Posted on 09/29/2018 2:46:35 AM PDT by TigerClaws
Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.
Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.
After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”
The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.
Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.
According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.
Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master’s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii’s Board of Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.
What makes Ford’s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word “psychologist” and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford’s page on the school’s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford’s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a “research psychologist” along with her email address and office phone number.
The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an “Affiliate” in the department, with the words “research psychologist” removed along with Ford’s email address and phone number. This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford’s contact information and title after she entered the national spotlight.
An archived version of Ford’s faculty listing, identifying her as a “research psychologist.”
The most recent, edited version of Ford’s faculty listing.
It is common for academics and researchers in psychology to not hold a license. California law does not prohibit anyone from engaging in research, teaching, or other activities associated with psychology if they are not licensed, so long as those individuals do not use the word “psychologist” when referring to themselves publicly.
Several searches on California’s licensing database revealed many of Ford’s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty — which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows — none refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.
Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California law. California’s Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state’s laws for practicing psychology. Section 2903 reads, “No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Section 2902(c) states: (c) “A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ ‘psychologist,’ ‘psychology consultation,’ ‘psychology consultant,’ ‘psychometry,’ ‘psychometrics’ or ‘psychometrist,’ ‘psychotherapy,’ ‘psychotherapist,’ ‘psychoanalysis,’ or ‘psychoanalyst,’ or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology.”
This appears to include titles like “research psychologist.” There is one specific exemption to the law regarding the title “school psychologist,” which refers to school counselors who do not need to be licensed. School psychologists are legally forbidden from referring to themselves as simply “psychologists.”
Whereas the term “research psychologist” may be common in academic parlance, and permissible within accredited institutions, the issue seems to be publicly presenting oneself under any title containing the word “psychologist” if a person is not licensed. Ford is a professor and a researcher, but not a psychologist. Section 2910 of the law states, “This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following (1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for which they were hired. (2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of those organizations. (3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ or ‘psychologist.'”
It is unknown why Ford, 51, a seasoned academic in the field of psychology would have made such an obvious mistake unless she was unaware of the law or trying to intentionally mislead the public and members of the committee about her credentials in the field of psychology. Her bizarre testimony often veered off into psychological jargon about brain chemistry, memory storage, and how trauma effects the brain, analysis one would expect from a clinical psychologist, rather than an academic involved in research. When asked by committee members of her most vivid memory from the attack that allegedly occurred nearly 40 years ago, Ford responded, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [men], and their having fun at my expense,” referring to the part of the brain mainly associated with memory. When discussing her trauma, Ford replied, “The etiology of anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial. [The incident] was certainly a critical risk factor. That would be a predictor of the [conditions] that I now have … I can’t rule out that I would have some biological predisposition to be an anxious-type person.”
Yet, Ford’s academic focus for years has been statistics, not memory or trauma. To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up. Hours after her testimony ended, various mainstream media outlets falsely identified Ford as a “psychologist” and praised her approach to science during the hearing, calling the statistician an “expert” on issues more closely related to clinical psychology.
The Washington Post ran a headline that simply read, “Christine Blasey Ford, psychologist,” The Atlantic’s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford, A Psychologist, Testifies to Congress,” Slate‘s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony combined her own expert analysis of the situation,” The New Yorker‘s headline read “Christine Blasey Ford is Serving As Both A Witness And An Expert,” and the Wall Street Journal ran with “Ford’s Testimony Reminds Us That She’s A Psychologist.” As of Friday morning, Ford’s Wikipedia entry also identified her occupation as “Psychologist.” According to California law, all of these are false. Ford is not a psychologist.
The Senate judiciary committee is set to decide Friday on a date for Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote. If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.
https://www.dangerous.com/49836/records-show-dr-ford-is-not-a-licensed-psychologist-may-have-committed-perjury/
Yeah, that was unbelievable. And the way she asked about the definition was so phony.
Well she is a born liar, we already knew that.
She is not a licensed psychologist, she is a DNC operative who sees a licensed psychologist. She is also a liar; everything about her is lies. She is pathological.
Wow! Thanks for posting.
This gets to the heart of her credibility and honesty.
No doubt the FBI will highlight this in their report. /sarc
It’s insane that nobody is standing up for him. Not even his attorney.
If anyone from Kavanaugh’s camp trolls this site, tell him: Please ditch your married-to-the-MSM attorney and hire someone else. Today hire a private investigator to discredit Ford and her lies. It’s war.
Dr. Ford is not a licensed psychologist, but she is a Psychopath...
There’s no story here. Riding this hobby horse would only bring questions about “Do they really have so little to go after Ford about that they have to push this?”
Ford’s testimony is full of lies.
Even the dates of that house & 2 front doors problem are way off.
I know when I bought /sold every house I have had. NOT that hard.
Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not A Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury
BTW Tiger Claws - excellent find and thread.
ridethemiles - Regarding the two front doors and house remodel... About 20 years ago, the IRS cracked down on home office and home business deductions. The IRS stated that the space must be defined, separate and used only for the business purpose. While a homeowner may take itemized deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes, all expenses applicable to the square footage percentage of the home used solely for a business is 100% deductible including all utilities, monthly landscaping service, repairs, cleaning lady, remodel, etc., items not normally deductible at all, in addition to every purchase of paper, pencils, computer equipment, mileage to the post office. When you are self-employed, everything you do is for a business purpose. Adding a second entrance enhances the separate business purpose of the space. I suspect that she writes her papers there, and hosts her “colleagues” for (political) professional meetings. For example, if she made $10,000 from writing papers as a consultant, she received a 1099 not a W2 for wages, so she would want to write-off as much as possible as expenses on a Sch C (or an S-Corp) from the “home-based business” reducing that additional income to close to zero to avoid paying taxes on it.
There is no way to prove this, but it is a far more likely reason why she wanted a separate entrance than her inane fabrication about the second door for her big acting debut before the committee.
Leftist apparatchiks often portray themselves fraudulently.
It would be a good point to forward to the FBI and the conservative press
I’ve always suspected that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren’t real “Reverends” either...(sarc)
“I did some checking around, you’re not a licensed therapist!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZahNTpd-0_w
LOLs!
She lied about the extensive remodel and 2nd front door. The building permit was filed in 2008 Palo Alto public records. The 2nd front existed since at least 2011 - she LIED about the remodel being in 2012, the 2nd front door, and the reason for the door.
Photos of her house through the years at this link:
Looks like she lied under oath case closed and time for her to stand trial.
Absolutely true!
No we are not over interpreting what she said. Under California law she is not allowed to use “research psychologist” or for that matter the term “psychologist” at all. This is due to the fact that she is NOT licensed as a psychologist in any state. Using either term makes people believe that she is a psychologist. That is why Stanford changed her bio. They changed it to “Affiliate, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences”. They scrubbed her bio because if the CA state Board of Psychology wanted to, I doubt they will, they could come in and fine both the college and Ford. I’m hoping someone has filed a complaint with the board. What Ford-I refuse to call her a doctor-did by using “psychologist” in her title was make everyone think she is a psychologist when in actual fact she is a statistician that reviews psychology research. I’m a licensed health professional for 24 years and, until this article, I was under the impression she was a licensed psychologist who did research. Now I know she is just a Phd that only teaches and does research. And what’s that saying: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
I am not a psychologist but I am saying that Christine Blasey Ford is CRAZY!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.