Re: FYI - Boylan Wriggling
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:23:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:23:33 -0500
Subject: Re: FYI - Boylan Wriggling
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:07:23 -0800
From: Ed Stewart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: FYI - Boylan Wriggling
Hello Errol and List members,
UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:
> Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo sent the following, yesterday. It is
> posted for your information only and for follow-up posts from
> subscribers who were involved with the Boylan posts in the early
> days of this List and over on Fido's UFO & Odyssey/BAMA.
> (Ed. Stewart, John Powell, Don Allen & John Velez)
> For further info see:
> Boylan loses license to practice psychotherapy. Reports
> in Sacramento Press, Aug. 7, 1995 at:
> California Board of Psychology report detailing Boylan's
> license revocation at:
> You can also check out the reasons for the Boylan Ban
> starting at:
> Errol Bruce-Knapp,
Attached is an integral part of the public record that people interested
in this matter should be aware of. It is the ruling decision by Superior
Court Judge Cecil on Boylan's appeal. Boylan for whatever reasons of his
own has zero mention of going before the Superior Court of the State of
California on his "open letter" for money, support and sympathy. I would
appreciate the widest dispersal of this attached file. It is a public
record very much germaine to why Boylan is no longer allowed his
licenses to practice within the state. Included are also the news
coverage of this sordid case.
boylanap.txt Superior Court of the State of California ruling
boylan3a.txt TV-CH 3 Reports on Superior Court ruling
boylansb.txt Sacramento BEE newspaper update on Boylan case
ps. when I first loaded the above into Fidonet, Boylan accused me of
duplicity in posting false misleading documents and charged that the
above decision was not a final one or even SIGNED by the Judge.
Consequently, I posted the following GIF files of the three pages that
constituted the actual document. Clearly, one can see that the original
document was signed by Judge Thomas Cecil and that my text rendition was
accurate as per the originals. Those files for your inspection are:
boylan01.gif, boylan02.gif, and boylan03.gif
Ed Stewart firstname.lastname@example.org | So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There is Something | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
Going On! ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
--------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
THE SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
RICHARD J. BOYLAN, PH.D. ENDORSED
Petitioner FEB -8 1996
By R. ROUSE, Deputy
MEDICAL BOARD OF CA, -------------------
BBSE, DCA AND THE STATE
DECISION ON SUBMITTED MATTER
Case No. 95CS02187
This Petition for Writ of Mandate came on regularly for hearing
on January 19, 1996, in Department 7 of the Sacramento Superior Court,
the Honorable Thomas M. Cecil presiding. Petitioner was present and
represented by counsel, Mr. Richard S. Linkert. Repondents were
represented by counsel, Mr. Arthur D. Taggart. The matter was argued and
For reasons set forth below, as well as those stated during the
hearing of January 19, 1996, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied.
This Petition was filed under the authority of section 1094.5 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. It is undisputed that vested rights of
petitioner are at stake. Accordingly, this court has reviewed the
administrative record and exercised its independent judgment. With the
exception of one of respondents' findings, the court has determined that
the findings are supported by the weight of the evidence. Specifically,
the court finds the evidence relative to Determination of issue II
With regard to each of the other Determinations found true by
the ALJ (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10), the court finds the evidence in
support overwhelming. Further, separate from the issue of whether
evidence in support of the acts comprising the Determination of issues
was presented, the court specifically notes that in each instance,
expert testimony was presented in support of these determinations.
Petitioner's contrary assertion is not supported by the record.
Petitioner accurately asserts that basic concepts of due process
requires certainty and clarity of the accusations being filed as well as
the need for fundamental fairness in the hearing process. Contrary to
petitioner's assertions, however, the court finds no prejudice
occasioned by the amendments to the accusation. Petitioner was afforded
ample opportunity to address the amendments with the presentation of his
evidence and in cross examining respondents' witnesses.
In his moving papers as well as during oral arguments on January
19, petitioner referred to the "thrust" or "focus" of respondents case,
asserting that the resulting "moving target" was constitutionally
defective and required reversal of the administrative decision. As
already noted, the record demonstrates that petitioner was afforded
substantial leeway in terms of responding to changes made to the
accusation. Moreover, the mere fact that petitioner misconstrued the
"focus" or "thrust" of respondent's case, does not diminish or negate
the end product. It is commonplace for arguments originally envisioned
to be "winners" to be tossed aside during the course of trial. Concepts
or tactics first deemed unwise often blossom before the eyes of the
In no respect does this court find any violation of the due
process rights of petitioner nor has petitioner been able to demonstrate
any prejudice stemming from the amendments to the accusation.
Petitioner takes issue with the "delay" in pursuing the
complaint originally lodged with BOP by KG. It should be noted that KG
advised the board of her inability to go forward - alone. It appears
that the BOP acceded to her wish until such time as additional
complaints were filed against the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is
unable to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay.
Lastly, petitioner has challenged the level of discipline
ordered by the boards. It is well-established that a penalty
determination will not be disturbed by a reviewing court absent a
finding of a manifest abuse of discretion. The fact that reasonable
minds could differ as to the propriety and necessity of a given sanction
is insufficient justification to overturn a penalty decision.
The court concurs with the analysis of respondents, both legally
and factually as set out in respondents' Points & Authorities in
Opposition. Moreover, notwithstanding petitioner's efforts to
demonstrate that he poses no risk to the public, his own "Responsive
Brief" forcefully reinforces the position of _respondents_. Petitioner
consistently references the notion that his patients "misconstrued" his
intent, or that it was "misunderstood", or that the risk was "minimal."
Obviously, petitioner holds licenses that confer upon him
substantial obligations. His chosen professions require that he exercise
good judgment, respect his patients' feelings and their needs. Contrary
to the position of petitioner, this court finds almost no evidence of
insight into the inappropriateness of his conduct. To the extent that it
exists, it appears to relate solely to the potential ramifications on
his licenses rather than an acknowledgement of misconduct or grossly
Petitioner does not comprehend what all of the experts clearly
understood. Petitioner continues to assert that this case is about his
beliefs in alien encounters. It is not. Petitioner fails to grasp the
significance of the expert testimony and the findings as to matters
completely unrelated to aliens. Petitioner's conduct was outrageous,
especially in the light of the underlying reasons for treating these
particular patients. His conduct fell well below the standard of care
expected of his professions and constituted gross negligence.
Revocations are appropriate.
Respondent is directed to prepare an appropriate order in accord
with this decision, obtain approval as to form from petitioner's counsel
and submit it to this Court.
Dated: 2-8-96 [handwritten]
Thomas M. Cecil
Judge of the Superior Court
County of Sacramento, California] seal
CHANNEL 3 REPORTS - 6PM NEWS February 16, 1996 - KCRA-TV Sacramento CA
Sarah Gardner Reporting:
And a Superior Court Judge has ruled Dr. Richard Boylan will never
get back his license to practice psychology. Boylan lost his license
last August on seven counts of gross misconduct. They include nude hot
tubbing and exchanging nude massages with people he was suppose to be
treating. The 56-year-old Boylan claimed he was being persecuted for his
beliefs in UFOs, but the judge said Boylan's conduct was outrageous and
Boylan's UFO story was simply irrelevant.
THE SACRAMENTO BEE
Saturday, March 23, 1996
Section B, METRO, Page B1
Update: The Follow-Up Report
"Psychologist Loses Bid To Regain His License"
*THEN: In 1993, Sacramento clinical psychologist Richard J. Boylan
was sued by three patients. They alleged that Boylan, president of the
Sacramento Valley Psychological Association, had used his belief in
extraterrestrial life and UFOs to diagnose and treat their emotional
The women claimed Boylan's counseling left them dependent upon
him as a "father-like figure," and that he asked them to sit with him
nude in hot tubs and join him in nude exercises. Boylan denied the sexual
allegations and defended his therapy as meeting acceptable standards.
The patients also complained to the state Board of Psychology,
which last year revoked Boylan's license. The Board of Behavioral Science
Examiners also revoked Boylan's licenses as a child counselor and
clinical social worker.
*NOW: Sacramento attorney Joseph C. George, who represented the
patients, said they settled their suits out of court and the terms are
In January, Boylan went to court arguing that his licenses were
wrongly taken away. On Feb. 8, the court turned him down.
Boylan said he is exploring other legal remedies, noting that
the legal problems have devasted him financially. He has appealed for
financial help on the Internet, saying his counseling and writings about
UFO cover-ups led to "character assassination."