Dr. Dick, Friend of the Martians

* Forwarded from "- SUFOG Local Echo"
* Originally from Ed Stewart
* Originally dated 01-19-96 20:03

The judge postponed his decision to a later date, but as soon as he could, due to the massive amounts of evidence in this case. Mr. Linkert, Boylan's attorney, made the initial arguments followed by Mr. Taggert, the District Attorney. Both had an opportunity to present short counteraguments afterwards.

There were four local TV stations and one radio station represented as well as a turnout of supporters for Mr. Boylan which included Mike Jamieson of ORTK and Bob Brown, organizer of the International UFO Congress in Mesquite, Nevada, who gave Mr. Boylan a great bear hug at the conclusion of the hearing. Some of the other recognizables in the audience included both of Mr. Boylan's remote viewers. The whole affair lasted less than two hours with the bulk of the time being used by Mr. Linkert. Mr. Taggert stated at the beginning of his presentation that he was not going to waste time and address what was already in the record and in the briefs.

Mr. Linkert argued that this case was over the issue of ET and Mr. Boylan's beliefs. Mr. Taggert, argued that this case was about Mr. Boylan introducing his belief systems into therapy, and his patients, that they went to Mr. Boylan for help, not to be "confused", "manipulated" or "propagandized" to.

Mr. Linkert argued that the Boards sat on this for eighteen months after the initial "ET" issues in 1992. When he tried to argue that a video interview of the head of the Board of Consumer Affairs was prejudiced, Judge Cecil interrupted him saying that that issue was not relevant, that they did not bring that up over the process period. Also, that the head of the Board of Consumer Affairs was not the "boss" of the Board of Psychology and that constituted a "significant" flaw in Mr. Linkert's argument and that Mr. Linkert needed in essence to do his homework better in order to understand the authority lines within the bureaucracy.

Mr. Linkert argued that all of the black/white issues were decided in Mr. Boylan's favor and only the gray issues were ruled against him. Mr. Linkert argued that Mr. Boylan kept exemplary notes and that his pre and after diagnoses were accepted by the Board.

Mr. Linkert argued that for gross negligence to be established it had to be supported by "expert" testimony and that the State did not present any "expert" testimony on the "ET" issue.

Mr. Linkert admitted that Mr. Boylan's research/interest into UFOs started about in the beginning of his clinical psychologist's practice. (Mr. Boylan received his Ph.D. in the late 80s - his UFO resume at conferences states he has been researching this subject since 1947)

Mr. Linkert argued that the accepted standard was clear and convincing evidence and that the State's contentions were not supported by expert testimony on the points he was deemed to be grossly negligent. Mr. Linkert also argued that Mr. Boylan's CE-IV support group was modeled after Dr. Mack's of Harvard.

Mr. Linkert argued that the State changed its complaint on the hot tub issue from sexual misconduct to gross negligence. He stated that "facts behind the hypothetical must be proven othervise the hypothetical falls apart."

Mr. Linkert presented in one his arguments that one of the complainants was a "bright, well-educated, degreed, young woman" and not as Mr. Boylan has presented them in his appeal letter for money, sympathy and support. On the bartering therapy for massages, Mr. Linkert argued that the 1992 practicing guidelines did not exclude bartering. He stated that it "perhaps an error in judgement, but innocent."

Mr. Linkert kept arguing that the State did not introduce any expert evidence on ETs. He also stated that Mr. Boylan was being persucuted for his beliefs related to "ET issues and why we are here."

Judge Cecil interrupted Mr. Linkert and stated that Mr. Boylan's views, true or not true, was not the issue. The issue was whether his beliefs interfered into his patients? That that was the issue.

Mr. Taggert argued that this case was solely about "did Mr. Boylan introduce his belief systems into therapy?", that this case was "about his patients" who went for help and "not to be confused, manipulated, propagandized."

Mr. Taggert argued that Dr. Martin Leonard, Mr. Boylan's own psychiatrist, did not support Mr. Linkert's arguments. He also argued that in dealing with sexually abused patients that there is "nothing in the record" that is considered "therapeutic" or "accepted standard of practice."

Mr. Taggert argued that there was nothing in the record or any mention whatsoever of Dr. Mack's therapeutical model as the "model" for Mr. Boylan's practice. Mr. Taggert also pointed out to the court that Mr. Boylan through his attorney was still "equivocating" at this late date.

Mr. Taggert argued that there was not one shred of evidence, not one citation of prejudice that would be required to support Mr. Boylan's contantion that due process was not followed. Mr. Taggert stated that due process was followed to the letter.

In Mr. Linkert's rebuttal argument he requested the Court to consider a review of the penalty should any of the seven counts be reversed specifically pointing out that "suspension"/"supervision" should be considered.

In Mr. Taggert's rebuttal he stated that the real issue of this case is "how do you treat sexually abused patients in therapy?" ... "Not about ETs. About competence of a therapist with sexually abused patients."

Judge Cecil then concluded by asking Mr. Taggert if any count should be reversed, would he consider that as grounds for a penalty review? After some initial misunderstanding of the Judge's question, Mr. Taggert stated no.

Judge Cecil then re-advised his initial statements that he would not render a decision on this date, but as soon as possible. He then pointed out to Mr. Linkert, Boylan's attorney that he "can't pick and choose in regards to patients." In other words, that all the evidence had to be considered.

End of eye-witness report.

Interesting that not once did Mr. Linkert use the word "conspiracy" or imply that there was some "plot" to discredit Mr. Boylan. No mention whatsoever of the "grand schemes" that we are treated on these echoes and through Mr. Boylan's public appeals for money. And that Mr. Linkert treated his ex-patients and complainants with respect and dignity and not with the innuendos of money grubbing, welfare mothers we have heard here from Mr. Boylan.

The issue of prejudice was raised, but as pointed out by Mr. Taggert, the District Attorney, not one citation was introduced into the record to support prejudice or lack of due process in this case by Mr. Linkert, Boylan's attorney.

We should all know soon the Judge's decision.

Ed Stewart

: Fidonet: Ed Stewart 1:203/163 .. speaking for only myself.
: Internet: Ed.Stewart@tgod.gigo.com

Return to Doctor Dick's Hall of Shame Page
Share Some Warm Fuzzies With the Beloved Doctor Dick

Richard Boylan, Ph.D. (916) 455-0120
LLC 2826 O Street, Suite 2, Sacramento, CA 95816, USA.
E-mail: rich.boylan@24stex.com
Regular columnist in "Contact Forum" UFO newsletter:(800)366-0264;
and Bob Dean's "Stargate Newsletter": Stargate@rtd.com