Friday, July 17, 2009

ayres On his knees begging -- for CASH

We received a copy of this email from a quite reliable source. We have not done any further verification of its veracity: [LATER NOTE: But it has been independently verified in the press, some time after we reported this originally, and our original source was VERY reliable.]

From: Lawrence Lurie [Lawrence.Lurie@ucsf.edu]
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
(williamayreswatch received it this way)

Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Supporting the William H. Ayres MD, Legal Defense Fund

Dear Colleagues,
Bill Ayres is currently on trial. As fellow psychiatrists, we are concerned that he receives a fair hearing. We are writing you in the hope that you will share our concern and perhaps contribute to insuring that his trial is open and unbiased.

The William H. Ayres Legal Defense Fund has been set up exclusively to support Dr. Bill Ayr es' defense and appeals. It is managed by Solveig and Bill Ayres and is not linked to any organization or group. Funds received will be used in order to provide financial support for expert testimonies in the current trial and in appeals, if necessary. Pre-trial referrals to the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court were rejected with notice that they could be re-submitted if he lost the case at the trial level.

We all have known and worked with Dr Ayres for over twenty years and have had the highest respect for him as a dedicated clinician for children and adolescents. He has been a community and a professional leader in working to improve the mental health care for younger adults at local, state and national levels.

Underlying issues in this case that are of concern to us include:
1. The unprecedented, and clearly illegal, search and seizure of confidential patient files;
2. The invasion of the privacy of more than 600 patients through the use of their confidential files to identify them and inquire, without any prior evidence, if they had been molested by their psychiatrist;
3. The use of highly suggestive interview techniques to elicit evidence of misconduct; and
4. The substitution of the judgment of law enforcement officers for the considered medical opinion of a highly respected psychiatrist.

Bill and Solveig are running out of money after spending two million dollars in their own defense. If Dr. Ayres is going to have a chance at an unbiased trial, he is going to need to use expert witnesses. We are therefore encouraging colleagues who want to make sure that Bill gets a fair trial to send contributions to the William H. Ayres Legal Defense Fund. The trial is currently underway, so a prompt response is important.

Checks should be made out to:
[Legal Defense Fund name and location
REDACTED by williamayreswatch -
Nothing of use here unless you want to send money.]



Sincerely,
Bart Blinder, M.D., APA Assembly Representative 1990-Present
Etta Bryant, M.D., President Northern California ROCAP 1986-1988
Peninsula Psychiatric Assn., Partner with Dr. Ayres 1983-2003

Mel Blaustein, M.D., President Northern California Psychiatric Soc. 1991-93
Harry Coren, M.D., President, Northern California ROCAP 1994-1996
Tom Ciesla, M.D., President of California Psychiatric Ass 2000=2002
Robert Kimmich, M.D. President Northern California Psychiatric Soc. 1993-1995
Larry Lurie, M.D., President Northern California Psychiatric Soc. 1981-1982
Maria Lymberis, M.D., Secretary of American Psychiatric Assn., 2000-2002
Richard Shadoan, M.D., President of California Psychiatric Assn., 1994-1996
Captane Thomson, M.D. President of California Psychiatric Assn., 1992-94
Harold Wallach, M.D. President of California Psychiatric Assn., 1990-1992

27 comments:

  1. Did Dr. Kliman receive this? I am sure he did, but even when his colleague Bill Ayres was on trial he charged him $650 an hour rather than donate his services!

    LMAO, yeah I can see a lot of people donating to this jackass fund!

    I knew Etta Braynt's name would be on it! How much did the wonderful Ms. Bryant donate?

    Oh poor Bill.....get on your knees and pray you sick mofo........

    Be careful of how Solveig and Bill use the money, more porn books for him while in jail!

    Don't be duped! Ayres wouldn't help you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who are these people who have signed their names at the bottom of the letter and why didn't they testify for him at the trial?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This pimp and pandering letter is the reason I became an advocate for patients.

    1. Doctors never complain about police officers and sworn peace officers who investigate at the Medical Board of California level. Why? Well because having those not trained to properly investigate medical wrong doings favors the doctor. Doctors aren't complaining about the processes of the Medical Board and the way they utilize the police.

    2. On my blog I have several examples of invasions of medical privacy at the hands of those we trust with our medical information. No doctor would amend or correct my medical records or were worried about patient files at that time. That's not an injustice, just a forced apology letter from the Office of Civil Rights.

    3. Doctors will rarely step forward and help a patient pay for their medication or reduce their bill if "you" were in need of help.

    4. No doctor would offer free testimony at your medical malpractice case. Let alone even testify or tell you it was malpractice!

    5. Doctors will rally for Bill Ayres as if this whole case came about by some horrible injustice of patient privacy, records seized, oh, the injustices they go on and on!

    6. No mention of his pedophile books. No mention it was of his own free will to settle a civil suit. No mention anywhere of how long he was able to remain free on bail as opposed to "joe average"....they want money for his legal fund after he sued his former partners? How much did that cost? Are they willing to foot the bill for that too? Physicians suing each other.....will they pay for that too?

    Why does the patient population get the short end of the stick? Well, it appears that no matter what a physician does, it is better to pony up some cash than to accept the blame, just because of "there but for the grace of god go I."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would not expect that this "legal fund" will receive much money.

    Doctors rarely give money to a cause that is not tax deductible.

    If this is just a request for cash, that is not registered as a non-profit charitable organization, which makes a public report of earnings and spending then it will not be tax deductible.

    If the email was only sent to shrinks in California or the AACAP which has about 7,500 members or interested parties.

    Let's just say that 50% of the emails went to spam or those who don't want to donate.....

    Even if Ayres was to get $100,000 which is a very generous guesstimate, that could be used up in two weeks in attorney fees!

    These doctors are not about to open up their wallet over and over and over.

    Bank account zapped up, retirement gone, 4 civil suits remain.

    I am not betting on big bucks coming in on this at all.

    Scott Peterson's family has a blog asking for money. Octomom tried it but got death threats.

    Although email solicitations are perhaps more well healed, it is still a tasteless attempt at begging.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I heard that at least two doctors do NOT want their names on this fundraising letter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One name you will never see on that list:

    Dr. Jeffrey Weiner.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What would scare me is the fund is managed by Solveig and Bill Ayres!

    In the civil settlement, I recall, that Ayres wanted reports of how the money was to be spent.

    Here again is an example of how controlling these individuals are.

    Managed by Solveig and Bill Ayres. How so? Will they use it for rent, food etc., if necessary.

    No accountability to potential donors.

    I truly would not be concerned about this unsophisticated solicitation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If they are so broke, why were Solveig and Ayres seen four weeks ago attending the opera - "Porgy and Bess" in San Francisco - where Ayres walked for long stretches without a walker.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Porgy and Bess tickets can be at the lowest price $20 to a high of $345, depending on the seating.

    Maybe the Ayres's are at the end of a season pass!

    I am sure with their weird ways of trying to STEAMROLL over everybody this is not a luxury they will do without.

    Since they have NO SHAME they will get their friends and colleagues to pay for their legal problems while they enjoy a night out at the opera.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So if there is a retrial, who would be Ayres' lawyer? Weinberg wouldn't do this again, because he has no money. Would Ayres have to take a public defender?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear: July 20, 2009 8:13 PM:

    I seriously doubt that there will be a retrial. (meaning, if Ayres is not acquitted on all counts, then the prosecution is not likely to re-file).

    If there is a retrial, expect Doron Weinberg to defend the case.

    That said, there are some very fine trial lawyers at the Public Defender's Office in every county in CA.

    The problem for impecunious defendants is that
    which defender you are assigned to is not a matter under your control.

    I would think, though, that the defense could be replicated though the Public Defender's Office in a minimally competent manner.

    All of that said, in our 30+ experience in handling felony jury cases, this case does not have the hallmarks of a "winner" for the prosecution; quite the opposite and I have always thought so—keeping in mind that I have not attended the trial, and I am only familiar with the case through this site and MSM reports.

    The self-perceived victims in this case would have been much better off all hiring a specialist plaintiff's attorney en masse and suing Ayres for civil battery and/or for breach of the standard of care in a multi-plaintiff case in a civil court (where this case belongs).

    Here, a jury must reconcile the perceived recollections of 10 and 11 year olds 20 and 30 years later with the jury instruction on reasonable doubt, and even if successful receive the dubious "victory" of incarcerating a physically ill, senile old man for (in the scheme of alleged molestations) relatively minor grievances long forgotten by that old man.

    The former course would have led to the potential for validation, catharsis, and restitution, the present course, I am afraid, will lead to results viewed as less than satisfactory by Ayer’s alleged "victims".

    ReplyDelete
  12. To Anonymous at July 20, 2009 8:13 PM:

    if successful receive the dubious "victory" of incarcerating a physically ill, senile old man for (in the scheme of alleged molestations) relatively minor grievances long forgotten by that old man.

    I'm not sure you were there, nor did you necessarily get the whole story. Do you mind if I come over and shove my finger up your ass, and jam it around in there for awhile?

    Then we can discuss what degree of grievance you have. Maybe someone should do it to your child, so that you can understand the relative degree of grievance that the parents might have.

    Too bad you weren't there at his testimony to see the joy on his face when he recounted doing "medical exams," because then we'd be able to discuss if they were grievances "long forgotten by that old man."


    The former course would have led to the potential for validation, catharsis, and restitution, the present course, I am afraid, will lead to results viewed as less than satisfactory by Ayer’s alleged "victims".

    Your attempt to show some sympathy for the "alleged "victims"" falls flat.

    You are a cold, unsympathetic person who knows relatively little about this case. You are definitely not someone who I would ever want to associate with as a friend; you are bereft of any human compassion.

    And possessive for ayres is ayres' take a god damned English lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To anonymous who talks about "
    the dubious "victory" of incarcerating a physically ill, senile old man for (in the scheme of alleged molestations) relatively minor grievances long forgotten by that old man.

    Huh?Minor grievances? Do you call a shrink who has never been trained ever to touch a kid during the therapeutic setting who is suddenly giving rectal exams to ten and eleven years old with his ungloved hand- and making lewd comments to the patients as he did - "minor? Masturbating boys to ejaculation is minor? Are you a father or mother? How would you feel if a stranger did that to your son - and you were paying for it?

    I would suggest familiarizing yourself with this case before making such disconnected, cold fish statements.

    Incidentally, a number of boys have filed law suits.

    And actually one of the victims is 23 . His memories are only 12 to 13 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ayres is not senile. His memory was rock solid on the stand. He remembered every last little office he has held for the last fifty years. He remembered a phone call he got twenty years ago from a teacher of one of the victims who was married to a friend of his.

    The senile old man is still going out to the opera and making nasty comments to supporters of the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Now I am thoroughly confused. I was lead to believe that none of the 9 counts with which Ayres is charged involved the allegation of penetration. (See e.g., CaliGirl9’s comment in response to the statement of the dismissed juror that the jurors favoring acquittal might not understand that penetration is not required for a violation of section 288.)

    In addition, if penetration is alleged by the charged victims, then why wasn’t Ayres charged with violating Penal Code Section 289, subdivision (j)—[“Any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 14 years of age and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.”]?

    Regarding your offer to “shove my finger up [my] ass, and jam it around in there for awhile”, I respectfully decline.

    ReplyDelete
  16. None of the 9 counts included anal penetration allegations.

    There was an additional victim who was not able to testify at the last minute. You would have heard that allegation from that witness.

    I was not called to testify, there were an unfortunately limited number of out-of-statute number of witnesses allowed to testify. I know first hand that those allegations are true.

    Your statements regarding "relatively minor grievances" are patently offensive.

    Perhaps you should understand that I wasn't in the position to adequately fend off these molstatations. Now that you have declined my offer to shove my finger up your ass, tell me how you'd feel if I came and did it to you anyway.

    Any answer other than that it would be a "relatively minor grievance" is unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was not referring to everyone in the world who believes/recalls that Ayres molested them--I was and I am discussing the pending trial—which is the focus of this site and the topic under discussion.

    I do no regard sexual penetration is "relatively minor"—it is, rather, on the extreme end of the continuum.

    I do regard the kind of touching alleged in the 9 counts, in the scheme of felony child molestation prosecutions, to be (in some cases ambiguous) and for the most part relatively minor. I was as not talking about you, and would have had no way of knowing what Ayres did or did not do to you.

    You are obviously a very insightful, highly intelligent and (at times) nuanced thinker. Less so when you let your anger do the talking.

    I have a business client of many years who more than a decade ago advised me that his priest molested him as a child. I referred him to a specialist in church related molest litigation, and he recovered a substantial sum of money. He also became the head of a very large victim's organization.

    His thrust has been less revenge/criminal prosecution oriented and more recognition/compensation/reform oriented.

    That is all I was advocating.

    Regarding my perceived lack of empathy for the victims in the pending prosecution, perhaps I have been jaded by 30+ years of criminal defense practice, during which time I have seen some of the worst aspects of human nature imaginable, and (yes) I have seen people falsely accused of molestation.

    I have truly enjoyed most of your posts—which is the only reason have commented here in recent days.

    I certainly did not mean to offend you, and I think that if you reread my post with a cool head (realizing that I would have no way of knowing what Ayres did to you) you will realize that you perhaps read insult into the post where none was intended.

    No, I would not “like it” if you barged into my home uninvited and “shove[d] [your] finger up [my] ass”—but that scenario is in no way analogous to any of the counts or the supporting evidence that this jury is now grappling with.

    In fact, your demand that I “tell [you] how [I would] feel if [you] came and did it to [me] anyway seems more an expression of anger and animosity than anything resembling the elevated on-going discussion that prevails here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was not referring to everyone in the world who believes/recalls that Ayres molested them--I was and I am discussing the pending trial—which is the focus of this site and the topic under discussion.

    That is not correct. The topic under discussion is ayres and his lawyer pandering for money to cover the expenses that he has incurred due to acting on his sadistic pedophilia. “Discussing the pending trial” is not the focus of this site. This site was created BY ME to get information out there to ayres’ victims about what is going on with his prosecution, and to make people aware of the danger of people like ayres and those who blindly support him.

    I do regard the kind of touching alleged in the 9 counts, in the scheme of felony child molestation prosecutions, to be (in some cases ambiguous) and for the most part relatively minor.

    It is not minor for the people who have been negatively impacted by ayres’ actions, and it would not be “relatively minor” if it happened to you. This site was never meant to be the place to debate lofty hypotheticals. This is and was very personal.

    I was as not talking about you, and would have had no way of knowing what Ayres did or did not do to you.

    Did you not consider that you would be offending parents and victims when you were posting on this clearly biased site?

    You are obviously a very insightful, highly intelligent and (at times) nuanced thinker. Less so when you let your anger do the talking.

    You could not be more incorrect. Asking you if I can jam my finger up your ass cuts to the very heart of the matter. If I had simply told you to fuck off, you would have gone away, and never come back, so clearly there's enough insight even in my anger to bring you back. A dubious venture, to be sure.

    I have a business client of many years who more than a decade ago advised me that his priest molested him as a child. I referred him to a specialist in church related molest litigation, and he recovered a substantial sum of money. He also became the head of a very large victim's organization.

    And yet you have a singular lack of compassion: you refer to painful violations as “relatively minor” on a site that is clearly for victims.

    His thrust has been less revenge/criminal prosecution oriented and more recognition/compensation/reform oriented.

    Did that feel good?

    Maybe if I'm meek and quiet, you won't have to face the fact that you're defending some truly sick individuals, regardless of how relatively minor the offense,


    I certainly did not mean to offend you, and I think that if you reread my post with a cool head (realizing that I would have no way of knowing what Ayres did to you) you will realize that you perhaps read insult into the post where none was intended.

    Instead of blaming ME for being offended that you would call ayres’ violations of me and many other boys, “relatively minor,” a simple “I’m sorry for offending you” would have worked.

    In fact, your demand that I “tell [you] how [I would] feel if [you] came and did it to [me] anyway seems more an expression of anger and animosity than anything resembling the elevated on-going discussion that prevails here.

    Fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  19. We know of at least three victims who were anally penetrated by Ayres -digitally.

    That's "at least."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sounds like a Koi person wrote that post.

    I second the motion to tell him to fuck off!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Masturbating little boys to ejaculation is "relatively minor?"

    Since when do parents send their boys to a head shrink to have them masturbated and digitally penetrated?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Interestingly, Larry Lurie fancies himself an artist. As anybody who is familiar with the art world knows, there are as many poseurs in art as there are in medicine. And there are as many people willing to be seduced by shrewd p.r.

    I have a strong background in the arts, and I am completely accustomed to and appreciative of paintings and sculpture of the nude human body; the walls of my home are graced with some wonderful nudes painted by some very talented artists.

    There is, however, a difference between art and pornography.

    Look at Lurie's "work" and decide for yourself:
    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/38/8/29

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...

    "I have not brought any sculptures into my office, although I have had to fight that impulse many times," he said. "My sense is that my sculptures would be an intrusion into my patients’ lives and the issue for which they come to the office. It would be about me and not them[...]"

    In fact, Lurie noted that he rarely even mentions his sculpting skills to his patients. "


    RARELY? Heh... creepy. These guys are full of themselves. How the hell did that conversation go?

    "My, that's terrible about your loss. By the way, I sculpt."

    GREAT find anonymous. I need to get off my butt and start doing some searches....

    Thanks for posting.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You're more than welcome, DS...you're doing plenty, and we're all grateful to you.

    Lurie's stuff is not only artistic s**t, it's also revealing. Trust me: on this I know what I'm talking about.

    I wonder how many times people have accidentally hit the d key instead of the e key when typing his last name.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The email is legitimate. I'm a practising psychiatrist and received it several weeks ago. I immediately emailed the authors, informing them of my disgust, and got a pleading reply from one of them, Richard Shadoan, asking me again for money, and posing the rhetorical question: Didn't I believe Dr. Ayres should get a fair trial?

    Like anyone else accused of a crime, he should. However, senior and "respected" psychiatrists must not defend or appear to defend his allegedly appalling actions. Nor should they trumpet their associations to mainstream professional organizations, implying an old boys' network closing ranks and rushing to the aid of one of their own. That has happened too many times in the past in our profession.

    The Northern California Psychiatric Society - after receiving protests about this letter - sent a rather tepid email to the membership, disassociating the organization from this letter.

    A San Francisco psychiatrist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for letting us know that some psychiatrists protested the letter, San Francisco psychiatrist.

    Nowhere in that fundraising letter was there any concern for the welfare of the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Every doctor on the list of senders of this letter are either conspirators or fools.

    ReplyDelete