A Parsonsburg, MD RSO sues his therapist and others involved: Kathryn Seifert and Karen Ray of Eastern Shore Psychological of Salisbury, MD and a past employee, Paul DesPres. According to the claim, the suit includes Kathryn Seifert's refusal to turn over his personal health information as per HIPPA. The claim states that once he received his information there were several discrepancies within his records. These discrepancies, according to the claim, include: 1)Seifert stating that the RSO had received over a dozen evaluations, 2 of which were over 5 hours long ( The RSO claims he was given none and since those evaluations were not disclosed to him as Seifert and Ray stated they were "Trade Secrets" but state and Federal law require them to release his answers and raw test scores. To date they have not done so.), 2)The summary of the evaluations was signed by Seifert and DesPres in July 2007 (the evaluations were supposedly administered in 2001 , DesPres had ceased his employment for Eastern Shore Psychological in 2002 , in 2007 DesPres was not licensed as a counselor in MD, DE, or VA, and the RSO has never met DesPres.) 3) Several forms within the RSO's medical files contained the RSO's forged signature. Interestingly still, according to 2 Federal Officials, Eastern Shore Psychological receives all the federal contracts for all sex offenders east of the Bay Bridge. (There are more discrepancies, but the few listed were the high lights). Sex offender programs are normally 12, 24 or in extreme cases 36 months in length. According to the claim of this RSO's law suit, he has been in Sex Offender Therapy for 9 years based upon the results of the falsified evaluation supposedly performed by Kathryn Seifert and Eastern Shore Psychological. It is also noted in the claim, that this RSO had 2 previous evaluations done: one at PRMC and one with a private practice: both evaluations determined that this RSO did not need therapy. Yet a few months later, Seifert states that not only did he need therapy but also long term therapy. In the claim, the RSO stated that one of his previous therapist at Eastern Shore Psychological , had told him that he(the therapist) had recommended to Seifert in the presence of the RSO's Parole Officer that the RSO be discontinued from treatment. The therapist stated that Seifert stated that the RSO will continue with treatment for monetary reasons only. The RSO's parole officer was present when Seifert stated this according to the therapist. Hmmmmmmmmm!
Ok!! More interesting events. On July 9, 2009, the RSO was visited by 2 Federal officials. One of the topics of discussion: Eastern Shore Psychological were refusing to continue to see the RSO because he was suing them. According to the Feds, this was a condition of the Parole Commission (but in truth, the Parole Commission had left it up to the Parole Officer). Then, there was a discussion about a supposedly new Federal law (I searched and googled and contacted everyone I know and I can't find it!). This federal law requires maintenance polygraphs to be given as often as every 6 months if necessary. This polygraph will be referencing any possible criminal activities that the RSO may have done since his being on parole. (Let me point out that a federal parolee can be violated and returned to prison for such things as a speeding ticket, accidentally running a red light, etc.) Not to mention that this maintenance polygraph violates the fifth amendment and other constitutional rights. Then there were the discussions that were basically BS: old cell phone number on parole report, need to know exactly how many hours are actually worked in a week( the RSO is a salaried employee, considered full time, drives a semi ) So it doesn't really matter how many hours he works, he gets paid the same amount of money each week whether he works 10 hours or 70. The conditions of his parole is that he keeps a full time job.....and he has a full time job. What's the problem? In other words, the July 9th visit was in retaliation for him suing Seifert, Ray of Eastern Shore Psychological.
Let me ask all of you this: If you had a contract with a company, and found out that they were being sued for falsifying records just to maintain a lengthier contract and get more money out of the people who had hired them, wouldn't you be more interested in the outcome of the suit then at retaliating at the one suing? After all, if they had falsified the records of one company....did they falsify any others for purely monetary reasons?
And life goes on in the life of the wife of a sex offender...............I'll keep you posted.