Showing posts with label Dr. Jim Singer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Jim Singer. Show all posts
Monday, April 3, 2017
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Interviews Jim Singer
More information on Jim Singer's case.
More details on the Grazzini-Rucki case are below.
1) The definitive dossier documenting David Rucki's violence: 99 pages of police reports, orders for protection, letters, affidavits, and more...
2) The propaganda of 20/20
3) The court created horror of the five Rucki children
4) Dakota County disallows nearly all Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's evidence and only then is she convicted
5) Dakota County slaps destitute Sandra Grazzini-Rucki with $975 per month in child support, $14,000 plus bill
6) Missing in Minnesota: Michael Brodkorb's blog
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Inside Story of ACORN 8
There is an old saying, "it's not the crime but the cover up". Martha Stewart is a good example. Her initial crime would have likely lead to a somewhat hefty fine had she admitted to it. Because she attempted to cover it up, she wound up going to jail.
The story of the formation of ACORN 8 can be summed up by a new saying, "it's the crime AND the cover up".
In May of 2008, it was first revealed to the board of ACORN that nearly a decade earlier Dale Rathke had embezzled about one million dollars from Citizens Consulting Inc., the financial services arm of ACORN, and Wade Rathke, the long time CEO of ACORN, along with 8 other lieutenants, had covered it up. As such, at the next board meeting, Karen Inman, board member from Minnesota, brought a motion to remove Dale Rathke from the organization as well as remove Wade Rathke from his post as CEO. The motion was seconded by about twenty other board members and motion eventually passed later in the meeting.
Because of the seriousness of the crimes, ACORN also decided to form an investigative committee. The committee was given the duty of investigating the embezzlement and anything related to it, so that such criminality would never happen again. The committee would consist of Ms. Inman, who would focus on legal issues. Marcel Reid , board member from Washington D.C., would focus on the organizational structure of ACORN. Meanwhile, Carol Hemingway would focus on financial issues.
For the next two months, the three ladies began investigating ACORN in order to make sure that any systemic and structural problems were removed. They found all sorts of anecdotal evidence that the organization was involved in much more criminality than simply the embezzlement. For instance, in an email, ACORN's attorney, Steve Bachmann. indicated to Inman that ACORN had been involved in ERISA violations. Bachmann indicated that ACORN employee pension funds were mismananged. Inman also found instances of lesser embezzlement. (between $6000 and $9000) She found instances in which affiliates that were 501 (C)3's were mingling their funds with those that were of other tax structures. (that's a tax violation because 501 (C)3's enjoy special tax protection that other organizations do not) Often, when people within ACORN would reveal past criminality, that admission would be followed by this quote "but that doesn't happen anymore". (which is interestingly enough what Mike Jones, Comptroller of CCI told Inman about the events that lead to another piece of criminality discovered outside this investigation)
Meanwhile, Marcel Reid found evidence that CCI, Citizen's Consulting Inc., was much more than merely the accounting and financial services arm of ACORN. She found evidence that CCI was the financial weigh station of all ACORN funds. Any monies, be it from charities or even government grants, would wind up at CCI first and then be transferred to anyone of several hundred ACORN affiliates. Reid even found evidence of co mingling and misuse of funds. There was again anecdotal evidence that earmarked monies weren't winding up where they were supposed to go. In other words, the government might give millions to fund health care projects in poor neighborhoods but it would wind up funding a media campaign.
What was missing was the financial evidence that would tie all of this together. That evidence lied in the financial statements of ACORN. In fact, Inman believed that a full forensic accounting audit would be necessary to get to the bottom of things. So, Ms. Inman decided to approach Liz Wolff, the Research Director of ACORN to request viewing the books.. When she came to see Wolff, Inman found her door closed. Minutes later, the door opened and walked out Wade Rathke, the same Wade Rathke that was supposedly removed from ACORN only months earlier. After meeting with Inman, Wolff refused to allow her to see ACORN's. books.
At roughly the same time, the board was also made aware that ACORN was about $2 million behind in state and federal taxes. Weeks later, both Karen Inman and Marcel Reid were witnessed to a meeting between the new CEO of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, Maude Hurd, who headed the ACORN board, and Alton Bennett of ACORN Housing. Lewis told the group that she had secured both a loan and a grant from Forest City, a loan of $1.5 million and a grant of $500,000. She wanted their approval to accept the deal. Ms. Hurd expressed reservations because the terms of the loan stated that if it ever fell behind the rate would jump to 18%. To which Bennett pronounced, "if your struggling to pay in any given month, ACORN Housing will make the payment." Hurd ultimately denied the request to allow the loan and instead ordered Lewis to gain approval of the entire board in order to approve the loan. (I chronicle the details of this loan and the backstory of what maybe a quid pro quo here)
Inman and Reid met privately following this exchange. They were very concerned by what they witnessed and they decided to immediately seek a temporary restraining order against destruction of any financial records related to the embezzlement, any communication between Wade and Dale Rathke regarding the embezzlement, and any other records related to the embezzlement. They eventually won this TRO and their lawyer indicated to them that the judge indicated that as BOARD MEMBERS THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SEE ACORN'S BOOKS.
The TRO would cost all sorts of money to maintain, however, and so if Reid and Inman wanted to see the books they would need to get a writ of mandamus. The writ was signed by eight board members, Reid, Inman, Adriana Jones, Fannie Brown, Robert Smith, Ivonne Strattford, and Stephanie Cannady.
Now, things became very contentious between these eight and the rest of ACORN. So, in early October, a negotiating committee was created between these eight and three other members of the board of ACORN. Reid, Inman, and Mobley represented the eight and the rest of ACORN was represented by three other board members including Frank Beatty of Las Vegas and Sonia Merchant of Massachusetts. The two sides met for the better part of a full day. They attempted to hash out their differences. After the meeting, Karen Inman, at least, felt as though real progress was made and she felt that things were heading in the right direction. Instead about two weeks later, they were all removed from the board of ACORN. Since they were no longer on the board, the judges interpretation of the law no longer applied either.
ACORN 8 was officially born. It's since grown and includes many more members than eight. The group is now determined to bring all of ACORN's criminality to light. Carol Hemingway, the individual in charge of investigating the financial portion of ACORN, the part that was missing in putting the pieces together (at least from the perspective of Karen Inman), is now the Treasurer of ACORN.
Whenever, either Reid and Inman, the most prominent members of ACORN 8, are interviewed people like Glenn Beck often dwell on their courage and heroism. I, for one, think that is beside the point. ACORN itself would love nothing more than to have Inman and Reid's heroism be the story. That would make this a human interest story. It isn't a human interest story. The story is very simple. The CEO's brother embezzled a million dollars from the organization. The CEO covered it up. Marcel Reid and Karen Inman were elected to investigate the matter and everything related to it. That's what they did. That was their fiduciary duty. That was their job. There's nothing heroic about doing your job. They did their job. In fact, they did it too well. As such, ACORN removed them from their board positions. You can draw your own conclusions but as my favorite Latin phrase goes, Res Ipsa Loquitor (the facts speak for themselves)
I, however, have a unique perspective to judge these lady's heorism and courage. That's because I have had the privilege of chronicling the stories of whistleblowers all over the country. Kevin Kuritzky brought to light crimes at Atlanta's Grady Hospital and his life has been ruined because of it. Dr. Blake Moore reported on a nurse at his hospital, Williamsburg Regional Hospital, that was acting as an "angel of mercy" and eventually the entire state of South Carolina did all they could to ruin his life. Jim Singer reported on serious malfeasance within Pennsylvania's Department of Child Welfare and he lost his license to practice psychology for more than two decades. Gerard Beloin reported on corruption in roofing contracts at his local high school, Goffstown High School, and he now lives in fear of his life. Dennis Lennox exposed corruption in the hiring of a prestigious Fellow at Central Michigan University and he was nearly expelled from school. Dr. Shirley Pigott attempted to expose corruption at the Texas Medical Board and she's since lost her license to practice medicine. In fact, the main reason I admire Sarah Palin is she was once a whistleblower. Blowing the whistle on corruption in any organization means that you are up against the establishment, a force more powerful than you. There are in fact very few acts more courageous than becoming a whistleblower. For that, these ladies deserve our respect, but their courage shouldn't be what this story is about. The criminality that forced them to become whistleblowers is what this story must be about.
The story of the formation of ACORN 8 can be summed up by a new saying, "it's the crime AND the cover up".
In May of 2008, it was first revealed to the board of ACORN that nearly a decade earlier Dale Rathke had embezzled about one million dollars from Citizens Consulting Inc., the financial services arm of ACORN, and Wade Rathke, the long time CEO of ACORN, along with 8 other lieutenants, had covered it up. As such, at the next board meeting, Karen Inman, board member from Minnesota, brought a motion to remove Dale Rathke from the organization as well as remove Wade Rathke from his post as CEO. The motion was seconded by about twenty other board members and motion eventually passed later in the meeting.
Because of the seriousness of the crimes, ACORN also decided to form an investigative committee. The committee was given the duty of investigating the embezzlement and anything related to it, so that such criminality would never happen again. The committee would consist of Ms. Inman, who would focus on legal issues. Marcel Reid , board member from Washington D.C., would focus on the organizational structure of ACORN. Meanwhile, Carol Hemingway would focus on financial issues.
For the next two months, the three ladies began investigating ACORN in order to make sure that any systemic and structural problems were removed. They found all sorts of anecdotal evidence that the organization was involved in much more criminality than simply the embezzlement. For instance, in an email, ACORN's attorney, Steve Bachmann. indicated to Inman that ACORN had been involved in ERISA violations. Bachmann indicated that ACORN employee pension funds were mismananged. Inman also found instances of lesser embezzlement. (between $6000 and $9000) She found instances in which affiliates that were 501 (C)3's were mingling their funds with those that were of other tax structures. (that's a tax violation because 501 (C)3's enjoy special tax protection that other organizations do not) Often, when people within ACORN would reveal past criminality, that admission would be followed by this quote "but that doesn't happen anymore". (which is interestingly enough what Mike Jones, Comptroller of CCI told Inman about the events that lead to another piece of criminality discovered outside this investigation)
Meanwhile, Marcel Reid found evidence that CCI, Citizen's Consulting Inc., was much more than merely the accounting and financial services arm of ACORN. She found evidence that CCI was the financial weigh station of all ACORN funds. Any monies, be it from charities or even government grants, would wind up at CCI first and then be transferred to anyone of several hundred ACORN affiliates. Reid even found evidence of co mingling and misuse of funds. There was again anecdotal evidence that earmarked monies weren't winding up where they were supposed to go. In other words, the government might give millions to fund health care projects in poor neighborhoods but it would wind up funding a media campaign.
What was missing was the financial evidence that would tie all of this together. That evidence lied in the financial statements of ACORN. In fact, Inman believed that a full forensic accounting audit would be necessary to get to the bottom of things. So, Ms. Inman decided to approach Liz Wolff, the Research Director of ACORN to request viewing the books.. When she came to see Wolff, Inman found her door closed. Minutes later, the door opened and walked out Wade Rathke, the same Wade Rathke that was supposedly removed from ACORN only months earlier. After meeting with Inman, Wolff refused to allow her to see ACORN's. books.
At roughly the same time, the board was also made aware that ACORN was about $2 million behind in state and federal taxes. Weeks later, both Karen Inman and Marcel Reid were witnessed to a meeting between the new CEO of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, Maude Hurd, who headed the ACORN board, and Alton Bennett of ACORN Housing. Lewis told the group that she had secured both a loan and a grant from Forest City, a loan of $1.5 million and a grant of $500,000. She wanted their approval to accept the deal. Ms. Hurd expressed reservations because the terms of the loan stated that if it ever fell behind the rate would jump to 18%. To which Bennett pronounced, "if your struggling to pay in any given month, ACORN Housing will make the payment." Hurd ultimately denied the request to allow the loan and instead ordered Lewis to gain approval of the entire board in order to approve the loan. (I chronicle the details of this loan and the backstory of what maybe a quid pro quo here)
Inman and Reid met privately following this exchange. They were very concerned by what they witnessed and they decided to immediately seek a temporary restraining order against destruction of any financial records related to the embezzlement, any communication between Wade and Dale Rathke regarding the embezzlement, and any other records related to the embezzlement. They eventually won this TRO and their lawyer indicated to them that the judge indicated that as BOARD MEMBERS THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SEE ACORN'S BOOKS.
The TRO would cost all sorts of money to maintain, however, and so if Reid and Inman wanted to see the books they would need to get a writ of mandamus. The writ was signed by eight board members, Reid, Inman, Adriana Jones, Fannie Brown, Robert Smith, Ivonne Strattford, and Stephanie Cannady.
Now, things became very contentious between these eight and the rest of ACORN. So, in early October, a negotiating committee was created between these eight and three other members of the board of ACORN. Reid, Inman, and Mobley represented the eight and the rest of ACORN was represented by three other board members including Frank Beatty of Las Vegas and Sonia Merchant of Massachusetts. The two sides met for the better part of a full day. They attempted to hash out their differences. After the meeting, Karen Inman, at least, felt as though real progress was made and she felt that things were heading in the right direction. Instead about two weeks later, they were all removed from the board of ACORN. Since they were no longer on the board, the judges interpretation of the law no longer applied either.
ACORN 8 was officially born. It's since grown and includes many more members than eight. The group is now determined to bring all of ACORN's criminality to light. Carol Hemingway, the individual in charge of investigating the financial portion of ACORN, the part that was missing in putting the pieces together (at least from the perspective of Karen Inman), is now the Treasurer of ACORN.
Whenever, either Reid and Inman, the most prominent members of ACORN 8, are interviewed people like Glenn Beck often dwell on their courage and heroism. I, for one, think that is beside the point. ACORN itself would love nothing more than to have Inman and Reid's heroism be the story. That would make this a human interest story. It isn't a human interest story. The story is very simple. The CEO's brother embezzled a million dollars from the organization. The CEO covered it up. Marcel Reid and Karen Inman were elected to investigate the matter and everything related to it. That's what they did. That was their fiduciary duty. That was their job. There's nothing heroic about doing your job. They did their job. In fact, they did it too well. As such, ACORN removed them from their board positions. You can draw your own conclusions but as my favorite Latin phrase goes, Res Ipsa Loquitor (the facts speak for themselves)
I, however, have a unique perspective to judge these lady's heorism and courage. That's because I have had the privilege of chronicling the stories of whistleblowers all over the country. Kevin Kuritzky brought to light crimes at Atlanta's Grady Hospital and his life has been ruined because of it. Dr. Blake Moore reported on a nurse at his hospital, Williamsburg Regional Hospital, that was acting as an "angel of mercy" and eventually the entire state of South Carolina did all they could to ruin his life. Jim Singer reported on serious malfeasance within Pennsylvania's Department of Child Welfare and he lost his license to practice psychology for more than two decades. Gerard Beloin reported on corruption in roofing contracts at his local high school, Goffstown High School, and he now lives in fear of his life. Dennis Lennox exposed corruption in the hiring of a prestigious Fellow at Central Michigan University and he was nearly expelled from school. Dr. Shirley Pigott attempted to expose corruption at the Texas Medical Board and she's since lost her license to practice medicine. In fact, the main reason I admire Sarah Palin is she was once a whistleblower. Blowing the whistle on corruption in any organization means that you are up against the establishment, a force more powerful than you. There are in fact very few acts more courageous than becoming a whistleblower. For that, these ladies deserve our respect, but their courage shouldn't be what this story is about. The criminality that forced them to become whistleblowers is what this story must be about.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Child Abuse and Sham Peer Review...Corruption in Pennsylvania IV
UPDATE: Check out my new book, The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers, and in chapter three this story, and especially its mentally debilitating effects, is explored in much greater detail.
Introduction: If this is your first introduction of this story please read part one, part two, and part three. I will be referencing them often and you will be confused if you haven't read them.
Let's review what I have laid out. In 1986, Jim Singer was a practicing psychologist in Dubois, Pennsylvania. He treated a patient with a series of problems including alcoholism and a history of abuse. Singer suggested that the patient go through counseling with the rest of his family. During the course of that treatment, Singer began to suspect that the patient's younger 16 year old sister was being abused. When the sixteen year old was confronted, she admitted, in front of several witnesses, that she was being abused.
Singer immediately called the proper authorities as he was required to by his status as a mandated reporter. From the beginning, DCFS was more interested in protecting the abuser than the child. The child was never given an attorney and her father continued to make contact with her.
Within a year of reporting the incident, Singer began losing many of the patients and then he was accused of wrongdoing by seven separate patients all at roughly the same time. Singer had been a practicing psychologist for nearly fifteen years and never had a complaint. Now, he was facing seven different complaints all at once. Even though this should have raised all sorts of red flags, the Psychology board proceeded with charges against Singer. In fact, there was even evidence that DCFS paid off patients to turn on Singer and make false claims against him.
Within a few years, Singer was nearly out of money and eventually his license was suspended indefinitely. Singer never regained his license in Pennsylvania and only recently had it reinstated in West Virginia.
Since the beginning of his case, he reached out to nearly single politician. Most were initially helpful. Letters were written to folks like Janet Reno and Bill Clinton himself. Tom Ridge even tried to get Singer's case heard in front of the appropriate Senate Committee. In fact, politicians local, state, and national were attempting to help Singer. Most peculiar, politicians helped a lot more prior to the release of this police report (summarized here). Even though this police report confirmed everything that Singer had been saying for nearly a decade, and accused much of the Pennsylvania political apparatus of criminal wrongdoing. Despite, or maybe as a result, of this new police report, the powerful politicians of Pennsylvania began to be strangely non responsive.
As such, Singer's case continues to be unresolved. Neither the accused or anyone else involved in wrongdoing has been brought to justice. The whole entire affair has been swept under the proverbial rug. How does this happen? The accuser worked for the phone company. Did he really have enough power to orchestrate a sham that sweeps his abuse under the rug while at the same time ruining Singer's career? If it wasnt' him, who was it? Those are all questions that no one has the answer to. What is clear is that DCFS and everyone else mandated to protect children in Pennsylvania failed miserably in their jobs in this case. Mark Spotz, who went on a spree killing, was also a product of the DCFS in Pennsylvania.
Given what I have reported here, can anyone imagine the horror that Spotz likely went through when the state was supposed to be protecting him? If the state of Pennsylvania protected the abuser and attacked the reporter in this case, how many other cases are there? What is going on here?
While this case is complicated with many twists and turns, it comes down to this simple narrative. The state of Pennsylvania was supposed to protect the abused child and keep the reporter anonymous and protected. Instead, the child was given no protection. The accuser was protected, and on top of it, the state looked the other way (or worse) while the reporter was retaliated against. As such, an affair that started more than twenty years ago continues unresolved today. A career is ruined, and who knows what has happened to the life of a then sixteen year old child. On top of it, no one seems to care.
Finally, here are some other similar cases of doctors being taken advantage of in other parts of the country... stories like a doctor in South Carolina that was targeted for reporting on a serial killer nurse, a doctor in Texas targeted by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, a nurse that was targeted after he reported on illegal drug testing at his hospital, the Texas Medical Board's systematic targeting of doctors, and the tragic case of obscene corruption at Atlanta's Grady Hospital. Finally, you can check out a similar case in which a doctor in Rhode Island was also targeted after she reported on suspected child abuse.
Introduction: If this is your first introduction of this story please read part one, part two, and part three. I will be referencing them often and you will be confused if you haven't read them.
Let's review what I have laid out. In 1986, Jim Singer was a practicing psychologist in Dubois, Pennsylvania. He treated a patient with a series of problems including alcoholism and a history of abuse. Singer suggested that the patient go through counseling with the rest of his family. During the course of that treatment, Singer began to suspect that the patient's younger 16 year old sister was being abused. When the sixteen year old was confronted, she admitted, in front of several witnesses, that she was being abused.
Singer immediately called the proper authorities as he was required to by his status as a mandated reporter. From the beginning, DCFS was more interested in protecting the abuser than the child. The child was never given an attorney and her father continued to make contact with her.
Within a year of reporting the incident, Singer began losing many of the patients and then he was accused of wrongdoing by seven separate patients all at roughly the same time. Singer had been a practicing psychologist for nearly fifteen years and never had a complaint. Now, he was facing seven different complaints all at once. Even though this should have raised all sorts of red flags, the Psychology board proceeded with charges against Singer. In fact, there was even evidence that DCFS paid off patients to turn on Singer and make false claims against him.
Within a few years, Singer was nearly out of money and eventually his license was suspended indefinitely. Singer never regained his license in Pennsylvania and only recently had it reinstated in West Virginia.
Since the beginning of his case, he reached out to nearly single politician. Most were initially helpful. Letters were written to folks like Janet Reno and Bill Clinton himself. Tom Ridge even tried to get Singer's case heard in front of the appropriate Senate Committee. In fact, politicians local, state, and national were attempting to help Singer. Most peculiar, politicians helped a lot more prior to the release of this police report (summarized here). Even though this police report confirmed everything that Singer had been saying for nearly a decade, and accused much of the Pennsylvania political apparatus of criminal wrongdoing. Despite, or maybe as a result, of this new police report, the powerful politicians of Pennsylvania began to be strangely non responsive.
As such, Singer's case continues to be unresolved. Neither the accused or anyone else involved in wrongdoing has been brought to justice. The whole entire affair has been swept under the proverbial rug. How does this happen? The accuser worked for the phone company. Did he really have enough power to orchestrate a sham that sweeps his abuse under the rug while at the same time ruining Singer's career? If it wasnt' him, who was it? Those are all questions that no one has the answer to. What is clear is that DCFS and everyone else mandated to protect children in Pennsylvania failed miserably in their jobs in this case. Mark Spotz, who went on a spree killing, was also a product of the DCFS in Pennsylvania.
Given what I have reported here, can anyone imagine the horror that Spotz likely went through when the state was supposed to be protecting him? If the state of Pennsylvania protected the abuser and attacked the reporter in this case, how many other cases are there? What is going on here?
While this case is complicated with many twists and turns, it comes down to this simple narrative. The state of Pennsylvania was supposed to protect the abused child and keep the reporter anonymous and protected. Instead, the child was given no protection. The accuser was protected, and on top of it, the state looked the other way (or worse) while the reporter was retaliated against. As such, an affair that started more than twenty years ago continues unresolved today. A career is ruined, and who knows what has happened to the life of a then sixteen year old child. On top of it, no one seems to care.
Finally, here are some other similar cases of doctors being taken advantage of in other parts of the country... stories like a doctor in South Carolina that was targeted for reporting on a serial killer nurse, a doctor in Texas targeted by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, a nurse that was targeted after he reported on illegal drug testing at his hospital, the Texas Medical Board's systematic targeting of doctors, and the tragic case of obscene corruption at Atlanta's Grady Hospital. Finally, you can check out a similar case in which a doctor in Rhode Island was also targeted after she reported on suspected child abuse.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Child Abuse and Sham Peer Review...Corruption in Pennsylvania III
UPDATE: Check out my new book, The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers, and in chapter three this story, and especially its mentally debilitating effects, is explored in much greater detail.
If this is your first introduction to this series, here is part one and part two. I will be making references to both so hopefully you will read each of them prior to reading this. After Jim Singer lost his psychology license, he wound up reaching out to nearly every single powerful politician in Pennsylvania. Each gave him different levels of help and yet ultimately he still has never had his license re instated in Pennsylvania more than fifteen years after it was removed. Here is how each of the major politicians contributed.
Bob Casey Sr. ( Democrat, Governor of Pennsylvania 1987-1995)
Jim Singer attempted to reach the governor immediately after he took office. He wrote letters however it was his son that wound up in a chance face to face meeting with the Governor himself. Singer's son was an undergraduate at Yale at the time. Singer's son was chosen to debate on behalf of the students with Governor Casey Sr. After the debate the two spoke in private. At that meeting Singer's son told the Governor some of what happened in his dad's case. He even handed the governor documents regarding perjury at his trial among many other abuses. The Governor must have been moved because within months Singer's son received this letter. It was from James Haggerty, the Governor's personal attorney. Haggerty stated that he would investigate the claim personally.
Whatever interest there was in this case from the Governor's office, it soon died down. Only weeks after receiving that positive letter from James Haggerty,Singer's son received this letter. This particular letter was also from Haggerty. Haggerty indicated that the matter had been investigated and was found "without merit".
What caused the sudden turnaround is something only James Haggerty can answer. His involvement with this case didn't start with these two letters and the investigation I assume he had in between. In fact, about a year and a half prior a meeting between himself, Christopher Lewis, the President's Secretary of Commonwealth, as well as three State Senators Dan Surra, Ted Stuban, and Sam Smith was arranged. In fact, Dan Surra actually also taught at the victim's school and had also written this letter to the Governor himself. As such by the time, Casey Sr. handed over investigation of this matter to Haggerty, he should have already been well familiar with it.
In other words, the same James Haggerty who should have known how badly Jim Singer was wronged was telling his son that there was nothing to the story. Now, I don't what you would call that but I call it sweeping the matter under the proverbial rug.
Rick Santorum (Republican Congressman 18th District 1991-1995, Senator Pennsylvania 1994-2006)
The extent of Rick Santorum's involvement is a few letters like this one. Singer said they were always cooperative but beyond writing a few letters they never did much. He had contact on and off with their office from the early 1990's all the way into 2001. It's ironic because the letter paints quite a stark picture and of course the recipient of the letter was none other than Bill Clinton himself. Within the letter Santorum starts like this.
Now, this letter indicates that the Clinton was informed by the top Pennsylvania politicians about Singer's case. How many politicians need to write letters before this case was looked at by someone at the Justice Department? Yet, if this is so bad that each of the major politicians of the state is complaining about it to the President himself why aren't each of them doing more? After all, it is now 2008 and Singer still hasn't received his license back. This particular letter was written in 1993 when Santorum was still a Congressman.
Tom Ridge (Republican Congressman 1983-1995 Governor Pennsylvania 1995-2001)
Singer first approached Ridge in 1993. By then, he had already started campaigning for Governor, and his main rival in the Republican primaries was Ernie Preate. Preate was then the current Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Ridge wrote a letter of his own to Janet Reno, then Attorney General of the United States, complaining about the case. He was very resourceful beyond that. Even though he was in the House of Representatives, he was able to talk the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee to have Singer testify at one of their hearings. Now, a big spectacle would not only bring spotlight to the case, but also to Preate's failure in dealing with it. Of course, that is a cynical view and nothing about this case should make cynical, should it.
In any case, the Hearing were scheduled April 27, 1994. This just happened to coincide with Richard Nixon's death and that day was a day of mourning at the Capitol and the hearing was postponed. It has never been re scheduled in nearly fifteen years for reasons only known to the committee itself.
By the end of January 1995, Ridge was governor. He initially was also gung ho about taking on the case. He appointed Robert DeSouza to investigate. DeSouza was a high level prosecutor in the Justice Department of Pennsylvania. This appointment came in January of 1995, or immediately after he took office. By spring of 1995, his posture changed 180%. By the spring, the State Senate wanted to run its own headed by Steve MacNett. They were hoping to coordinate the investigations. Yet, when approached, the governor's office was stand offish. Neither investigation went anywhere. Ridge, who was very receptive to this story when he was still running for Governor, became quite unhelpful to Singer once he actually became Governor. (as this letter indicates)
Arlen Spector (Republican U.S. Senator Pennsylvania 1981-Present)
Singer began to correspond with Senator Spector's office in the late 1980's. The office was receptive. Then, in 1993 the Senator received this letter. This letter was special because it was from another of Singer's patients and it told of another patient that was paid off by members of DCFS to make up stories about Singer. In other words, while DCFS was supposed to protect the child and the identity of the mandated reporter, they were doing the exact opposite.
Spector's office was helpful until this police report came out. Even though (or maybe as a result) it was a damning indictment of not only DCFS but the entire political apparatus, this police report only most politicians more hesitant to work with Singer. Furthermore, its author Lt. Ivan Hoover had his career go downhill soon after its completion.
Spector's office is the best example. Up until the release of this police report, they were very helpful. They wrote several letters and were instrumental in helping procure the hearing along with then Congressman Ridge. They even apparently asked that Shay Bilchik, who was being confirmed as a top prosecutor in U.S. Justice, to look into the matter during a private session of his confirmation. Once the police report came out, their attitude changed.
Just a couple months ago, Spector's Chief of Staff Scott Hoeslich, got into an argument with Singer because Hoeslich refused to say that Singer's case had anything to do with child abuse.
Bob Casey Jr. (Democrat Pennsylvania State Auditor 1997-2005 U.S. Senator Pennsylvania 2007- Present)
Singer first approached Casey Jr. in 1999 when he was Pennsylvania's State Auditor. In his role, he investigated misuse of state funds. By 1999, this sham had been going on for more than a decade. That was quite a lot of time and money spent prosecuting a frivolous and baseless case.
In the initial meeting, Casey Jr. was excited by what he heard. He was looking to help, however Singer was rather skeptical. That's because he noticed that the Auditor's General Counsel was a woman named Sally Ulrich. Singer had run into Ulrich while he was being shammed. In fact, she was the Judge for the Psychology Board during his trial. In other words, it was Ulrich herself that handed down his sentence.
Another individual with ties to this case was Peter Smith. Smith had been head of the Inspector General's office at the time that incident was first unfolding. In fact, Hoover attacked the Inspector General's Office specifically in his police report in 1997.
Furthermore, much of this happened on the watch of his father's administration. He would have certainly done a great deal of damage to his father's legacy if he investigated the matter properly. We will never know because his initial exuberance for an investigation went the way of the DeSouza investigation and the U.S. Senate hearings.
In fact, it appears that all these so called powerful politicians have given Singer the run around for nearly twenty years. Why wouldn't any step up and do what it took to re instate his license and investigate the obscene corruption at the Psychology board, DCFS, and beyond? That is a question to answer in part four.
Here is part four...
If this is your first introduction to this series, here is part one and part two. I will be making references to both so hopefully you will read each of them prior to reading this. After Jim Singer lost his psychology license, he wound up reaching out to nearly every single powerful politician in Pennsylvania. Each gave him different levels of help and yet ultimately he still has never had his license re instated in Pennsylvania more than fifteen years after it was removed. Here is how each of the major politicians contributed.
Bob Casey Sr. ( Democrat, Governor of Pennsylvania 1987-1995)
Jim Singer attempted to reach the governor immediately after he took office. He wrote letters however it was his son that wound up in a chance face to face meeting with the Governor himself. Singer's son was an undergraduate at Yale at the time. Singer's son was chosen to debate on behalf of the students with Governor Casey Sr. After the debate the two spoke in private. At that meeting Singer's son told the Governor some of what happened in his dad's case. He even handed the governor documents regarding perjury at his trial among many other abuses. The Governor must have been moved because within months Singer's son received this letter. It was from James Haggerty, the Governor's personal attorney. Haggerty stated that he would investigate the claim personally.
Whatever interest there was in this case from the Governor's office, it soon died down. Only weeks after receiving that positive letter from James Haggerty,Singer's son received this letter. This particular letter was also from Haggerty. Haggerty indicated that the matter had been investigated and was found "without merit".
What caused the sudden turnaround is something only James Haggerty can answer. His involvement with this case didn't start with these two letters and the investigation I assume he had in between. In fact, about a year and a half prior a meeting between himself, Christopher Lewis, the President's Secretary of Commonwealth, as well as three State Senators Dan Surra, Ted Stuban, and Sam Smith was arranged. In fact, Dan Surra actually also taught at the victim's school and had also written this letter to the Governor himself. As such by the time, Casey Sr. handed over investigation of this matter to Haggerty, he should have already been well familiar with it.
In other words, the same James Haggerty who should have known how badly Jim Singer was wronged was telling his son that there was nothing to the story. Now, I don't what you would call that but I call it sweeping the matter under the proverbial rug.
Rick Santorum (Republican Congressman 18th District 1991-1995, Senator Pennsylvania 1994-2006)
The extent of Rick Santorum's involvement is a few letters like this one. Singer said they were always cooperative but beyond writing a few letters they never did much. He had contact on and off with their office from the early 1990's all the way into 2001. It's ironic because the letter paints quite a stark picture and of course the recipient of the letter was none other than Bill Clinton himself. Within the letter Santorum starts like this.
I am writing this letter on behalf of Jim Singer, a psychologist from Dubois, Pennsylvania. I would like to join my colleagues Senator Spector, Congressman Bud Shuster, Congressman Tom Ridge, and Congressman Bud Cramer who have recently expressed their concern over the handling of Dr. Singer's case by state and federal officials as a result of his mandate reporting of child abuse in 1986
Now, this letter indicates that the Clinton was informed by the top Pennsylvania politicians about Singer's case. How many politicians need to write letters before this case was looked at by someone at the Justice Department? Yet, if this is so bad that each of the major politicians of the state is complaining about it to the President himself why aren't each of them doing more? After all, it is now 2008 and Singer still hasn't received his license back. This particular letter was written in 1993 when Santorum was still a Congressman.
Tom Ridge (Republican Congressman 1983-1995 Governor Pennsylvania 1995-2001)
Singer first approached Ridge in 1993. By then, he had already started campaigning for Governor, and his main rival in the Republican primaries was Ernie Preate. Preate was then the current Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Ridge wrote a letter of his own to Janet Reno, then Attorney General of the United States, complaining about the case. He was very resourceful beyond that. Even though he was in the House of Representatives, he was able to talk the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee to have Singer testify at one of their hearings. Now, a big spectacle would not only bring spotlight to the case, but also to Preate's failure in dealing with it. Of course, that is a cynical view and nothing about this case should make cynical, should it.
In any case, the Hearing were scheduled April 27, 1994. This just happened to coincide with Richard Nixon's death and that day was a day of mourning at the Capitol and the hearing was postponed. It has never been re scheduled in nearly fifteen years for reasons only known to the committee itself.
By the end of January 1995, Ridge was governor. He initially was also gung ho about taking on the case. He appointed Robert DeSouza to investigate. DeSouza was a high level prosecutor in the Justice Department of Pennsylvania. This appointment came in January of 1995, or immediately after he took office. By spring of 1995, his posture changed 180%. By the spring, the State Senate wanted to run its own headed by Steve MacNett. They were hoping to coordinate the investigations. Yet, when approached, the governor's office was stand offish. Neither investigation went anywhere. Ridge, who was very receptive to this story when he was still running for Governor, became quite unhelpful to Singer once he actually became Governor. (as this letter indicates)
Arlen Spector (Republican U.S. Senator Pennsylvania 1981-Present)
Singer began to correspond with Senator Spector's office in the late 1980's. The office was receptive. Then, in 1993 the Senator received this letter. This letter was special because it was from another of Singer's patients and it told of another patient that was paid off by members of DCFS to make up stories about Singer. In other words, while DCFS was supposed to protect the child and the identity of the mandated reporter, they were doing the exact opposite.
Spector's office was helpful until this police report came out. Even though (or maybe as a result) it was a damning indictment of not only DCFS but the entire political apparatus, this police report only most politicians more hesitant to work with Singer. Furthermore, its author Lt. Ivan Hoover had his career go downhill soon after its completion.
Spector's office is the best example. Up until the release of this police report, they were very helpful. They wrote several letters and were instrumental in helping procure the hearing along with then Congressman Ridge. They even apparently asked that Shay Bilchik, who was being confirmed as a top prosecutor in U.S. Justice, to look into the matter during a private session of his confirmation. Once the police report came out, their attitude changed.
Just a couple months ago, Spector's Chief of Staff Scott Hoeslich, got into an argument with Singer because Hoeslich refused to say that Singer's case had anything to do with child abuse.
Bob Casey Jr. (Democrat Pennsylvania State Auditor 1997-2005 U.S. Senator Pennsylvania 2007- Present)
Singer first approached Casey Jr. in 1999 when he was Pennsylvania's State Auditor. In his role, he investigated misuse of state funds. By 1999, this sham had been going on for more than a decade. That was quite a lot of time and money spent prosecuting a frivolous and baseless case.
In the initial meeting, Casey Jr. was excited by what he heard. He was looking to help, however Singer was rather skeptical. That's because he noticed that the Auditor's General Counsel was a woman named Sally Ulrich. Singer had run into Ulrich while he was being shammed. In fact, she was the Judge for the Psychology Board during his trial. In other words, it was Ulrich herself that handed down his sentence.
Another individual with ties to this case was Peter Smith. Smith had been head of the Inspector General's office at the time that incident was first unfolding. In fact, Hoover attacked the Inspector General's Office specifically in his police report in 1997.
Furthermore, much of this happened on the watch of his father's administration. He would have certainly done a great deal of damage to his father's legacy if he investigated the matter properly. We will never know because his initial exuberance for an investigation went the way of the DeSouza investigation and the U.S. Senate hearings.
In fact, it appears that all these so called powerful politicians have given Singer the run around for nearly twenty years. Why wouldn't any step up and do what it took to re instate his license and investigate the obscene corruption at the Psychology board, DCFS, and beyond? That is a question to answer in part four.
Here is part four...
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Child Abuse and Sham Peer Review...Corruption in Pennsylvania Part I
UPDATE: Check out my new book, The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers, and in chapter three this story, and especially its mentally debilitating effects, is explored in much greater detail.
This is a police report done by then Lieutenant Ivan Hooper of the Pennsylvania State Troopers.. ( Part II here) It is a police report that should have finally brought to an end a nightmare that lasted nearly ten years for Dr. Jim Singer. That's because this report confirmed everything that Dr. Singer had been saying for nearly ten years not only about a case of child abuse but systemic corruption at all levels of Pennsylvania government that tried to cover it up. Instead, following the release of this report much of the political help that Mr. Singer received from Pennsylvania politicians dried up. This police report and the case surrounding it open a Pandora's box to corruption in which the Department of Children's Services in Pennsylvania protected child predators and helped orchestrate retaliation against medical professionals that try to report on it.
Back in 1986, Mr. Singer received a patient with a plethora of mental issues including alcoholism and a history of abuse. After having this patient meet with a physician, the two medical professionals decided that the best approach for treatment was family counseling. During family counseling, Mr. Singer found a dysfunctional family with all sorts of problems. After a couple of days, Mr. Singer had confirmed to him in front of multiple witnesses that the daughter in the family was being abused by the fath
er. As a mandated reporter, Dr. Singer was required by law to report his findings to proper authorities. By law, even a suspicion of child abuse must be reported.
Dr. Singer did what the law, medical ethics, and simple humanity required of him. As a result, his entire career and life have been ruined. Within a year, his patients began to dry up because rumors were spread throughout the town he practiced in that he was abusive and incompetent. Several months after these rumors began he was brought in front of the Pennsylvania Psychology Board on several violations. Mr. Singer had been a practicing since 1973 and he never had any complaints, and suddenly within two years of reporting this incident, he had multiple complaints against him. By 1991, the Psychology board suspended his license indefinitely and has still not returned to this day. In fact, he has only recently been able to reinstate his license in West Virginia. Even though he was supposed to remain anonymous when he reported the child abuse, his name was revealed. While no one can be sure how his name was leaked, the only organization that knew was the Department of Children's Services.
Furthermore, throughout his ordeal Mr. Singer reached out to nearly every single powerful politician in the state. He asked everyone from Arlen Spector, to Tom Ridge, to Rick Santorum, to both Bob Casey Jr. and Sr. for help. ( Here is a letter from a State Senator to then Governor Bob Casey Sr. explaining their concern about the way in which Dr. Singer was being targeted)None of them could or would help. Many of the politicians acknowledged the systemic corruption that infected the medical boards of Pennsylvania. Yet, after more than ten years of trying none of them have helped him retrieve his license. According to this letter written to Senator Spector's office, there is even evidence of malfeasance within the Attorney General's office of Pennsylvania. As I mentioned earlier, most of the politicians were significantly more gung ho before this damning police report came out. Even though this police report confirmed most everything that Dr. Singer had been telling them, their help was nearly non existent afterwards.
This case raises many troubling issues about not only the state of Pennsylvania but the entire United States. If Mr. Singer was targeted specifically because he reported child abuse how many other medical professionals have had such things happen in similar situations? If the entire political apparatus of Pennsylvania couldn't or wouldn't protect Mr. Singer from this sham peer review, who else didn't they protect? The alleged abuser was nothing more than a civil servant. Did he actually have enough pull within political circles or was he being protected by someone more powerful? Most of these questions have still not been answered. That's because the media has again been nearly non existent in reporting this corruption. Besides a report in 1992 ABC World News and a few stories by one reporter in Pennsylvania, Mr. Singer's story has never been told. As such, the obscene corruption that surrounds has never been told either.
Of course, the story is too long to tell all in one blog post. In part two, I will lay out the events leading up to Mr. Singer's license being suspended. In Part three, I will detail the manner in which each and every politician in Pennsylvania did or didn't help Mr. Singer, and in part four I will give my conclusions. Of course, you will have to wait for those in the next few days.
Here is part two.
This is a police report done by then Lieutenant Ivan Hooper of the Pennsylvania State Troopers.. ( Part II here) It is a police report that should have finally brought to an end a nightmare that lasted nearly ten years for Dr. Jim Singer. That's because this report confirmed everything that Dr. Singer had been saying for nearly ten years not only about a case of child abuse but systemic corruption at all levels of Pennsylvania government that tried to cover it up. Instead, following the release of this report much of the political help that Mr. Singer received from Pennsylvania politicians dried up. This police report and the case surrounding it open a Pandora's box to corruption in which the Department of Children's Services in Pennsylvania protected child predators and helped orchestrate retaliation against medical professionals that try to report on it.
Back in 1986, Mr. Singer received a patient with a plethora of mental issues including alcoholism and a history of abuse. After having this patient meet with a physician, the two medical professionals decided that the best approach for treatment was family counseling. During family counseling, Mr. Singer found a dysfunctional family with all sorts of problems. After a couple of days, Mr. Singer had confirmed to him in front of multiple witnesses that the daughter in the family was being abused by the fath
er. As a mandated reporter, Dr. Singer was required by law to report his findings to proper authorities. By law, even a suspicion of child abuse must be reported.
Dr. Singer did what the law, medical ethics, and simple humanity required of him. As a result, his entire career and life have been ruined. Within a year, his patients began to dry up because rumors were spread throughout the town he practiced in that he was abusive and incompetent. Several months after these rumors began he was brought in front of the Pennsylvania Psychology Board on several violations. Mr. Singer had been a practicing since 1973 and he never had any complaints, and suddenly within two years of reporting this incident, he had multiple complaints against him. By 1991, the Psychology board suspended his license indefinitely and has still not returned to this day. In fact, he has only recently been able to reinstate his license in West Virginia. Even though he was supposed to remain anonymous when he reported the child abuse, his name was revealed. While no one can be sure how his name was leaked, the only organization that knew was the Department of Children's Services.
Furthermore, throughout his ordeal Mr. Singer reached out to nearly every single powerful politician in the state. He asked everyone from Arlen Spector, to Tom Ridge, to Rick Santorum, to both Bob Casey Jr. and Sr. for help. ( Here is a letter from a State Senator to then Governor Bob Casey Sr. explaining their concern about the way in which Dr. Singer was being targeted)None of them could or would help. Many of the politicians acknowledged the systemic corruption that infected the medical boards of Pennsylvania. Yet, after more than ten years of trying none of them have helped him retrieve his license. According to this letter written to Senator Spector's office, there is even evidence of malfeasance within the Attorney General's office of Pennsylvania. As I mentioned earlier, most of the politicians were significantly more gung ho before this damning police report came out. Even though this police report confirmed most everything that Dr. Singer had been telling them, their help was nearly non existent afterwards.
This case raises many troubling issues about not only the state of Pennsylvania but the entire United States. If Mr. Singer was targeted specifically because he reported child abuse how many other medical professionals have had such things happen in similar situations? If the entire political apparatus of Pennsylvania couldn't or wouldn't protect Mr. Singer from this sham peer review, who else didn't they protect? The alleged abuser was nothing more than a civil servant. Did he actually have enough pull within political circles or was he being protected by someone more powerful? Most of these questions have still not been answered. That's because the media has again been nearly non existent in reporting this corruption. Besides a report in 1992 ABC World News and a few stories by one reporter in Pennsylvania, Mr. Singer's story has never been told. As such, the obscene corruption that surrounds has never been told either.
Of course, the story is too long to tell all in one blog post. In part two, I will lay out the events leading up to Mr. Singer's license being suspended. In Part three, I will detail the manner in which each and every politician in Pennsylvania did or didn't help Mr. Singer, and in part four I will give my conclusions. Of course, you will have to wait for those in the next few days.
Here is part two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
