I'm surprised you weren't aware of this assclown... The '88 article citing Hydrick's alleged ability to call up sandstorms should have been the public's first indication that he (Cater or Hydrick, take your pick) was full of ****. Further, why's anyone doing an article, much less a front page photo, of some convicted kiddie-diddler? Piss-poor decision-making on IKF's part, and an early indication that their publication standards were in the toilet even then.
I love having been involved in MA this long (since 1986), as I recall a lot of "ancient history" like this... One of my particular favorites was the article in either Black Belt or IKF about Shotokan kata and TKD hyungs/poomse being identical, leading to a major revision throughout the TKD world of the forms they were doing (read: complete invention of new forms so as not to look like karate anymore).
I love that ****. :new_vampv
He was my Ninja "Teacher" for a couple of months.
This guy was my Ninjitsu teacher when I was in 8th grade in SLC. Or, at least he said he was a ninja. He would buy tons of training equipment with bad credit cards; black and camo ninja suits, every foam weapon you could think of, voice activated walkie talkie head sets to wear under our Ninja hoods and tons of other crap. He would take us up in the mountains and buy us alcohol and take us on "training missions". It only took me a week or two to find out that he liked young boys and there were several that I knew of that he was sleeping with. I was pretty mystified with this guy at first then I found out that he tried to molest my best friend one night, that was before my first "training" mission. I stayed well away from him while we were doing these things. He showed us tons of fake tricks that made me realise quickly that he was full of ****. It only was a few weeks after I found out about him that he was taken back to jail. I always wondered what happened to him after that.
You have received a warning for making accusations without proof. You are expected ( and been asked )to clarify and back up your own claims.
Originally Posted by Lincoln94117
I found a link verifying his arrest for two sex related crimes the in less than five minutes.
It doesn't specifically say with a minor or child so I am not sure of the details or if the link applies to the specifics you claim.
Originally Posted by ghost55
“I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
Originally Posted by WFMurphyPhD
Do a search under his full name and you will get a ton of courts and news documents that prove that I am not slandering his name, jerk.
James Allen Hydrick; David Lanphere; Shaundale Griffin; Frank Cisneros; Paul Pederson; Steven Robert Cerniglia; Gary Price; Daniel Mrowici; Kenneth Ciancio; Michael Mcclure; James Mata; Richard Bishop; Melvin Fields; Ron Lee; Leonard Pierre; Thomas Price; Jimmy Guthrie; Brian Kelly; Woodrow Jones; Vashon Jackson; Bruce Riley; Fred Scott; Dean Danforth; Sammy Page; James Peters; Grayling Mitchell; Carlos Saucedo; Anthony Dacayona; Charles Salas, et al., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Melvin E. Hunter, Aka/jon Demorales; Craig Nelson; Grenda Ernst, Defendants-appellants, Androbert Mcdaniel; Jerry Reynolds; Robert Penate; Samuel Robinson; Mark Mahhoney; Stephen Mayberg; Anita Judd; Michael Hughes; Jim Vess; Jack Townsend; Mark Palmer; Rocky Spurgeon; Arnie Gobbell; Jim Wiley;mark Kalionzes; Elaine Sherrill; Glan Mikel; Jan Maire Alarcon; Baruch Margalit; William Knowlton; Diane Imram; Carmel Muller; Dale Arnold; Gabriella Paladino; Jean Dansereau et al.; William Charles Thiel; Robert Douglas Lefort; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, Defendants
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 449 F.3d 978
Argued and Submitted April 5, 2005 Filed June 1, 2006
Kathryn M. Davis, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Terry J. Hatter, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-07167-TJH.
Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON and STEPHEN S. TROTT, Circuit Judges.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge.
1 Plaintiffs-Appellees represent a class of approximately 600 civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act ("SVP Act"). In this suit, Plaintiffs allege that the conditions of their confinement violate their constitutional rights. They request declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based largely on qualified immunity, but their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, and reverse in part.
2 1. California's Sexually Violent Predators Scheme
3 The SVP Act defines an SVP as a person "convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims for which he or she received a determinate sentence and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others" i.e., is "likely [to] engage in sexually violent criminal behavior." See Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 6600(a).2 At least six months before a person who has committed the predicate offenses is to complete his sentence, he is evaluated by the Department of Corrections and Department of Mental Health. Id. § 6601. If those two departments agree that the person evaluated may be an SVP, a petition for commitment may be filed by the district attorney or counsel for the county in which the evaluated person was convicted. Id. § 6601(i). If that person is found by a jury to be an SVP who poses a danger to the health and safety of others, he is civilly committed for an indefinite period to commence after his criminal sentence is fulfilled. Id. §§ 6602-6604.
4 Once civilly committed, Plaintiffs undergo a five-phase treatment program. Phase One comprises group sessions that educate the SVP about California's SVP Act. During Phase One, the SVP is required to attend and participate in the treatment sessions. If he does not, his access level3 is reduced and he is not allowed to advance to Phase Two of the treatment program. In addition, an SVP's failure to attend or participate in the treatment sessions is used against him at future probable cause and confinement hearings. The SVP cannot advance beyond Phase One unless he signs a statement in which he acknowledges that he has an "illness" that requires "treatment." Plaintiffs allege that the signed statements are often used against the SVP in future probable cause and confinement hearings.
5 Phases Two through Five of the treatment plan involve "cognitive" treatment. This treatment includes viewing videos that depict violent or other inappropriate sexual activities while a repugnant odor or other unpleasant sensation is applied to elicit a negative association.
6 Each year, a committed person has a right to a show cause hearing to determine whether his commitment should be continued. Id. § 6605(a)-(b). If it is found that the SVP continues to be a danger to the health or safety of the community, the person is committed for two years from the date of the finding. Id. § 6605(e). These successive periods of commitment can be continued indefinitely, or until the SVP completes all five phases of treatment. Upon successful completion of Phase Five, the SVP is conditionally released under the supervision of the California Mental Health Department. According to Plaintiffs, "only a handful of SVPs have been allowed into Phase Four and no SVP has progressed to Phase Five or ha[s] been found to be ready for release under the treatment protocol."4
7 On September 2, 1998, Plaintiffs filed a pro se class action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in district court against Defendants-Appellants Stephen Mayberg (Director of the California Department of Mental Health), Cal A. Terhune (Director of the California Department of Corrections), Jon DeMorales (former Executive Director at Atascadero State Hospital), Grenda Ernst (Clinical Administrator at Atascadero State Hospital), and Craig Nelson (Senior Psychologist Specialist at Atascadero State Hospital) (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as monetary damages, on the grounds that the policies and procedures that govern Plaintiffs' confinement and treatment at Atascadero State Hospital violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
8 In March 1999, the district court appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel filed an amended complaint approximately five months later. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss raised Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity defenses. The district court denied Defendants' motion in a one line order.
9 Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2002.5 Both the first and second amended complaints alleged that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights by, inter alia: (1) force-medicating Plaintiffs in non-emergency situations; (2) reducing Plaintiffs' access levels and other privileges as a form of punishment for refusing to participate in treatment sessions or as retaliation for filing lawsuits; (3) putting Plaintiffs in restraints for non-threatening and/or nondisruptive conduct, including the refusal to participate in treatment or therapy; (4) subjecting Plaintiffs to public strip-searches (sometimes while in four-point restraints); (5) failing to protect Plaintiffs from abuse of other patients or of Atascadero employees; (6) failing to provide Plaintiffs with constitutionally satisfactory conditions of confinement; (7) forcing Plaintiffs to participate in treatment; and (8) denying Plaintiffs adequate treatment, thereby converting Plaintiffs' civil confinement to a de facto extension of their prison sentence.
10 Once again, Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, on the same grounds presented in their first motion to dismiss. The district court again denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in a one line order. Defendants timely filed their notice of appeal. Defendants contend that the district court erred by failing to rule that the Eleventh Amendment, state abstention doctrine, or qualified immunity barred Plaintiffs' suit.
11 We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss. Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004). Immunity under the Eleventh Amendment presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir.2001). To determine if Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we review de novo whether governing law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and whether the specific facts alleged constitute a violation of established law. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County Dept. of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2001).
12 Although a district court's denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not ordinarily appealable, the denial of a claim for immunity is appealable before final judgment under the collateral order doctrine and is reviewed de novo. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir.1999). All allegations of material fact are accepted as true and should be construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). The "complaint should not be dismissed [under Rule 12(b)(6)] unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir.2002).
13 We note, again, the special difficulty of deciding the motion to dismiss a Defendant on qualified immunity grounds at this stage. Under the notice pleading standard of the Federal Rules, plaintiffs are only required to give a "short and plain statement" of their claims. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). Thus, "[w]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, [our] task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).
14 As we recognized in Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2004), a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds puts the court in the difficult position of deciding "far-reaching constitutional questions on a nonexistent factual record." Id. at 957. We strongly suggested that, while "government officials have the right ... to raise ... qualified immunity defense on a motion to dismiss, the exercise of that authority is not a wise choice in every case." Id. We find that especially true here. The policy justifying qualified immunity motions at this stage is to protect officers against the burden of discovery and pre-trial motions. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996). In this case, the parties had already engaged in discovery for several years, and it appears that discovery was almost complete. Defendants could have presented this as a motion for summary judgment, and we would have a more developed factual record to guide our decision. Because Defendants' motion is framed as a motion to dismiss, we must evaluate the merits of Defendants' qualified immunity defense before we know the full extent of the alleged abuses at Atascadero, or the reason behind Atascadero policy, or the level of involvement Defendants had in creating the conditions at Atascadero. As we decide Defendants' motion, however, we are cautious not to eviscerate the notice pleading standard in suits where qualified immunity is at issue. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002).6
Regarding James Allen Hydrick, AKA "Sir James" AKA "Sum Chai" AKA "Zane Leonard," etc., he appeared on several popular TV shows in the very early 1980s, including "That's Incredible," "Ripley's Believe It or Not!," and Merv Griffin's talk show. James "The Amazing" Randi, magician and exposer of bullshido extraordinaire, wangled an appearance on "That's My Line" (a Summer-only replacement show on CBS in 1980 and 1981, hosted by Bob Barker) in which he repeated Hydrick's trick's with equal skill. He then challenged Hydrick to come on the show again and perform his stunts under controlled conditions.
The Youtube clip is bad enough for Hydrick. What it doesn't show is Randi having caught his puffing on microphone at rehearsal the previous day, the fact that they gave Hydrick over an hour to move the phone book page before he quit, or the fact that Randi gave him another option besides the styrofoam chips -- wearing a surgical mask while doing his psychic / qi / mystical moves -- which Hydrick refused.
So, Hydrick was pretty thoroughly discredited for anyone whose head wasn't full of mush then. The Korem interview just nailed things down, when Hydrick came right out and confessed to having learned to do these tricks while in jail (this would have been following his little discussed 1978 Santa Monica arrest for "oral copulation," which involved circumstances sufficient to lead to 2 1/2 years in jail, including 18 months in solitary, according to Hydrick, and such that, according to a later indictment, he was required to register as a sex offender when he moved back to California in 1988). Hydrick's story later was that he was in a van hitchhiking with some guys who, it turned out, had kidnapped a guy (unbeknownst to our poor hero, Sir James!), but he got mistakenly convicted due to having some of the kidnapped guy's stuff in his pockets. How this led to his accidentally doing over 2 years for a sex crime, you'll have to work out for yourselves.
For some additional info, see ikigaiway.com's page on Hydrick and especially unexplainable.net's /simply-unexplainable/psychic_powers__confessions__and_power_contests_16 7.php
[I can't post links yet, so I altered the addresses to kill the links. I didn't want to not give sources, though. I hope they are OK now.]
The information about the 1978 sex offender arrest is from the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 1989, Metro Section, p. 1 (Orange County Edition).
I wasn't able to track down a Richmond, Georgia newspaper from March of 1982, but I did manage to find a series of stories on Hydrick's 1985 escape from a South Carolina jail that illustrate how a somewhat impressive story grows to martial arts magic through retelling, time, and application of a little you-know-what. I found about 10 stories from the 1980s in the *Aikens (South Carolina) Standard,* the local paper for the area Hydrick is actually from (though he claimed various hometowns, including Passaic, N.J.) and the approximate area where he grew up in various foster homes (and probably learned some martial arts rudiments in the mid-1970s at a local community center, though he is likely to have learned more in L.A. in the late 1970s and while doing time in the L.A. County Jail, circa 1978-1980). These varied from "local boy makes good" in a couple of cases to "local troublemaker in legal difficulties again," most of the time. They don't bear out the 148 escapes from jails that *Inside Kung Fu* reported, but there does seem to be evidence for at least 4 or 5 escapes, mostly short-lived, and for an ability to get out of handcuffs (sometimes described as "busting out," sometimes as unlocking, and sometimes as "slipping out," the last by a public defender working on his 1989 molestation case in Los Angeles). Since the "busting out" wasn't observed (it was during an escape discovered later), one wonders if Hydrick used escape artist tricks to get handcuffs applied loosely, then worked his hands out, given his familiarity with other magicians' tricks.
The main point I wanted to make here though concerns Hydrick's June 29, 1985 escape from the Aiken County Detention Center. Let's look at some reports, starting with the latest ones first. In 1989, the *Standard* reported that Hydrick (a 9th degree black-belt in "martial arts") kicked out a cell window and broke through two gates in a heavy rainstorm in order to escape. Even more dramatically, Aiken County Sheriff Carroll Heath recalled to the L.A. Times (see reference above) that Hydrick had kicked out several concrete blocks in order to escape. In November of 1987, Hydrick himself had explained to the *Standard* that he had "pushed out a wall" and escaped because he knew he wasn't supposed to be there. In July of that year, the *Standard* told its readers that Hydrick had broken out of the CDC using a "karate kick." Any of these escapes would seem to involve martial arts skills beyond those known to mortal men or perhaps (despite his earlier confession of fakery) James Hydrick was a true master of mystical qi!
However, if we look at the initial report in the *Standard* of July 1, 1985, two days after the escape (which was followed within 14 hours by recapture), we find that Hydrick and two cellmates escaped by dismantling a metal bunk and using the parts to break out the plexiglas cell window. There is no mention of the gates or the storm, or whether metal bunk parts were used on any gates if any were broken, but Hydrick was charged with trying unsuccessfully to steal a getaway car. So, somehow, three guys taking apart a metal bunk and using part of it to bust a plexiglas window out became James Hydrick's "karate kicking" his way out, or pushing the wall over, or kicking concrete blocks out of the wall, or kicking the window out then going on further ninja-like adventures through the stormy night.
The guy did escape jail several times, and tried to other times (a buddy once got 90 days for giving him a hammer to chip at a wall with -- no doubt that would have been "karate chopped" into smithereens according to the local press if they weren't caught), but given how exaggerated this one got, color me verrrry skeptical about the "broken wall in Georgia" story.
He pleaded guilty in 1989 (after a bizarre extradition from Georgia that included a 2 week stay with a small town Arkansas sheriff's family, who he charmed, and claims that he convinced the private extradition guards that he had supernatural powers) to 11 counts of felony child molestation of kids (aged about 12-13) who had attended martial arts demonstrations on Huntington Beach in the Summer of 1988 (brick-smashing, high-kicking, etc.). He still had his defenders, including a woman who adopted him when he was in his early 20s, the promoter who was sponsoring his demos on Huntington Beach, one of his sisters, and a lawyer friend. They said a bunch of stuff about how childlike he is and how he like to be around children because of his own childhood being troubled but he'd never hurt them. I wanted to vomit as I read it. He was sentenced to 17 years. After he did his time, he was civilly committed to a state mental hospital as a "sexual predator" under "Jessica's Law" in California, though Wikipedia has a fairly recent supposed prison ID number for him, so he may be back inside. See L. A. Times Aug 19, 1989, Metro, page 3 (Orange County Edition) and Wikipedia page for James Hydrick.
In some versions, it was a Tibetan monk wandering the banks of the Savannah River in the Southern U.S. (forming the border between Georgia and South Carolina). This has the advantage that Hydrick actually spent time there, but raises the question, WTF was a Tibetan monk doing wandering the backwoods of the South around the time of the Vietnam War? I guess his expertise in Chinese martial arts (???) protected him from good ole boys who shot first and checked passports second.
It's always Ripley's that I see bullshido-ka aplenty.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO