Licensee Name: MARC ZOLLA TALISMAN, MD License Type: PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON License Number: A24315 License Status: LICENSE RENEWED & CURRENT Public Record Actions: PROBATION COMPLETED He seems to have completed both probations. Original Issue Date: JULY 01, 1971 Expiration Date: DECEMBER 31, 2007 Address: 43794 OAK DRIVE THREE RIVERS, CA 93271 County: TULARE Administrative Disciplinary Actions Central File Room (916) 263-2525 1426 Howe Avenue, Suite 54 Sacramento, CA 95825 First Disciplinary Action Case Number: 041983403557 Description of Action: PROBATION COMPLETED. Effective Date of Action: FEBRUARY 06, 1985 Second Disciplinary Action Case Number: 041990004060 Description of Action: PROBATION COMPLETED. Effective Date of Action: OCTOBER 19, 2004 Medical School: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF MEDICINE Year Graduated: 1970MARC Z TALISMAN Born 1945, 43794 OAK DR, THREE RIVERS, CA 93271. Recent neighbors may be:
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF - MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS, Multiple,Vicki Ann Tapia, Executive Recruitment and Appointments, 1515 S Street, Suite 108N, Sacramento, CA 95814,(916) 327-8017,email@example.com
VICKI A TAPIA Born May 1962, 2936 CONNIE DR, 08/14/2002 SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 (916) 922-2119
VICKI A TAPIA, 3351 LERWICK RD 02/01/2006 SACRAMENTO, CA 95821 (916) 487-4822
C TELLEZ, 303 TERRACE DR 10/05/2004 BRAWLEY, CA 92227. (760) 344-7810.
BRENDA TERRY, 1541 BIG VALLEY VIEW DR, 11/17/1999, PLACERVILLE, CA 95667.
(530) 626-6185 West Placerville, (916) 933-1764 Folsom.
born TIMMS JEFFREY B, 11/21/1963, MALE, mother BEELNER, LOS ANGELES county
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, WASCO STATE PRISON RECEPTION CENTER - WASCO STATE PRISON-RECEPTION CENTER, KERN,CARMEN TIRADO, MEDICAL DELEGATED TESTING, P.O. BOX 8800, WASCO, CA 93280,661-758-8400 EXT 5291
CARMEN J TIRADO
born 1968 782 DEVON AVE 02/27/2002 PORTERVILLE, CA 93257 (909) 882-9256, (909) 478-6832
CARMEN J TIRADO
born 1968 3670 MCCALL AVE 02/27/2002 SELMA, CA 93662
In a weblog at http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/06/lefty_blogs_exp.html which we read on 18 August 2007, there appears, "For More information: Contact Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen,
singer/songwriter/psychologist aka Dr. B.L.T. The Right-wing, Shrink-rappin' Song Blogger
(661) 633-5110 X 283
Posted by: Bruce L. Thiessen, aka Dr. B.L.T. | Jun 23, 2005 3:04:22 PM". In a "Press Release For Immediate Release
From: Dr. B.L.T. Music
Date: June 26, 2004" he wrote "For more information or to arrange an interview:
From: Dr. B.L.T. (661) 633-5110 X 283 (daytime, weekday) (661) 588-5537 (week-end; evening)
Posted by: Bruce L. Thiessen, Ph.D. | June 26, 2004 10:55 PM". We read the press erlease those excerpts are from on 18 August 2007 at http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/06/fahrenhype.html. In a press release of his in which he describes how he struck back at the Supreme Court, he refers to his "... proclamation of his Christ-centered conservative perspective ..." and provides contact information:
Contact: Pro-life Music
http://www.drblt.com CA, US
Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen - psychologist & Catholic mag. writer, 661-588-5537".
An easy way to find his press releases and other Web publications is to look in a metasearch engine simultaneously for his government phone number and his surname. Was it legal for BLT to invite people to call him at his government phone number for interviews and more information about his politico-religio-musical activity?
BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY Licensee Name: THIESSEN BRUCE L License Type: PSYCHOLOGIST License Number: PSY14259 License Status: VALID Definition Expiration Date: November 30, 2008 Issue Date: March 20, 1995 Address: 11612 MEZZADRO AVE City: BAKERSFIELD State: CA Zip: 93312 County: KERNBorn in Steinbach, Manitoba, he was reared in Saskatoon, Saslatchewan. Both places are in western Canada.
California psychologist license info above. Drblt.net admin contact info below.
Administrative Contact: Thiessen, Bruce firstname.lastname@example.org Dr. B.L.T. Music 11612 Mezzadro Avenue Bakersfield, California 93312 United States 6613107835 [(661) 310-7835] Fax --
This information may sometimes be related to informed consent.
BRUCE L THIESSEN Born Nov 1960, 11612 MEZZADRO AVE, 02/01/2006, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312-6701. Near MARSCIANO STREET.
BRUCE L THIESSEN Born Nov 1960, 2114 23RD ST, 03/01/2006, SACRAMENTO, CA 95818
BRUCE L THIESSEN Born Nov 1960, 2933 STEWART AVE, 01/14/2001, VISALIA, CA 93292.
CMC (California Men's Colony) prison of California Department of Corrections
CDC spokeswoman Lt. Shelly Thompson:
SHELLY D. THOMPSON, age 47, 5495 BAJADA Avenue, ATASCADERO CA 93422, (805) 462-2001.
Recent neighbors may include Mr. Ron R. Ridenour (Psychiatric Nurse, Santa Clara County Jail; 4470 Cayucos Ave, Atascadero, CA 93422; 35.49897, -120.68219). This address is a long drive from the jail.
Although we use the present tense in the discussion below, what we know is that the practices once occurred, not necessarily that they still occur. Mr. Ridenour does not necessarily engage in any of those practices.
Some patients are given psychiatric drugs (for example, tranquilizers, sedatives, mood elevators, or antidepressants) that are powerfully habituating. The patient may develop a tolerance to, and dependence on, his drug. He may (depending on which drug he takes) develop affective or cognitional problems if he is suddenly deprived of his drug for even a dozen hours. He may not feel good or think well if he is suddently deprived of the drug to which he has become habituated.
In our opinion, all in-court decisions and acts (for example, testimony) should be struck down if made by psychiatric prisoners on a day on which they had been deprived of their habituating, psychiatric drug.
Consider a psychiatric patient who normally gets three doses of a habituating drug daily (morning, mid-day, and night) with a multi-day trial scheduled to start on Monday. He gets his drug normally on Sunday. Monday (the first day of trial), he misses his first two doses. He gets his nightly dose. Tuesday when he wakes up, he may (depending on the half-life of his drug) have an unusually low blood level of the drug (because he had only one dose the day before, not his usual three doses). His blood level is even lower on Wednesday morning than on Tuesday morning. After a few days, his thinking may be seriously impaired compared to what it normally is.
This problem does not affect all prisoners. Drugs vary in their effects, and patients vary in how they respond to sudden lack of the drug (or in how they respond to a sudden drop in the total, daily does).
Thus, there are two, related problems.
(1) A psychiatric prisoner may not function (as well as he usually does) because he has not had his drug yet that day.
(2) A psychiatric prisoner may not function (as well as he usually does) because he has a low blood level of the drug because his total daily dose has been low for a few, consecutive days because of a multi-day hearing.
The description above is true. That's the way things really are.
Furthermore, there may be an additional problem. Are there prisoners who make a plea bargain, because the prisoner wants to end all court hearings, because the prisoner wants a full daily does of his drug every day? We don't know. We guess that there are at least a few.
Can anything be done to stop or reduce the problem of impairment caused by sudden deprivation of a drug? One approach is to tell psychiatric prisoners (before they get drugs in jail) that their in-court functioning may be impaired by deprivation of the drug on court days. In a sense, there would be no problem for prisoners who took the drug despite having been warned of the drug's possible effects on his in-court thinking. There would be no problem because of waiver by the prisoner.
Another possible approach might be to gradually wean each prisoner off his drug long before each hearing.
An obvious, possible approach would be to stop depriving prisoners of drugs on court days. Why does the jail staff deprive prisoners of their drugs on court days? We heard that every psychiatric drug, in every dose, supposedly impairs a prisoner's ability to funcion in court. Suddenly depriving the prisoners of their drugs helps the prisoners function better in court, according to this theory. We suspect that there is no research showing this to be true. As far as we know, this supposed reason is ridiculously wrong, not merely unsupported by research. A common reason for prescribing the drugs is the physician's opinion that the drugs improve the prisoners' functioning (for example, improve the prisoners' affect, behavior, and cognition). In any event, the most common result of sudden deprivation is to impair, not enhance, minds of Santa Clara county psychiatric prisoners. If there are psychiatric prisoners whose in-court functioning is enhanced by sudden deprivation of theirdrugs, deprivation should be done to those psychiatric prisoners only, not to all.
Soley for the purpose of discussion, let us assume that the present policy (of delivering undrugged prisoners to court) is excellent. We do not agree with the assumption but merely make it for the purpose of discussion. Consider, as a hypothetical example of the supposed excellence of the present policy, a prisoner who can win a case if, but only if, he is a persuasive witness. If he testifies soberly (no psychiatric drugs earlier that day), he is persuasive. For example, he remembers facts outstandingly, he excellently understands complicated questions, and he explains with great clarity why he's innocent. He wins his trial. When he's drugged (psychiatric drugs earlier that day) he remembers poorly, understands poorly, and explains poorly. He loses the trial. It follows from these assumptions that the Santa Clara county jail staff should deliver him to the court sober.
How does his lawyer prepare to defend the client? The lawyer visits the client-prisoner in jail and asks him questions. He's drugged (psychiatric drugs earlier that day), so he remembers poorly, understands poorly, and explains poorly. The lawyer concludes that the prisoner would be an unpersuasive witness and therefore lose a trial. The lawyer recommends to the prisoner to waive his rights and plead guilty to get a relatively mild punishment. The prisoner decides to follow his lawyer's advice. The prisoner is brought to court. In court, the sober prisoner, following his lawyer's advice to plead guilty, pleads guilty.
The drug impairs the prisoner in jail, not just in court. The drug impairs the prisoner's ability to help his lawyer. It's unfair to bring a drugged prisoner to court. It's unfair to bring a drugged prisoner to the jail conference area to talk to his lawyer.
Some prisoners are in jail to serve their sentence. Their court case is over. There is no appeal or the appeal is over. They don't talk with a lawyer anymore. They are the only prisoners who should be drugged.
By the way, it is unethical for a doctor to prescribe drugs without the patient's informed consent. No jail doctor tells a psychiatric prisoner that his drugs may impair (for example, impair his ability to remember, understand, or explain).
By the way, drugs can affect a prisoner in other ways. For example, a drugged prisoner might be spontaneous, natural, and so frank that he occasionally says things that cause him him trouble. When the defense lawyer talks with the drugged, frank prisoner in jail, the lawyer might think that the prisoner is much too frank to to testify, because he'll harm his case if he does. Furthermore, the prisoner cannot win if he doesn't testify. The lawyer recommends a plea bargain. The prisoner accepts the lawyer's advice, and goes to prison. The lawyer never finds out that the sober prisoner is circumspect, speaking with great care.
After a prisoner is convicted, he is sentenced. As part of sentencing, a probation officer visits the convicted prisoner in jail to talk to him. The probation officer introduces himself by explaining that he works for the judge. The probation officer's discussion with the defendant influences the sentence which the officer recommends to the judge. The judge normally orders the sentence recommended by the probation officer. Therefore, that discussion influences the prisoner's sentence. The prisoner is drugged during his discussion with the probation officer, because the discussion is in jail. If fairness requires that we protect the prisoner by keeping him undrugged in court, why do we have the probation officer talk to him when he's drugged? By the assumptions and logic underlying the court's policy (no psychiarrically drugged prisoners in court), the prisoner should be undrugged when he talks to the probation officer.
Many prisoners make their most important decisions when alone in jail. For example, a defense lawyer talks with a psychiatric prisoner briefly, early in the case. Every day for the next week, the drugged, psychiatric prisoner thinks about the conversation and is impressed by the lawyer. The drugged prisoner decides, when he's alone in jail (no lawyer present), to follow the impressive lawyer's advice. The lawyer visits in jail, and advises the prisoner to do something (make a plea bargain, have a jury trial, have a trial without a jury, etc.), and the drugged prisoner (who, when drugged, is impressed by the lawyer) agrees. In court, the sober prisoner does what he earlier decided to do (for example, make a plea bargain). When a sober prisoner does something in court (for example, say he's guilty), that's often just a result of an underlying decision. The prisoner's underlying decision (for example, to make a plea bargain) usually was made when he was in jail, drugged.
In conclusion, no prisoner should be psychiatrically drugged until all litigation (including appellate litigation) is complete. This principle (which we do not recommend) follows logically from the policy of depriving psychiatric prisoners of their drugs on court days (until the prisoners are returned to jail from court).
We do not recommend the court's policy (of delivering undrugged prioners to court). Above, we merely discuss ramifications and implications of that policy.
In general, psychiatric staff (for example, psychiatric nurses) show much less respect to prisoners than do C.O.s. We have no idea if Ridenour conforms to this geralization.
How are records kept of the administration of psychiatric drugs to prisoners? A jail employee (maybe a nurse or medical techician) gives medicine to a prisoner, then checks a small box on a sheet of paper to show that the staff gave the drug to the prisoner at that time. What if the prisoner is not there to receive the medicine? What if he's in a different part of the jail (talking to his lawyer in a conferrence area, or reading in a law library in the jail, for example)? If the drug-administering staff considers a drug necessary for life (a drug which controls blood pressure, for example), the staff claims tha it actually finds the patient or has him brought to the medical staff (regardless of where in the jail he is) and gives him the drug. Accordign to jail employees who administer psychiatric drugs, psychiatric drugs are unnecessary for life (even if they are prescribed to prevent a suicide attempt). Because they are considered unnecessary for life, psychiatric drugs are not administered to prisoners who are not conveniently available to the medical staff when the drugs are adminstered. If a prisoner is in a conference area talking to his lawyer, or if he is in a law library (to cite merely two examples of a prisoner's not being conveniently available), he misses a dose of his psychiatric medicine. The medical employee then makes a check (on a form) to indicate that the dose was skipped because it would have been inconvenient to fetch the prisoner.
The check mark is ambiguous. It means that either the patient got the dose or that the dose was skipped because the patient was not conveniently available. It is impossible, by examining the jail's medical records, to know which of the two events occurred.
Sometimes, a prisoner is not administered a dose of psychiatric medicine because he is not conveniently available. The staff makes a check on a form (showing that either the drug was administered or that the prisoner was not conveniently available). The prisoner later goes to the medical staff and asks for his dose. The staff member looks at drug administration records for the appropriate time, sees a check for that patinet, and incorrectly says to the prisoner that he got the drug. The prisoner says that he can prove he was with his lawyer in a jail conference area when the drugs were administered to the prisoners, and he can prove that no one from the medical staff (or any other staff) came to him while he was talking with his lawyer. The staff member will then admit that the prisoner did not get the drug but add that there was no duty to give an unnecessary drug to a prisoner whoi was not conveniently available. The prisoner will not be given the missed does. By the way, this is, in effect, a kind of punishment. The prisoner is, in effect, punished (by depriving him of a does of his psychiatric medicine) because he went to the law library, talked with his lawyer, or did something else away from the drug administartion site when the drugs were administered. Ideally, there would be no penalty for talking with one's lawyer or going to the law library.
The ambiguous checks (which mean either that the psychiatric drug was adminsitered, or that it was not adminsitered because the patient was not conveniently available) cause problems.
If a psychiaric prisoner talks to a social visitor (visiting relative or friend) when doses of psychiatric drugs are adminsitered (for examnple, when he's given a pill or two), the prisoner will not receive that dose. A check mark will be made on a sheet of paper used by the medical employee who gives the pills. Later, it will be impossible for anyone to know if the check mark was made because the prisoner got a dose of his psychiatric drug (the usual reason for making the check) or because he was not conveniently available to receive that dose (and therefore did not get the dose). If a medical employee is later asked if the patient got his dose of psychiatric medicine, the employee will look at the sheet, see the check, and say (sometimes incorrectly) that the prisoner got his dose. We don't know if this record-keeping system is legal. We guess that the law or jail rules require that jail records show whether the prisoner-patient got the drug. If so, the law is being broken (assuming that record-keeping is done as it once was).
Recall two drug problems: the prisoner misses doses because of court days, the prisoner misses doses because he is in the jail but is not conveniently available to the drug-administering staff. Maybe the two problems often occur together because maybe a prisoner goes to the law library, or talks with his lawyer in the jail, on the same day, or about the same day, he's in court. It seems reasonable to suppose that the two problems tend to occur together. It seems that this would make the problem worse. For example, a prisoner might miss a dose because his lawyer talked with him in jail the day before a hearing, then miss two doses the next day because he's in court. Deprivation two days in a row might cause extra impairment of the prisoner.
The remarks above do not necessarily apply to Ridenour.
PHILLIP TORRES, SANTA MARIA CA 93454, (805) 922-7226
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SOLANO COUNTY - California State Prison - Solano, SOLANO,Dr. Traquina, Clinical Services, P.O. Box 640, Vacaville, 95696,(707) 451-0182 x3261. Vacaville prison (California State Prison, Solano) is a prison-hospital.
California, Dr. Alvaro C. Traquina, MD - Vacaville.
He has run marathons, which suggests the possibility that he's not fat. He has a ham license: call sign KA4JEB; class N; Traquina, Alvaro C; Carmichael, CA; transaction LITIN. He registered with the FCC:
FRN: 0011312642 Registration Date: 07/29/2004 06:49:59 PM Last Updated: Business Name: A TRAQUINAOn about 27 October 2002, he was between 65 and 69 years old.
Patients like to know the qualifications and background of dentists and doctors. This information may possibly be related to patients' informed consent, we guess. He supposedly has been affiliated with the Hair Transplantation Clinic of Sacramento although he is not necessarily affiliated with it now. The clinic is at 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825, phone (916)646-6869, tollf free phone (800) 829-4247, fax (916) 646-3507, email email@example.com. The clinic and Traquina's office both are at 3 Parkcenter Drive, which is near Campus Commons Road and slightly southeast of Fair Oaks Boulevard. His home and private medical office both are close to Fair Oaks Boulevard.
Thew following information is from URL http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=36172&P_LTE_ID=782.
Licensee Name: ALVARO CRUZ TRAQUINA, MD License Type: PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON License Number: A36172 License Status: LICENSE RENEWED & CURRENT Public Record Actions: NONE AVAILABLE ON WEB SITE Original Issue Date: DECEMBER 08, 1980 Expiration Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 Address: 2201 MARYWOOD CT CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 County: SACRAMENTO Medical School: UNIVERSITY OF LISBOA FACULTY OF MEDICINE OF LISBOA [Lisbon, Portugal] Year Graduated: 1970He may live at ALVARO D TRAQUINA, 2201 MARYWOOD CT, CARMICHAEL, Sacramento County, CA 95608-5505. On a dead end street south of Fair Oaks Boulevard.
We don't know if he's board-certified as a specialist.
J.P. Tremblay, 48, of Citrus Heights, has been appointed assistant secretary for public and employee communications. He has served as the assistant secretary for external affairs at the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency since 2004. Tremblay previously was the chief information security officer for the Department of the Youth Authority from 2002 to 2004. His experience also includes three years as assistant director of communications and public affairs at the Youth Authority, three years as assistant secretary for communications at the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency and one year as deputy press secretary in the Office of the Governor from 1993 to 1994. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100,008. Tremblay is a Republican.
JOHN P TREMBLAY Born Feb 1957 -- 7035 YARROW WAY CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610 (916) 723-3538
David Tristan, former CDCR Director of Instutions and Deputy Director of Operations. Laterm he was an employee of CEC's (Community Educational Center Inc.'s) CiviGenics. As far as we know, a little before CiviGenics hired Tristan (which hiring was about January 2005, we think), Civigenics made a no-bid contract with the state government of California for a small (300 prisoners), private prison in the Bakersfield area. The contract reeked and was cancelled by the government. Tristan did not necessariy do anything wrong. 2008aug28
DAVID M TRISTAN Born May 1946, 2928 FOXTAIL CREEK AVE, 04/01/2005, HENDERSON, NV 89052
DAVID TRISTAN, 3968 ROUND WOOD ST, 11/27/2003, LAS VEGAS, NV 89147 (702) 873-9306
DAVID P TRISTAN, 4906 ORTEGA ST 05/01/2006 SACRAMENTO, CA 95820 (916) 731-8634
DAVID A TRISTAN Born May 1946, 212 RANDALL DR 01/25/2002 FOLSOM, CA 95630
DAVID M TRISTAN Born Jul 1946, 212 RANDALL DR, 10/16/2003 FOLSOM, CA 95630
Lorna J. Turner Staff Psychiatrist CA Medical Facility (Vacaville prison).
Licensee Name: LORNA JEAN TURNER, MD License Type: PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON License Number: G25754 License Status: LICENSE RENEWED & CURRENT Public Record Actions: CITATION ISSUED Original Issue Date: SEPTEMBER 24, 1973 Expiration Date: APRIL 30, 2008 Address: PO BOX 486 WEIMAR, CA 95736 County: PLACER Administrative Citation Issued A citation and/or fine has been issued for a minor violation of the law. This is not considered disciplinary action under California law but is an administrative action. Payment of the fine amount represents satisfactory resolution of this matter. Citation Number: 242006173118 Cause for Citation: FAILED TO REPORT CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA WITHIN 30 DAYS. Fine Amount: N/A Date Resolved: FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Date Citation Issued: FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Medical School: LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE Year Graduated: 1972
Home Addresses of People Most of Whom Are or Were Government Officers or Employees
|2010 N.Y. Pistol Permits||Impropriety in USA Govt|
|Main California Page||Previous Page||Next Page|