Judge claims Psychologists' reports on criminals are too similar ........Gee Who Da Thunk It Possible?

I have had first hand experience with Psychiatrist's in the Supreme Court of NSW, in a case that lasted in excess of eight years.

These "experts" are,in far too many cases, self appointed activists,social change merchants / agents, who will write reports conducive to whatever outcome they deem suitable to the case and their progressive social agenda.

In my case the "social change progressive" was outed in the witness box under cross examination by my Barrister, who elicited admissions, among many others of
 Barrister XXXXXX 

Question :

 'is it true that at the time of writing and completing this report relied upon by the defendant, sworn and written by you and submitted to the court as an affidavit you had  yet to meet or interview XXXXX, the subject of this report contained in the affidavit' ? "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXX

Answer : Yes 

There was much much more damning testimony under oath, however it is too difficult to write here without revealing identities of plaintiff deponents.

I have not and at this time will not seek a lifting of a 'Closed Court" order so as to enable public access to the NSW  Supreme Court proceedings initiated by myself.

The defendants "Expert Psychiarist" shortly after this admission under oath of the Supreme Court of NSW, was the Camera Hogging Boastful Star Witness,informant,of an Australian National Current Affairs program, alleging all sorts of "wrongs" against the NSW Health Commission regarding the funding and other "goings on" of an XXXXXX program for youths and children. Viewers of the story were outraged, and rightly so, after listening to the expert allegations of the caring and sharing Dr XXXXXXXX .

Approximately a week later the subjects of the caring and sharing Dr XXXXXXX damning allegations were answered one by one  by the NSW Health Commission on the same National Current Affairs program.

During the refutations of the "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXXX by the NSW Health Commissions representative, it was revealed that the "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXXX bank account was in fact the real victim of the due diligence of the NSW Health Commission and that the "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXXX "victims" were in fact better off, free of the input,caring and sharing of  "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXXX "

The allegations of "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXXX "were refuted by the representative in their entirety, the National Current Affairs program accepted those refutations as been the truth.

At the time of my commencing proceedings as a plaintiff in my matter the "Expert Psychiarist Dr XXXXX"  was well known in legal circles as "Liar for Hire" Mr Mrs Miss Ms Dr XXXXX aka. Liar for Hire, was an inhabitant of what is known a "Red Square" a part of Sydney's XXXXXX Street  Professional, Medical and Legal Hub.

During the course of my litigation (over 8 years in the Supreme Court of NSW) I was threatened / intimidated by the "Expert Psychiarist Dr XXXXX" repeated use of whoever the Supreme Court Judge  listed to hear my matter was,first name been used over and over during the course of our discussions and suggestions that J.XXXXXX and that "Expert Psychiarist Dr XXXXX" and J.XXXXXX had by coincidence recently attended a BBQ at the home of another J. XXXXX who had heard interlocutory proceedings in my litigation.

This intimidation was not confined to  "Expert Psychiarist Dr XXXXX" it was on one occasion used by the head of the XXXXXX  mediation / counselling service.
I was told that my action had no merit in THEIR opinion regardless of my sworn testimony under oath and that same testimony surviving cross examination by NSW Government appointed and tax payer funded lawyers, and as such should not be considered by the Supreme Court of NSW, and that I should reconsider the errors of my ways.

The various Judges of the Supreme Court of NSW who heard from the first day of hearing my various motions accepted my evidence and that of the NSW Supreme Court appointed expert witness and others who gave testimony on my behalf, not only in the first instance in a  Court of a different jurisdiction, but in the first and subsequent hearings of 18 or was it 21? appearances over 8 plus years in the NSW Supreme Court.

Despite my never having a Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW ruling against me,I was forced to appear in the Supreme Court of NSW Court no less than eighteen (maybe 21) times because of Progressive Activist Caring and Sharing Expert Psychiarist's  and Social Justice Activists Experts and Hangers On like  Dr XXXXX.

The Supreme Court of NSW is, in my opinion and based on my experience, an honest up front joint, no judge or staff member I had dealings with left me with anything to be desired.

The problems I had with Justice in NSW was with the self appointed hangers on,the "Social Justice" Bludgers (Pimps) and Parasites, the XXXXX Collective Co Operative, the 'We know what's best for you" Tax payer funded Bludgers, the "Clergy" NSW Legal Aid "Progressive" Gate Keepers, and their assorted tax dollar drip feeding hangers on, ever willing to fight the good fight on behalf of "the revolution" all funded by the NSW Tax Payer.

The Defendant in my case,was fully funded by the NSW State Government and its numerous tax payer funded, collective co operative, affirmative action, social justice, equality now, all cultures beliefs religions actions behaviours are equal,Blah Blah Blah Blah Departments.

I was blessed by been represented by a man who is no longer with us, he was a fighter he had been dealt the shit end of the stick at age 14 and despite this refused to give up on life he went on to become a successful Lawyer despite having too many clients like me who could more often than not pay him for his services.

He is no longer with us, he passed away, way to soon,as a consequence of the events that befell him at age 14.
He smoked he swore he had a beautiful wife and three children and at times was a total befuddlement to me, but mostly he was a source of inspiration, knowledge and wisdom, along with the four Barristers that he engaged on my behalf, two of whom went on to become Judges of the NSW Supreme Court and another an Australian Federal Court Judge.

Thankfully for me I am still with us, ok ok enough of your applause.

My advice (for what its worth) for anyone up against an "Expert Psychiarist" like  the NSW Government Funded  Dr XXXXXXX, ask yourself how important is the success of your case? 
What is the worst outcome if you do not succeed ?

In Australia its best to NOT rely on Police or deal with the Legal System unless you have no alternative, Australia,despite its Justice public relations bull shit spin, for the average Anglo Saxon White Male / Female Heterosexual Employed Australian, I would never recommend engaging the Legal system, unless you are arrested stay away from it, it is NOT a Justice system it is a SOCIAL Justice system, a Progressive Left Ideological System and as such should be avoided at all costs unless compelled to do so.

In my case it was a life,that, like all lives could only be lived once, I was the ONLY one, who, if prepared to fight with everything available to me ,that,that life had the best opportunity available to LIVE as all AUSTRALIANS have a GOD GIVEN right to do so,in spite of the carers and sharers and social justice PIMPS demands.

THAT LIFE WON ..........He / She is living a Life in spite of the PROVEN Wicked Vicious Deliberate Lies and Fabrications of the Progressive Social Justice, Collective Co Operative, All Cultures Beliefs are Equal  Taxpayer Funded "Expert Psychiarist" Dr XXXXXXX and His / Her / Its Social Justice Groupies down at Legal Aid.

NOTHING IN MY EXPERIENCE ALLUDED TO ABOVE INVOLVED ANY PROFESSIONAL OR LEGAL PARTICIPATION BY THOSE WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE FOLLOWING REPORT 
FOUND AT  http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/psychologists-reports-on-criminals-are-too-similar-judge-claims/story-fni0cx4q-1226783407314

Psychologists' reports on criminals are too similar Judge claims

Exclusive The Sunday Telegraph
December 15,2013 

A JUDGE has criticised one of the state's prominent psychologists saying his reports on criminals are "virtually identical" with no explanation to back up his conclusions.

District Court Judge Peter Berman SC made the stinging assessment of Dr John Jacmon's "ability to assist the court" on multiple occasions when the psychologist submitted reports detailing the mental afflictions suffered by crooks being sentenced in his court.

Dr Jacmon told The Sunday Telegraph no other judges had a problem with his work and that many offenders he dealt with suffered from the same condition.

He said he wouldn't be changing his methods "just because one judge finds a problem".

The doctor has written reports for offenders sentenced by Judge Berman including a cocaine courier, two kidnappers and an appeal by Simon Munroe who killed a 15-year-old by injecting her with heroin.

Psychologists are often hired by lawyers to give evidence of subjective features, including mental conditions, to help explain a criminal's behaviour.

The report may impact the severity of the criminal's sentence or could see them recommended for medical treatment instead of jail.

According to Judge Berman, Dr Jacmon's reports are mostly identical in saying the offenders suffered from "impaired judgment" because they didn't consider the consequences of their actions.

On October 4, Judge Berman told a hearing: "Almost every report of his I have ever read suggests that 'the offender's actions ... indicated markedly diminished capacity for judgment because there appeared to be little thought given to the consequences'.

"The second problem with Dr Jacmon's report is that there is little or no explanation as to how he has drawn conclusions," the judge told the court.

Dr Jacmon told The Sunday Telegraph his reports averaged "30-40 pages" and his findings were all backed by evidence.

He said several conditions were common to many offenders.

"If a person has got the same disorder (as someone else) I can't say that in any other way - If they've got depression, they've got depression," he said. "It's probably because (Judge Berman) sees a lot of my reports - I'm very popular around town.

"I've had no other problems from other judges ... you can't please everyone," he said.

Prominent psychologist Tim Watson-Munro said it was likely the judge was matching the expectations of the community by setting a high bar for what mitigating factors should be accepted when sentencing criminals.

"We are in a time when the community is very cynical about sentencing," he said.

On December 10, 2010, Judge Berman opened the possibility of being disqualified from hearing a sentencing because he was critical of Dr Jacmon's reports.

He told the court: "every single" report by Dr Jacmon said the offenders' actions featured "impaired judgment" with "little thought given to the consequences".

"One wonders how Dr Jacmon would treat any offending behaviour by an individual ... where there is a risk of being detected," he told another hearing in November 2008.

"Dr Jacmon seems to be saying that anyone who commits a crime has impaired judgment because they might get caught," he told a September 2009 hearing for two kidnappers.

"I do not accept that opinion at all. Many offenders adopt a completely rational thought process."

In a 2008 case where Simon Munroe killed a teen girl with heroin, Dr Jacmon submitted Munroe took drugs to ease the stress from being sexually assaulted.

Judge Berman told the court the doctor's submission had no relevance given Munroe was being sentenced for killing a 15-year-old girl with heroin, not drug supply.

Judge Berman declined to comment.

NEWS