State Department FOIA Ruling


State Department FOIA Ruling


Last Updated: 08-12-2018 13:25


Description Preview





Judge Horne, played the part of a whore, as concerned with Christopher Zveare. A real judge follows the evidence and allows the discovery of evidence. Horne didn’t do that, he took the coward’s way out.  You see Christopher Zveare is nothing more than a cheap liar and very bad producer of fake documents.  A simple granting of discovery would have uncovered Zveare’s perjury. Instead of that Judge Horne played the whore.


The attached document is a ruling from a real judge with real integrity. He is simply allowing discovery

”Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”. 

In the attached ruling, the judge has the courage to allow discovery. It could be possibly make Obama and Hillary Clinton look even worse. This courage to allow discovery.

Horne is a coward, he was close to retirement when Zveare submitted his fake documents to the Court. If he would allowed discovery, there would have been no political penalty to pay.  He chose to protect Sandra Glenney and Lorrie SInclair.


Biases of Sexual Abuse Experts

Biases of Sexual Abuse Experts


Last Updated: 15-11-2018 2:39


Description Preview




The attached document is a study performed on the biases of the child sexual abuse experts. Be certain that Sandra Glenney has contact information for therapists that will deliver for her. This study exposes the issue.  Always assume that Glenney’s expert will testify that abuse occurred.  This is the case with Dr. Mary Lindahl.

From the study a critical statement

Studies of expert classificatory reliability in cases of alleged child sexual abuse have demonstrated predictably high rates of error (Horner-Guyer pre- dictions) on the part of clinicians using clinically derived data to classify individuals as abusers/nonabusers. Rates of false positive classification have been shown to be many times greater than the rates of false negative classification.’

The alleged experts always, the majority of the time, assume that abuse has occurred. There assumption is not based on science but gut feeling. I should say it is a financial decision, Glenney pays $150 per hour.  There is an incentive to testify that abuse has occurred.


APA Child Evaluation Guidelines

APA Child Evaluation Guidelines


Last Updated: 04-11-2018 17:08


Description Preview





As incredible as it may same, despite the type of biased  crazy therapists that Sandra Glenney qualifies as an export witness, that witness is subject to guidelines from the American Psychological Association (APA) . The cases of hysteria in the  80’s and 90’s brought the crackpots out in search for easy money. It is my deep belief that no ethical psychologist will ever testify for Sandra Glenney, only the hacks.

The attached file is the suggested guidelines from the APA, it depicts how the psychologists should conduct themselves.

Rest assured that Glenney’s hired gun will fail miserably at Guideline 4.

Guideline 4. The role of psychologists who conduct child protection evaluations is that of a professional expert who strives to maintain an unbiased, impartial approach to the evaluation.

Trust me, Glenney’s hired gun is their to find abuse nothing more.

Your attorney needs to know the guidelines and read them to the therapist in Court, especially as pertains to guidelines .

Guideline 5. Psychologists strive to gain competence sufficient to provide effective and ethical forensic services when conducting child protection evaluations and when addressing case-specific issues that may require specialized professional knowledge, training, or skills.


Also, keep in mind you need to establish how often Glenney’s therapist testifies for the County. Glenney will tend to sue the same psychologists over and over again.

Guideline 7. Psychologists providing child protection evaluations strive to avoid role conflicts and multiple relationships that may compromise their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness, or that may otherwise risk harm or exploitation to the person or identified client (e.g., court, state child protection agency) with whom the professional relationship exists.