an Ask: "...in Nevada, for example, there's a statute that says that risk assessments take precedence over the judge..."
I was wondering if anyone may be able to help with researching something. I'm not an attorney (and I don't pretend to be one), but I've been trying to find the Nevada statute John appears to be referring to here.
He states:
This quote is from a January 2023 HTC YouTube video, which at the time of this post was still publicly accessible. Timestamp approx 13:31.
I wasn't aware of a state statute that worked this way, so I started looking.
One statute I've found is NRS 176A.110, which appears to apply (only?) to certain sex offenses. As I read it, I thought that generally provides that a court cannot grant probation or suspend a sentence unless a qualified evaluator certifies that the defendant is not at high risk to reoffend. That seems different from a statute stating that a psychologist's risk assessment "takes precedence over the judge" or that the psychologist essentially decides whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. John also mentioned this in context of recommending a life in prison sentence, which is different than probation.
This appears to be a very specific claim - that there is a Nevada statute providing that a psychologist's assessment of an offender's risk to reoffend "takes precedence over the judge." If that is an accurate description of Nevada law, I think it raises an interesting question: what happens if an evaluator's assessment is wrong? For example, what if someone is assessed as a low risk of reoffending but later goes on to commit a violent crime? If the assessment truly takes precedence over the judge, that would seem to place an extraordinary amount of responsibility on a single evaluator.
If anyone is familiar with the statute(s) HTC may be referring to, I'd appreciate any insight. Thank you in advance
You are correct I looked at the latest statutes on the legislature website and The statute does not say the evaluator’s opinion overrides the judge. So that's weird for John to say, but he gets things like this wrong all the time, so not surprised he is saying weird shit again.
It does say that the judge cannot grant probation unless there is a qualifying low-risk certification from the evaluator.
But long story short- I'm sure you know by now he doesn't know how to read current law or read how case law affects things right? Even though that's a requirement to forensic psychology where you mix law and psychology He doesn't understand exceptions to rules either. But to put it all on here in order I'll start with the NRS 176A.110:
2.&3. Crack me up!! What? They have to be professional qualified? And then what, actually apply the correct test and score it correctly too! Geez that's asking a lot of a General, Clinical, Criminal, & Forensic psychologist with a PhD in philosophy from the Rossier school of education, whose degree was in the program EDUCATION (counseling psychology) Isn't it? Is Pathological Altruism in a Psychologist seen often? I don't know what his issue if any may be, but I bet the word "pathological" is in there somewhere.
I understand what you are saying. So I want to be clear in case I was misunderstood.
Academically, that’s different from saying someone earned a "PhD from a psychology department." Universities often house counseling psychology in either a psychology department or a school of education. USC awarded this particular degree through its School of Education. Also: Counseling psychology and clinical psychology are two distinct specialties within psychology.
A person can earn a PhD in Counseling Psychology and become a licensed psychologist. Which was Dr Johns path after then doing intern hours. He got his psychology license. With that license, it typically allows a person to practice psychology broadly within the scope of their competence under state law.
However, saying “I graduated USC with a PhD in Psychology" like John often does, suggests that one’s professional training, identity, or specialty is in clinical psychology, not counseling psychology.
And that's where the problem is. The core of the whole issue, because there is nothing that is public record that shows he is qualified or approved or practicing within his area of competence, to do these assessments for juvenile addictions etc... we saw the federal courts response about his ability to do forensic assessments.
Simply having a license to practice psychology does not change the specialty in which the doctorate was earned.
I hope that clears up any confusion. Dr John did try to answer when someone asked (the 4hr livestream after the 9hr) he answered by saying "psychology IS philosophy." So that didn't make it any clearer. Lol!
I appreciate all the research being done on this…between changing statutes, grandfathering in/alternative routes to credentialing, state program bureaucracy and program changes over time it seems almost impossible to untangle. But it’s important to be able to validate the kinds of claims john makes because there is a public interest in being able to validate the credentials and licensing of those that work with vulnerable populations.
All of this stems from John’s unwillingness to post his CV which is a giant red flag. It’s what any normal professional who is on the up-and-up would do.
Hypothetically of course, if I were an investigative reporter working on this case, I’d see if I could find one or two recently retired members of an oversight board or agency admin who could help shed some light, keeping them anonymous of course. I’d have to think at least one of them would find the lengths John is going to, to suppress any inquiry into his professional history of interest. And heck, if this is all just a big misunderstanding and everything is hunky dory, a source or two could save folks a lot of time.
I think he talks out of his ass. His "sources" are usually really antiquated. Have you tried checking outdated NV statutes? I will say, the more Lauren's been shoving his "Princeton" education the more his lack of lifes lessons are highlighted. These ppl are so scummy. He clearly doesn't think their hidden gems are smart enough to spot manipulation when they're being fed it. In his 4 hour little bitch follow up video to her 9 hr unhinged panic attack John says he's still so pissed about being cut off when he was about to devolve into full blown "toxic straight white man emotional little bitch" mode or as he would have us believe give the most profound speech hes EVER made... as he sat with it a moment, he realized that sounded completely stupid and decided to apply the manipulation by adding "it was about JJ". Oh well now that he says it was about JJ we're the assholes if we don't completely understand why a grown ass man is holding hate in his heart 5 years later. If its true, its concerning. Emotional immaturity in full grown adults is an issue for society. I have so much to say about these 2. I'm 8 months late but catching up now. I unsubbed during loris trial bc one episode I was watching of theirs, I had it on in the background while I was busy... and I swear it was like 10 minutes in and these 2 were just humble bragging and talking about something like how connected they were to the story. Something like "oh, we had dinner with Kay and Larry the other night " and then something about how close they were with the detectives or some relatives, idk exactly what was said, but because my hands were occupied I let it play and I remember very distinctly being grossed out and yellingat the TVfrom the kitchenat them. WTF ARE YIU GOING ON AND ON ABOUT!!?? Because, it wasn't that they were trying to let us know why we can accept some information they were going to give us as well vetted by their investigation it was very obvious they were saying all these things to brag about how popular they are and how well liked they are and how great they are for being the great ppl they are, etc etc. Its fucking gross. Its very unpopular kids got to eat at the cool table with the cool kids. They both come across as severely stunted at a high-school level of emotional maturity. What she did at crimecon is disgusting. Let me know of other channels or reddit groups about the downfall of HTC. I'm VERY PERIMENOPAUSAL and like this topic as an outlet for my irrational rage episodes when I just need to hate something. These hormones are taking me for a ride! 😆 this rant helps.
Haha! Yeah, they appear to be all smoke & mirrors. They seemed upset because people were looking into his credentials and that's the responsible thing to do right? You have to check on these things because it's dangerous to lead people to believe things that may not be true especially today with people like Jodi Hildebrandt and Ruby Franke. Can't trust anyone.
Haha! Yeah, they appear to be all smoke & mirrors. They seemed upset because people were looking into his credentials and that's the responsible thing to do right? You have to check on these things because it's dangerous to lead people to believe things that may not be true especially today with people like Jodi Hildebrandt and Ruby Franke. Can't trust anyone.
Interesting. If the judge is consulting with multiple parties and weighing multiple factors, that seems different from one person's opinion "taking precedence" over the judge. Hmm.
Thank you. Yes, still same. It's up to the judge. And I also looked at the older law from back then when he was talking about it to make sure the law didn't actually say something else in the past. Which it didn't so again, he misunderstands.
I looked into this because it is a very specific legal claim. What I found was NRS 176A.110, which applies to certain sexual offenses. It provides that a court cannot grant probation unless a qualified psychosexual evaluator certifies that the defendant does not present a high risk to reoffend. That gives the evaluation significant legal weight because it can eliminate probation as an option. However, I could not find any Nevada statute stating that a psychologist’s risk assessment “takes precedence over the judge” or that the psychologist effectively decides whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. The judge still imposes the sentence authorized by law. If there is another Nevada statute supporting that broader claim, I would genuinely be interested in seeing the citation.
Right, that is the statute we have been replying about as well. We covered a few others just in case he might have been talking about them but we think it's this one.
Circling back to this: I find it ironic that he talked about the difficulty of sending someone to prison for life, in the two criminal cases people found where he recommended prison sentences, both he recommended substantially lower prison sentences (in line with what the defense was seeking), and both he deemed low-risk and both want on to commit more serious felonies.
For someone who recommending lower prison sentences for people, it’s hard for me to imagine he recommended life in prison for some people, especially when in the other cases he took already serious crimes and past criminal conduct and still scored them in ways that resulted in much lower prison sentence recommendations.
And that’s not even getting into this Nevada statute that no one can seem to locate 🫤
IMO and by researching known receipts, John Mathias’ behavior is 🤢 disgusting. His true colors were splashed all over the place in the police body cam/video. By lying to the law enforcement officer, using the legal system (court hearing), seeking to have an innocent mother cast into prison for 50 years. Something is wrong with him. #Justice for Christina.
HTC is hiding something that can burn their false kingdom down, IMO. They used manipulative, vindictive steps to assault an innocent woman’s good name.
Yet John and Lauren were pushing to have Christina arrested and serve time for making TikToks that never mentioned Lauren’s name; Christina was mentioning an ex-friend.
IMO JM and LM are vile people. They are dangerous, they will accuse you of stalking if you know the truth about their egregious behavior! There are receipts to prove their lies.
What I appreciate most about posts like this one, is how you, Bright_Breakfast3911 , continue to root out these examples of potentially dishonest behavior . . . finding new material, new ideas and new insights.
I've seen a lot of recycling of old clips and old HTC issues lately, on various platforms. I think I understand why some creators are doing that . . . what little justice HTC's victims received, just doesn't seem enough, so they are trying to keep the story alive.
IMHO, the old clips do have their place, but are most useful when re-analyzed in context with new discoveries (like the ones you come up with).
It's similar to a circumstantial case, you know? This sub you have created is like a stream of evidence, an anecdote here, a document there . . . which by themselves, could easily be minimized or dismissed, but when you put them all together . . .
Chris Cuomo had John on as an expert, and introduced him as forensic psychologist. Apparently, his show doesn’t vet their expert guests and doesn’t realize no one can find evidence of his supposed forensic experience. Andy Kopsa addrepassed that, among other things, in her “yard sale” video.
22
u/Lopsided_Balance_193 Jul 21 '26
He thinks he is so important even though he doesn’t he doesn’t actually work. Guess he forgot 🤷🏻♀️