The Punk Rock Therapist promised free therapy in the wake of the Anti-Flag #metoo scandal but there is no record of Kristina Sarhadi ever having been a Clinically Licensed Therapist or Social Worker.
Really fascinating and thorough work. That people seeking a name might claim titles and qualifications they dont have is unsurprising. We in the foreign policy field had a really embarrassing one (for Syria interventionists/'moderate rebel' supporters) named Elizabeth O'Bagy. Even after she got exposed as faking her resume McCain's office hired her because of course.
thanks for your detailed, painstaking research. she’s super suss, indeed. there are some people who accuse others of “taking advantage,” when THEY’RE the ones doing so. i guess time will tell who’s the real opportunist.
Hello. I'm just adding my 2 cents and speculating on what might be happening in this situation, with no actual knowledge of any party involved. Like the documentary Tickled (2016), you might be onto something, but not what you're thinking. There's plenty of smoke but the wrong fire.
I believe it's possible, or even likely, that Kristina Sarhadi isn't trying to provide therapy at all. Instead, she might be trying to dragnet victims of sexual assault (SA), filtering them through a text box algorithm on her now-defunct website. The website's text boxes had options like "I was under age," "I was abused by someone in a powerful position (that has money)," and "I would like to speak out."
It seems more likely that this website and therapist (non-therapist) were screening potential plaintiffs to see if they were worth referring to legal representation, such as to Karen Barth Menzies. According to KBMLAW, "Karen Barth Menzies has represented many women survivors of sexual assault and abuse in the music and entertainment realm. She is proud to be partnering with TPRT to further her mission of providing personal, individual legal representation to survivors of sexual assault and abuse."
So, Sarhadi could be luring SA victims with the promise of free therapy to redirect them into a money-making civil lawsuit scheme (only my conjecture). This could be proven unethical if:
1. She is a non-profit "therapist" treating victims differently based on the perceived dollar value of their complaints.
2. She is taking an exorbitant fee for her non-profit services.
3. Therapists are using their services to craft narratives and document damages specifically for documenting pain and suffering for a legal forum.
Sarhadi could be luring SA victims, to enrich her not for profit scheme, taking a cut of the lawsuits for herself. There might be kickbacks going to Sarhadi for referrals, etc. Again, all of this is only speculation, I'm only guessing as to what might be happening in a situation like this.
This is a well written and researched article, but I wanted to add some of my own thoughts.
I came across your peice via the episode on BARpod. As a complete outsider, (different age group, scene, country) I obviously lack some context, but I found it strange that someone without clear reasoning would put in so much effort to 'uncover' something of this nature.
Perhaps it's my naivety, but as a social worker in Australia (and yes, the term is iffy here too), and someone who has been part of the DIY punk scene during formative years of my life, I find the subtext/ implications in this essay to be petty at best, and mean-spirited at worst.
I think the focus is misplaced in this case. These women have organised and put together something that is both accessible and relevant for victim/survivors of SA, and has the added creditibility of social/cultural recognition within their community. In addition to this, a high profile man that has been accused of a longstanding pattern of violent and sexually abusive behaviour appears to have dodged much of the attention when it comes to scrutiny in both this piece of writing and to a lesser extent, BARpods ep.
Personally, I find that to be misguided, puzzling, and a depressing reproduction of some of the less desirable dynamics we have created for ourselves within our current societal context.
Idk, I think I'm reacting to this more defensively than I might some other internet spat, because when you are part of a DIY community, the emphasis is on removing yourself from the inherent meaning and power that we ascribe institutions, and in my experience, it has been incredibly empowering and liberating. I endured a decade of terrible, terrible psychologists. People who has the qualifications and the lingo and the mental where-withall to complete clinical training, but lacked the ability to reflect to me that I was truly seen or understood. It wasn't until I met my 'counsellor' (certified in a specific therapeutic methodology but not clinically trained as a psychologist) that I was able to truly pull it together and regain a desire to live again.
For what it's worth, I'm not advocating for people to lie about qualifications, or trying to argue that they have no meaning or merit. I'm also interested in the distinction between 65,000 billable hours vs $65,000 donations. This IS worth interrogating. I just find the hang ups on the technicalities here, and this topic in general to be questionable agenda-wise.
TLDR; why so much effort on this? Was this really where your energy and clear talent for research and writing was best spent? I like a twisty turny niche community drama as much as the next person, but in this case, it's not clear Kat was the "bad guy" in any real satisfying capacity. It feels like denigration for the sake of it, and for me, there are far more worthy targets than the alleged V/S of sexual assault who started up an org in the wake of speaking out.
The reason why I reported on this is simply because I found it. I was writing something else, notified some things that didn’t look right to me, and followed it to where I got. I don’t think it’s petty or mean spirited to point out the truth.
The idea that Justin has “dodged scrutiny” is laughable. He and the bands alleged misdeeds have been chronicled extensively across multiple publications. The band no longer exists because of the scrutiny placed on them.
There is nothing wrong with these women creating a support group, but that’s not what they created, they explicitly created a charity (which it is not), and promised to provide services they can’t from professionals . This “therapy charity” can’t manage to get any mental health providers on staff, but conveniently it does have 2 lawyers specializing in civil suits. Will these lawyers have access to patient records in order to pursue the cases they use to pay their bills? We don’t know, because there’s no oversight.
The DIY stuff is nice for art booking a show, releasing a record whatever, but it’s not the correct approach for medical intervention, especially if the person providing the care doesn’t have the decency to be upfront about their credentials.
If Sarhadi had simply come out and said “I’m a reiki master and we’re going to make a support group” that’s fine, who cares. The issue is that she built herself up into a trusted position that she has no qualifications to hold while pretending her organization is a charity. Her clients are allegedly victims of a serial sexual predator, aren’t they deserving of the highest level of care, or at least someone who will be transparent with them about their qualifications? For someone who is allegedly motivated by a deep care for victims Sarhadi won’t step aside and make sure these people have the best care possible, instead building this entire operation around herself.
I’ve provided the information, people can choose how they react to it. If you feel that this persons “good” intentions and alleged victim status precludes her from having to follow the rules laid out for mental health professionals in order to provide safe, effective care for their patients, that’s your prerogative.
Hello. I'm just adding my 2 cents and speculating on what might be happening in this situation, with no actual knowledge of any party involved. Like the documentary Tickled (2016), you might be onto something, but not what you're thinking. There's plenty of smoke but the wrong fire.
I believe it's possible, or even likely, that Kristina Sarhadi isn't trying to provide therapy at all. Instead, she might be trying to dragnet victims of sexual assault (SA), filtering them through a text box algorithm on her now-defunct website. The website's text boxes had options like "I was under age," "I was abused by someone in a powerful position (that has money)," and "I would like to speak out."
It seems more likely that this website and therapist (non-therapist) were screening potential plaintiffs to see if they were worth referring to legal representation, such as to Karen Barth Menzies. According to KBMLAW, "Karen Barth Menzies has represented many women survivors of sexual assault and abuse in the music and entertainment realm. She is proud to be partnering with TPRT to further her mission of providing personal, individual legal representation to survivors of sexual assault and abuse."
So, Sarhadi could be luring SA victims with the promise of free therapy to redirect them into a money-making civil lawsuit scheme (only my conjecture). This could be proven unethical if:
1. She is a non-profit "therapist" treating victims differently based on the perceived dollar value of their complaints.
2. She is taking an exorbitant fee for her non-profit services.
3. Therapists are using their services to craft narratives and document damages specifically for documenting pain and suffering for a legal forum.
Sarhadi could be luring SA victims, to enrich her not for profit scheme, taking a cut of the lawsuits for herself. There might be kickbacks going to Sarhadi for referrals, etc. Again, all of this is only speculation, I'm only guessing as to what might be happening in a situation like this.
I am of the mind that this is part of a larger operation of repression against dissent. The timing is too perfect. If you were waiting 10 years why would you start right before Trump started running again. Or literally in.September a month before the Hamas operation that the inteligence agencies surely knew about. The FBI's website says they will disrupt and destroy anarchist efforts and after that we see accusations used to destroy anarchist and radical bands and groups.
I wonder if there were other bands or radical groups or individual accused in a similar way around the same time frame?
Really fascinating and thorough work. That people seeking a name might claim titles and qualifications they dont have is unsurprising. We in the foreign policy field had a really embarrassing one (for Syria interventionists/'moderate rebel' supporters) named Elizabeth O'Bagy. Even after she got exposed as faking her resume McCain's office hired her because of course.
thanks for your detailed, painstaking research. she’s super suss, indeed. there are some people who accuse others of “taking advantage,” when THEY’RE the ones doing so. i guess time will tell who’s the real opportunist.
Hopefully it ends with some kind of meaningful resolution, but I'm not holding my breath.
Hello. I'm just adding my 2 cents and speculating on what might be happening in this situation, with no actual knowledge of any party involved. Like the documentary Tickled (2016), you might be onto something, but not what you're thinking. There's plenty of smoke but the wrong fire.
I believe it's possible, or even likely, that Kristina Sarhadi isn't trying to provide therapy at all. Instead, she might be trying to dragnet victims of sexual assault (SA), filtering them through a text box algorithm on her now-defunct website. The website's text boxes had options like "I was under age," "I was abused by someone in a powerful position (that has money)," and "I would like to speak out."
It seems more likely that this website and therapist (non-therapist) were screening potential plaintiffs to see if they were worth referring to legal representation, such as to Karen Barth Menzies. According to KBMLAW, "Karen Barth Menzies has represented many women survivors of sexual assault and abuse in the music and entertainment realm. She is proud to be partnering with TPRT to further her mission of providing personal, individual legal representation to survivors of sexual assault and abuse."
So, Sarhadi could be luring SA victims with the promise of free therapy to redirect them into a money-making civil lawsuit scheme (only my conjecture). This could be proven unethical if:
1. She is a non-profit "therapist" treating victims differently based on the perceived dollar value of their complaints.
2. She is taking an exorbitant fee for her non-profit services.
3. Therapists are using their services to craft narratives and document damages specifically for documenting pain and suffering for a legal forum.
Sarhadi could be luring SA victims, to enrich her not for profit scheme, taking a cut of the lawsuits for herself. There might be kickbacks going to Sarhadi for referrals, etc. Again, all of this is only speculation, I'm only guessing as to what might be happening in a situation like this.
This is a well written and researched article, but I wanted to add some of my own thoughts.
I came across your peice via the episode on BARpod. As a complete outsider, (different age group, scene, country) I obviously lack some context, but I found it strange that someone without clear reasoning would put in so much effort to 'uncover' something of this nature.
Perhaps it's my naivety, but as a social worker in Australia (and yes, the term is iffy here too), and someone who has been part of the DIY punk scene during formative years of my life, I find the subtext/ implications in this essay to be petty at best, and mean-spirited at worst.
I think the focus is misplaced in this case. These women have organised and put together something that is both accessible and relevant for victim/survivors of SA, and has the added creditibility of social/cultural recognition within their community. In addition to this, a high profile man that has been accused of a longstanding pattern of violent and sexually abusive behaviour appears to have dodged much of the attention when it comes to scrutiny in both this piece of writing and to a lesser extent, BARpods ep.
Personally, I find that to be misguided, puzzling, and a depressing reproduction of some of the less desirable dynamics we have created for ourselves within our current societal context.
Idk, I think I'm reacting to this more defensively than I might some other internet spat, because when you are part of a DIY community, the emphasis is on removing yourself from the inherent meaning and power that we ascribe institutions, and in my experience, it has been incredibly empowering and liberating. I endured a decade of terrible, terrible psychologists. People who has the qualifications and the lingo and the mental where-withall to complete clinical training, but lacked the ability to reflect to me that I was truly seen or understood. It wasn't until I met my 'counsellor' (certified in a specific therapeutic methodology but not clinically trained as a psychologist) that I was able to truly pull it together and regain a desire to live again.
For what it's worth, I'm not advocating for people to lie about qualifications, or trying to argue that they have no meaning or merit. I'm also interested in the distinction between 65,000 billable hours vs $65,000 donations. This IS worth interrogating. I just find the hang ups on the technicalities here, and this topic in general to be questionable agenda-wise.
TLDR; why so much effort on this? Was this really where your energy and clear talent for research and writing was best spent? I like a twisty turny niche community drama as much as the next person, but in this case, it's not clear Kat was the "bad guy" in any real satisfying capacity. It feels like denigration for the sake of it, and for me, there are far more worthy targets than the alleged V/S of sexual assault who started up an org in the wake of speaking out.
The reason why I reported on this is simply because I found it. I was writing something else, notified some things that didn’t look right to me, and followed it to where I got. I don’t think it’s petty or mean spirited to point out the truth.
The idea that Justin has “dodged scrutiny” is laughable. He and the bands alleged misdeeds have been chronicled extensively across multiple publications. The band no longer exists because of the scrutiny placed on them.
There is nothing wrong with these women creating a support group, but that’s not what they created, they explicitly created a charity (which it is not), and promised to provide services they can’t from professionals . This “therapy charity” can’t manage to get any mental health providers on staff, but conveniently it does have 2 lawyers specializing in civil suits. Will these lawyers have access to patient records in order to pursue the cases they use to pay their bills? We don’t know, because there’s no oversight.
The DIY stuff is nice for art booking a show, releasing a record whatever, but it’s not the correct approach for medical intervention, especially if the person providing the care doesn’t have the decency to be upfront about their credentials.
If Sarhadi had simply come out and said “I’m a reiki master and we’re going to make a support group” that’s fine, who cares. The issue is that she built herself up into a trusted position that she has no qualifications to hold while pretending her organization is a charity. Her clients are allegedly victims of a serial sexual predator, aren’t they deserving of the highest level of care, or at least someone who will be transparent with them about their qualifications? For someone who is allegedly motivated by a deep care for victims Sarhadi won’t step aside and make sure these people have the best care possible, instead building this entire operation around herself.
I’ve provided the information, people can choose how they react to it. If you feel that this persons “good” intentions and alleged victim status precludes her from having to follow the rules laid out for mental health professionals in order to provide safe, effective care for their patients, that’s your prerogative.
*Kristina, not Kat!! I couldn't go back to the article without deleting my comment and I don't think I can edit 🥲
Hello. I'm just adding my 2 cents and speculating on what might be happening in this situation, with no actual knowledge of any party involved. Like the documentary Tickled (2016), you might be onto something, but not what you're thinking. There's plenty of smoke but the wrong fire.
I believe it's possible, or even likely, that Kristina Sarhadi isn't trying to provide therapy at all. Instead, she might be trying to dragnet victims of sexual assault (SA), filtering them through a text box algorithm on her now-defunct website. The website's text boxes had options like "I was under age," "I was abused by someone in a powerful position (that has money)," and "I would like to speak out."
It seems more likely that this website and therapist (non-therapist) were screening potential plaintiffs to see if they were worth referring to legal representation, such as to Karen Barth Menzies. According to KBMLAW, "Karen Barth Menzies has represented many women survivors of sexual assault and abuse in the music and entertainment realm. She is proud to be partnering with TPRT to further her mission of providing personal, individual legal representation to survivors of sexual assault and abuse."
So, Sarhadi could be luring SA victims with the promise of free therapy to redirect them into a money-making civil lawsuit scheme (only my conjecture). This could be proven unethical if:
1. She is a non-profit "therapist" treating victims differently based on the perceived dollar value of their complaints.
2. She is taking an exorbitant fee for her non-profit services.
3. Therapists are using their services to craft narratives and document damages specifically for documenting pain and suffering for a legal forum.
Sarhadi could be luring SA victims, to enrich her not for profit scheme, taking a cut of the lawsuits for herself. There might be kickbacks going to Sarhadi for referrals, etc. Again, all of this is only speculation, I'm only guessing as to what might be happening in a situation like this.
I am of the mind that this is part of a larger operation of repression against dissent. The timing is too perfect. If you were waiting 10 years why would you start right before Trump started running again. Or literally in.September a month before the Hamas operation that the inteligence agencies surely knew about. The FBI's website says they will disrupt and destroy anarchist efforts and after that we see accusations used to destroy anarchist and radical bands and groups.
I wonder if there were other bands or radical groups or individual accused in a similar way around the same time frame?