s life, Wayne was making good money working for the public sector. He was only in his twenties back when the situation that later involved Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. first began, and he was earning more money than even many middle-aged men were up until the time that he was wrongfully terminated from his job position as a result of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G.’s actions. Much to Wayne’s misfortune, there were older co-workers of his who were envious of his success and had made up lies about him behind his back to his superiors. What made matters worse was that his two immediate supervisors were extremely abusive with him, and they allowed for others to soil his professional reputation.
When Wayne was unfairly denied pay raises that he was eligible for, he went through the standard procedures to seek relief. However, his two immediate supervisors did not respond too kindly to his actions to assert his rights as an employee. They both made outrageously false allegations against him to the upper management officials in his agency. As a result of his two immediate supervisors’ abuse and misuse of authority in this regard, the upper management officials in Wayne’s agency then hired Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. to do a “threat assessment” evaluation on him, even though he had never made any verbal threats, open or masked, against anyone in his office, including those who had offended him in front of other people. The most that Wayne had done was complain through the chain-of-command of his agency about how unfairly his two immediate superiors had been treating him, which was no crime at all on his part. However, Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. were never honest or ethical in performing this so-called threat assessment evaluation on Wayne, because the upper management officials in Wayne’s agency provided instructions to Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. on precisely which adverse diagnoses to give Wayne and what to say about him in Dr. Dietz’s typewritten recommendation to Wayne’s employer. In other words, Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. prevaricated exactly what these same management officials paid them to do so about Wayne in Dr. Dietz’s typewritten recommendation to ensure that he got fired from his job position with absolutely no just opportunity to defend his rights as an employee or to respond to anything in the typewritten recommendation. Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. both stabbed a proverbial knife in Wayne’s back in exchange for what was undoubtedly a generous amount of monetary compensation from his employer to them, and Wayne never got a fair chance to defend his own honor or his livelihood against these predators.
During the so-called “threat assessment” process, Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. never interviewed Wayne nor did Wayne even know that Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. were involved at the time in his employer’s efforts to terminate him from his job position altogether. To the best of Wayne’s knowledge, Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. never interviewed any of his co-workers either. Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. merely reviewed Wayne’s personnel file and made a recommendation based upon their mendacious viewpoint of its contents that Wayne was a potentially violent threat against others in his office. Also, Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. stated what Wayne’s management officials told them to say about him in the typewritten recommendation with no regard to the truth, and these same management officials paid Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. to do so. Dr. Dietz then drew up a typewritten recommendation that Wayne be removed from his job position based upon this same “threat assessment” evaluation that was unethically tailored in accordance to the specific instructions of Wayne’s superiors, and Dr. Dietz based it upon the mendacious opinion of both him and T.A.G. that Wayne posed a violent threat to others in his office. Dr. Dietz even stated therein that Wayne was likely to use a gun or even a bomb to inflict harm upon others. However, the truth is that Wayne has never fired a gun in his entire life, and he has never even held a gun in his hands. He is even afraid of guns. Wayne knows nothing about the mechanics of bombs, and he would not even begin to know how to put one together. The abominable image of Wayne that Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. molded in that same typewritten recommendation could not have been any further from the truth in that its description of Wayne was completely make-believe on the part of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. The opinions of Wayne that Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. stated in this so-called “threat assessment” report to Wayne’s employer bore absolutely no resemblance to the real Wayne.
Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. based their entire so-called “threat assessment” determination of Wayne upon his personnel file, which contained memorandums that Wayne objected to in that they were mostly authored by his two immediate supervisors and would definitely have produced an unfairly subjective opinion on the part of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. or anyone reading Wayne’s personnel file. In other words, Wayne’s superiors took it upon themselves to rewrite history to make Wayne look like the bad guy, and Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. couldn’t have cared less about the truth. Dr. Dietz claimed in his so-called typewritten recommendation that he and T.A.G. had also based their “threat assessment” evaluation of Wayne on memorandums that Wayne had submitted to his superiors. However, those were memorandums that Wayne had submitted to his superiors as a part of standard procedure to address the problems that his two immediate supervisors were causing him. They were not threatening communications or anything of that nature, but, of course, Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. took it upon themselves to misrepresent and misconstrue their contents to depict Wayne as negatively as they could in that respect.
In any event, Dr. Dietz was the one who ultimately authored the above-described typewritten recommendation and signed it, and therein he fraudulently diagnosed Wayne with the specific psychiatric terms that the management officials in Wayne’s agency paid Dr. Dietz generously to do so. Therein Dr. Dietz mendaciously labeled Wayne with probably three of the most hideous diagnostic terms that he could find in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is sort of a Bible for mental health professionals by the American Psychiatric Association; and Dr. Dietz used the exact same three diagnostic terms that the management officials in Wayne’s agency had paid him to use to describe Wayne in a mendacious manner in his typewritten recommendation. However, because Dr. Dietz never met Wayne nor formally examined him in his capacity as a forensic psychiatrist, then it would appear that Dr. Dietz committed psychiatric malpractice, and, therefore, he should have lost his medical license for engaging in this same reprehensible form of professional malfeasance. For this reason, I view Dr. Dietz as being no different than the late Dr. James Grigson, because the late Dr. Grigson engaged in this same form of professional malfeasance to send innocent individuals to death row for murders they had not committed. The only difference is that the late Dr. Grigson wrongfully robbed individuals of their lives through his unethical practices, whereas Dr. Dietz robbed Wayne of his livelihood in this same regard. Then again, the fact that Dr. Dietz provided false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial could mean that he has wrongfully caused innocent individuals to be sent to death row. In any event, T.A.G. should also have been shut down for taking part in these transgressions against Wayne. In this sense, T.A.G. operates no differently than a subversive bastion of seventeenth century witch hunters.
After Dr. Dietz sent his typewritten recommendation to Wayne’s employer, Wayne was placed on administrative leave on that same day. The actions of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. against Wayne were also greatly to blame for the humiliation and degradation that Wayne suffered as a result of his employer’s unscrupulous and abusive conduct. Shortly after Wayne was placed on administrative leave, his agency posted photographs of him all over their office space with an alert for employees of his agency not to let him onto the premises as though he were some kind of hardened criminal or wanted fugitive. There was also a memorandum to this same effect that was circulated to all of the employees of Wayne’s agency. The memorandum alerted the employees of Wayne’s agency against having any sort of contact with him. This was not a good time in Wayne’s life inasmuch as his parents were having marital problems, and these events encompassing Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. only compounded Wayne’s grief.
After he was placed on administrative leave, Wayne recalls employees at his agency staring at him as though he were some kind of freak whenever he had to go into his office to interview with agency officials concerning an employment discrimination complaint that he had filed in response to his employer’s adverse personnel actions against him as described above as well as whenever he had to go into his office to interview with agency officials concerning the administrative action against him itself for which Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. were both greatly to blame. As a matter of fact, there was even one occasion in which Wayne had come into his office while he was on administrative leave, so that he could interview with an agency official who was investigating his employment discrimination complaint; and when Wayne was out in the reception room, waiting for this agency official to get back from lunch, one of the receptionists phoned one of the secretaries who worked near the office of one of the management officials of Wayne’s employer and she asked the secretary whether or not Wayne had permission to sit in the reception room. Wayne told me that he thought that it was the most ridiculous thing that he had ever heard of. Wayne told me that he had wondered where this receptionist had expected him to sit otherwise. She had not made Wayne leave the reception room, but he could not figure out why she thought that he might not be allowed to wait in a space that was open to the general public, especially since he was still technically employed there at that agency at the time. On another occasion that Wayne had to go to his office on official business after he had been placed on administrative leave, he saw that one of the above-described photographs of him, which was posted near the reception desk, had drawings on it that mocked and belittled him.
Wayne was wrongfully subjected to all sorts of nefarious humiliations and degradation as a result of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G.’s unethical actions against him. He was treated like a habitual felon, even though he had done nothing wrong. A year after Wayne was placed on administrative leave, he was wrongfully terminated from his job position in the public sector. Wayne did not even find out about Dr. Dietz and T.A.G.’s unethical actions against him and their involvement in his employer’s efforts to terminate him from his job position until over a year after he was wrongfully terminated from his job position, which shows the furtive nature of Dr. Dietz and his organization’s activities. When Wayne eventually attempted to conduct a private investigation of his own into the nefarious activities of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. against him that led up to his wrongful termination, Dr. Dietz added insult to injury upon intercepting Wayne’s efforts in this regard in that he both threatened and attacked Wayne with civil litigation. Because Wayne did not have legal representation at the time of these events to protect his legal rights and he was unable to secure legal counsel, he had no other choice but to give in to Dr. Dietz’s intimidation ploy. These events all took place before Dr. Dietz was publicly exposed for providing false testimony in the 2002 Yates murder trial.
Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. ruined Wayne’s life both professionally and financially. Their actions against Wayne produced an adverse domino effect upon him that threw his entire life off track and deprived him of the American dream that he would have eventually achieved if he had not been railroaded as a result of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G.’s transgressions against him. Wayne is constantly reminded of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G.’s transgressions against him whenever he looks in a mirror and now sees the gray in most of his hair that makes him realize that he was robbed of the best years of his life and that, as a result of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G.’s unethical actions against him, he has forever lost the opportunities that he should have had in his younger years.
As you can see, Dr. Dietz is not the goodie-two-shoes that he has tried to fool the public into believing that he is through the years. For someone who was highly regarded in his profession for a very long time, he has managed to make enemies with so many people over the years to the point that he has to live on constant alert that somebody may try to harm him or his family. According to interviews that he has provided to the press and the media, he’s even too afraid to park his car near a van inasmuch as he suspects that someone may try to kidnap him from a public parking lot. What is so ironic about this same safety-related predicament of his is that he has become so inebriated with money and power that he has developed a God complex that makes him a danger to anyone who opposes him in the least, and he has not hesitated to destroy people’s lives in that respect. He appears to care nothing about the victims whose sides he is supposed to be on whenever he testifies as an expert witness for the prosecution in a criminal trial, because, after all, he is a victimizer himself. Also, keep in mind that of the million-plus dollars that Dr. Dietz rakes in every year for himself, a great chunk of that money comes out of the pockets of taxpayers. Therefore, despite that he may pride himself to be his own boss, the public still has the right to question his professional integrity and ethical responsibility.
It is beyond my comprehension how Dr. Dietz’s professional reputation as a forensic psychiatrist has ever recovered from the 2005 scandal involving the 2002 Yates murder trial. Then again, because he has more money than God and makes more money than even the president of the United States of America, it could very well be that he couldn’t care less about what anyone who remembers that 2005 scandal thinks about him now. He has it made in the shade, and nothing would probably give him an attack of conscience at this point in his career as a forensic psychiatrist. If he is involved in your life in any manner, you’re either with him or against him; and if he wishes to be involved in your life, he will not give you any more choice about it than he gave Wayne or anyone else whose life he has ruined, especially when there is money involved.
Now if you are skeptical about anything that I have reported herein, feel free to do your own research. However, I will still boldly say that I have always gone by the proverb that says that if someone is too good to be true, he or she usually is; and Dr. Dietz is no exception to that same rule. Do not be fooled by all the fancy diplomas that are hanging on the walls of his office. It does not make him an ethical individual in the field of forensic psychiatry. Take the examples of Dr. Charles Alfred Kinsey and Dr. Sigmund Freud. These two geniuses were highly educated in the field of medical science. However, they were both morally bankrupt in terms of their professional integrity and ethical responsibility. The amount of people currently on welfare here in the United States of America is way up in the multi-millions, and I would not be the least bit surprised if I were to find out that many of these people who are receiving public assistance are individuals whose lives and futures have been ruined by Dr. Dietz and his organization – the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.).
E. A Warning About Threat Assessment Evaluations and the Mental Health Profession
So, what is my point? Here is my point. Wayne was an adult when Dr. Dietz and the Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (T.A.G.) railroaded him and caused him to get wrongfully terminated from his job position in the public sector. They robbed him of his livelihood and his future. Any intelligent person who has read my article and has done their research can see that T.A.G. is just another kangaroo court looking to profit at the tragic detriment and the outrageous expense of others. Therefore, how could the Central Threat Assessment Team or any “threat assessment” program in elementary schools as described previously herein also be anything more than just a kangaroo court that is not looking to act in the best interests of anyone except for the people who run it? In figurative words, after considering all the horrendous things that T.A.G. did to Wayne, I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to throw their elementary-school-aged children to the tender mercies of a threat assessment team of any kind whose only real interest is likely to profit from the hysteria of school administrators over a few idol remarks that little kids make. Take my word for it that if you are a parent, you don’t want your child to confront the same tragedy that Wayne did at the profit of some avaricious mental health professional who sees your child as nothing more than just a cash cow. These shrinks are calculating, predatory master manipulators who are in the business of making however much money they can off of individuals in vulnerable situations, and the kind of damage they do to the people they exploit just to line their own pockets is unconscionable.
After Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. caused Wayne to get wrongfully terminated from his job position in the public sector, Wayne was never able to find another job that paid him the same amount of money or provided him with the same amount of benefits that his job position in the public sector did. It is difficult for him to get a job in the public sector or in any position that requires a background check, because he has no legal way of challenging the lies that Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. stated about him in Dr. Dietz’s so-called typewritten recommendation. Aside from having to deal with the emotional scars that Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. inflicted upon him through the years, Wayne has had to struggle at a much lower standard of living than what he was originally accustomed to as well as what he feels he deserves. The actions of Dr. Dietz and T.A.G. against him are reprehensible, but the law seldom ever punishes mental health professionals’ transgressions against others. If a threat assessment team were to get a hold of your child, the law would likely treat any exploitative actions they commit against your child with impunity. There is a possibility that the actions of the Central Threat Assessment Team upon Alex may someday come back to haunt this youngster, who was 9 years old at the time of the incident and who would now be 12 years old. For example, he may someday apply to a university that he could easily get into because he has the high grades that he needs to qualify for acceptance there, but then some adverse report by the Central Threat Assessment Team from his elementary school could stand in the way of his ultimately getting admitted to that same university. A child’s life does not need to be messed up early on, and unscrupulous mental health professionals have a way of becoming a liability to a child’s future.
F. My Conclusion Regarding Children’s Vulnerability to Shady Shrinks
Children of elementary school age speak a different language than adults do whenever they are angry or upset about something that is troubling them. Even when little kids joke around about something, they are not going to be as careful as adults are about their choice of words. However, it does not mean that they are actually going to act on something that adults may erroneously perceive as a threat of violence. I remember that when I was a child of 8 or 9 years old, it was common for elementary-school-aged kids to laugh and tell someone that they were going to “pulverize” them whenever they were playing tag and chasing after one another. Most elementary-school-aged kids didn’t even know what the word “pulverize” meant back in those days. I didn’t even know what that word meant when I was that young. It was not until years later that I learned that the definition of the word “pulverize” was to break something into parts or reduce it to powder, which sounds quite violent to me now that I know what it means. However, little kids used to use this word blindly and quite frequently back when I was in elementary school, and nobody made an issue out of it. Of course, nowadays a hysterical school administrator might take a harmless remark of this nature the wrong way and misinterpret a child to mean it literally. Then some shady mental health professional in a threat assessment team may turn around and view it with dollar signs in their eyes, and that child will needlessly be scrutinized in a “threat assessment” evaluation. Parents must not let their guards down with shady shrinks whenever these predators in the mental health profession are looking for more and more creative ways to zero in on young children just to line their own pockets.
The problem with our society here in the United States of America is that most people have a blind faith in the mental health profession. Too many people are fooled into believing that mental health professionals are inclined to do the right thing whenever someone’s life or future is at stake as a result of a false accusation that has been brought against them and mental health professionals become subsequently involved in the situation. However, after you watch the video below and get a good idea of what the mental health profession is all about, I am sure that most of you who may still see such a profession through rose-colored glasses are going to have a much different perspective afterwards; and I can be rest assured that most of you will agree with me that none of these mental health professionals have young children’s best interests at heart. Come on, America. Let’s wise up. Mental health professionals have done extensive damage to the lives of adults. Let’s not allow for them to infiltrate both our private and public educational institutions and harm young children. Children are our future, and we do not want to allow shady shrinks to take that future away from us.
A Horrific Fate That No Parent Wants For Their Child
A Poll for Every Parent
After reading the above article, do you trust mental health professionals with your child?
© 2016 Jason B Truth