Intercept/Ed Gelb in LA--any experience?

[George W. Maschke]

In 1997, Mr. Gelb apparently represented himself as a Ph.D. to the U.S. Supreme Court as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D."

[Vato]

Has the good doctor replied to the inquiry yet?

Isn't it rather ironic that the very people who seem to take so much glee in prying into other's lives and questioning their integrity scuttle away when the light is shone into their dark corners?

[George W. Maschke]

Vato,

No. I have received no reply from Mr. Gelb; neither to my phone call nor to my e-mail inquiry. Perhaps you'd care to try?

[Skeptic]

I'm attempting to follow up on the resume issue as well.

Skeptic

[Vato]

George,
  Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post.  I wasn't implying that you weren't doing your best to verify Mr. Gelb's credentials.

-best regards

[George W. Maschke]

Vato,

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, either. I didn't mean to appear irritated with you! I'm not. What I meant was that, if you're willing, it might be helpful if you'd also contact Mr. Gelb's office seeking verification of his credentials.

[Observer]

It's nice to see that none of you has any productive work to do.  If you can't verify Gelb's credentials, I'm sure that 60 Minutes would find this a monumental story and would put all their resources behind it.

[George W. Maschke]

Observer,

Perhaps you don't think exposing a fraud is "productive work." Reasonable people might disagree, however.

That the Dissertation Abstracts database includes no dissertation by anyone with a name resembling "Edward Gelb" is prima facie evidence that Ed Gelb never filed a doctoral dissertation with any accredited university.

Ed Gelb could remove any doubt about his credentials by simply responding to the simple questions I e-mailed him. As Beech Trees noted, if he has testified as an expert witness (and I believe he has), then his CV should be a matter of public record.

[beech trees]

On a lark I called the Media Relations Office of Los Angeles Superior Court and asked how one might obtain the CV of someone who had been recognized by the Court as an expert witness and had testified (apparently) numerous times. One would need to know the particular court in which the person testified (LASC has dozens), and even perhaps the particular case. The Clerk of The Court could then look up the case's transcript. I would presume a physical printing of the individual's resume/CV might be a part of the evidence, but whether or not that would be kept on file or not I have no idea. If anyone can name a particular case, docket number, whatever, I'll make the appropriate inquiries.

[George W. Maschke]

Beech Trees,

According to Los Angeles Times reporters Phil Willon and William Lobdell ("Recipient of Sex Abuse Settlement Wants Priest's Slander Suit Tossed," 7 Nov. 2002),"Dr." Gelb filed a court declaration in a civil suit filed by Monsignor Lawrence J. Baird in San Francisco Superior Court against Lori Copabianca Haigh, who had hired Gelb's services.

Baird's suit was filed in April 2002 and dismissed on 27 Nov. 2002.

[Mark Mallah]

Next time I'm at the San Francisco court, I'll take a look at Gelb's declaration.  I don't have any court appearances scheduled there as of now.

[beech trees]

Next time I'm at the San Francisco court, I'll take a look at Gelb's declaration.  I don't have any court appearances scheduled there as of now.

I don't know if that would be productive Mr. Mallah, although the offer is quite generous. The case in which Mr. Gelb was hired (CGC-02-413508, LAWRENCE J BAIRD VS. LORI CAPOBIANCO HAIGH et al) does not appear to have any record with regard to Mr. Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration contained within the court reporter's minutes. That's odd, because the record notes:

RESPONSE TO MONSIGNOR BAIRD'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; INDEX OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLS. OF LORI HAIGH, DR. EDWARD I. GELB, AND KATHERINE K. FREBERG, AND DECL. OF MARK GOLDOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFT. LORI HAIGH'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A MERITLESS SLAPP; PROOF OF SERVICE OF REPLY PAPERS FILED BY DEFENDANT HAIGH, LORI CAPOBIANCO--NOV-22-2002

Pouring over the entire file might come up with the declaration, but I doubt that Mr. Gelb's CV or resume would be there.

And for the faceless critic who smarted off about being productive, none of this would be necessary if Ed Gelb would simply answer the LEGITIMATE queries about his credentials.

How about it, Batman? Are you going to go after Mr. Gelb's credentials as vigorously as you demand them from the polygraph's detractors here? Or do credentials only matter to you when you don't like-- but cannot disprove-- what the other person is saying?

Dave, PhD in forensic psycho-physiologial-prelimbic detection of deception, LaSalle University (our school's mascot is a Bayou Billy Bob swiggin beer while driving an airboat)

[Mark Mallah]

I don't know if that would be productive Mr. Mallah, although the offer is quite generous. The case in which Mr. Gelb was hired (CGC-02-413508, LAWRENCE J BAIRD VS. LORI CAPOBIANCO HAIGH et al) does not appear to have any record with regard to Mr. Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration contained within the court reporter's minutes.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  Perhaps this will clear it up:

If the court records you cited to lists Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration (and they clearly do), then that supplemental declaration will be in the file.  This supplemental declaration is a written declaration, not an oral one.  It is generally signed under penalty of perjury, and generally lists the declarant's credentials and basis for what he is testifying to in the declaration.  Thus Mr. Gelb would be expected to list his academic background, and the basis for his qualifications as an expert, and might even attach his CV as an exhibit (not uncommon).

I'm not sure what you mean by the court reporter's minutes, but if you're talking about a court reporter's transcript, there wouldn't be any unless the parties appeared in front of a judge for a motion or for trial.  The latter did not happen in this case, and most motions in SF get decided by paperwork, not personal appearances.

Does this clarify anything Dave (call me Mark please), or does your original point still hold?

[beech trees]

Hi Mark,

The Clerk with whom I spoke did not see the same entries I was seeing on my computer screen (and which I cited). The day in question (Nov. 22) had listed some supplemental declarations, but Mr. Gelb was not listed there on her screen. (Odd!) Probably an administrative oversight, and no doubt if someone *did* go down there and pull the entire file, Mr. Gelb's info would be there. The clerk was uncertain whether or not a person's cv or resume would be filed as a part of the total record, and I certainly didn't know.

Sorry for my lack of clarity,

Dave

[Mark Mallah]

Dave,

Thanks for the clarification.  We'll see what happens when I'm there in court to review the file.  I'm usually there about once per quarter, on average.

Mark