Christine Ford Most Likely Perjured Herself

Author: Buddamoose ,

Posts

Total: 14
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Within the first minute, and broke California State Law at the same time. 😂😂


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.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Buddamoose
maybe she didn't remember what her degree was in?
I mean, she is coocoo for coco puffs.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Buddamoose
Bwuahahahahahahaha, any port in a straw.
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Or more likely to be a "clinical" psychologist you need all those things.  
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
--> @FaustianJustice @TheDredPriateRoberts
Has nothing to do with "clinical" akd everything to do with her posturing herself as a psychologist without being licensed. 

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.

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

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

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
--> @disgusted
Bwuahahahahahahaha, any port in a straw

I must have missed the part where perjuring oneself and violating state law added to a person credibility?
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Buddamoose
She might have technically violated the California statute, but perjury? Nope.

Psychologist: an expert or specialist in psychology.

She is a professor of clinical psychology. I would say that makes her both an expert and specialist in psychology, whether or not California requires a license to practice psychology.

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
--> @Stronn
She is a professor of clinical psychology. I would say that makes her both an expert and specialist in psychology, whether or not California requires a license to practice psychology.

Normally I'd agree. But consider that she was trying to pass herself off as a professional expert, when she isn't even licensed. 

"It's not a therapists job to write down details of events patients tell them" 

This along with her other use of psych terminology clearly illustrates she was posturing herself as having actually been licensed and therefore practiced psychology or any of the subsidiary derivations. When she clearly has not ever been licensed, ergo has never actually practiced psychology. 

This is where it can easily be viewed as perjury. She was trying to pass off professional expertise and know how she actually does not have. It would be perjury if a person who hasn't passed the bar labels themselves as a lawyer and tries to posture as if they are a professional expert who has actually been licensced and certified. 

Stanford U threw her under the bus and scrubbed her profile, which is kinda humurous. Had her labeled as a psychologist, then suddenly now she's just an "affiliate". Lol she done fucked up 


Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
--> @Stronn
She might have technically violated the California statute, but perjury? Nope.

Psychologist: an expert or specialist in psychology.

She is a professor of clinical psychology. I would say that makes her both an expert and specialist in psychology, whether or not California requires a license to practice psychology.

It doesn't matter how you would view it. Its how it's written in statutes. And what she said and how she postured herself could easily constitute as perjury being she was trying to pass off professional expertise she doesn't actually have. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,200
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Stronn
People who pass law school don't get to call themselves lawyers under oath just because they have a law degree.

Degrees don't mean crap in the world of expertise. (and lots of other things as well)

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally-  having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)
in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury

So how likely do you think it is being such an expert in the field of psychology, at the age of 50+, that Christine Ford didn't know she couldn't label herself as a psychologist and/or posture herself as having professional expertise regarding licensed pyschological practices? 

Again, she labeled herself a research psychologist. Then went on to definitively claim later what is and is not the job of a therapist. She was clearly trying to mislead in her testimony as to her credibility in the field of psychology. This despite pulling shit out her ass left and right. 

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
--> @Stronn
She might have technically violated the California statute

Btw, it's not "technically." She labeled herself as a research psychologist, when labeling yourself as a psychologist or any such derivation of psychologist is expressly illegal in all 50 states, when making public declarations. Testimony under oath on national TV? I must have missed where that doesn't constitute as a public declaration
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
--> @Buddamoose
She doesn't practice publicly, bro.  How many straws do you think you can grasp at on this one before it becomes a compelling case?



FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
--> @Buddamoose
If you assume your position true with no context or semblance of how said statute is intended to effect the general populace, anything is possible.