By Dr. Bob Uttl
On July 22, 2025, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone, California Board of Psychology registered psychologist, wrote an ex parte, secret email and the Declaration (made under penalty of perjury) to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) in an attempt to influence the Ms. T’s (Complainant/Plaintiff) judicial proceedings in favor of the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay (Respondents/Defendants) and their “expert” witness Dr. John Braxton Suffield, the registrant of the College of Alberta Psychology.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone attached no less than eight attachments in addition to her Declaration. As detailed below, Dr. Boone wrote that she “was contacted by Dr. J. Braxton Suffield, Ph.D., R. Psych., in March and June” of 2025 ” for an advice regarding how to protect psychological test materials from exposure in legal proceedings.” Although it is unclear what advice Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone gave to Dr. John Braxton Suffield, if any, it is crystal clear that Dr. Boone wrote an ex parte email to support Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay ‘s position in live judicial proceedings before the BCHRT. Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s email is detailed below.
Ms. [Tribunal Member’s name redacted],
I was contacted by Dr. J. Braxton Suffield, Ph.D., R. Psych., in March and June of this year asking for advice regarding how to protect psychological test materials from exposure in legal proceedings. Attached is my signed declaration, with exhibits, as to the position in the neuropsychological and psychological community regarding the importance of maintaining test security, and how test materials can best be protected in legal proceedings while still allowing for appropriate scrutiny of psychological work products.
In terms of my qualifications, I have published over 130 peer-reviewed articles, upwards of 50 book chapters, and seven books in the area of neuropsychological assessment, primarily regarding the development and validation of neurocognitive performance validity tests. I served as first author on three position papers related to psychological/neuropsychological test security: the 2022 Official Position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on Test Security; the 2024 Interorganizational Practice Committee position paper (“Attorney demands for protected psychological test information: Is access necessary for cross examination or does it lead to misinformation?”); and the 2024 Interorganizational Practice Committee position paper (“Release of protected test information under protective order: viable solution or illusory safeguard?”). I am board certified in clinical neuropsychology (ABPP/ABCN), served on the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology until January of 2024, and am a fellow of the American Psychological Association and the National Academy of Neuropsychology. I was the 2020 recipient of the Ralph M. Reitan Award for Clinical Excellence (2020) from the National Academy of Neuropsychology; in 2023 I received the Distinguished Service Award to the Profession of Psychology from the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP); and in 2025 I received the Distinguished Neuropsychologist Award from the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter!
Kyle Boone, Ph.D.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone‘s ex parte secret email to the BCHRT Tribunal, dated July 22, 2025 (Read Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s ex parte secret email to the BCHRT)
In the Declaration of Dr. Boone, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone declared “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California” that her declaration was “true and correct.” (Read Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s Declaration)
On August 11, 2025, the BC Human Rights Tribunal correctly rejected Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone‘s extraordinarily improper attempt to influence the Tribunal and forwarded Dr. Boone’s ex parte secret email, Declaration, and submissions to the parties: myself (Ms. T’s representative) and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay lawyers.
The Tribunal noted that “The Tribunal does not accept unsolicited submissions from non-parties and it will not be added to the case file.” (see also An Expert Witness’ Advocacy Campaign and Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s Secret Attempt to Influence Judicial Proceedings).
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone Has Not Responded To My Request For Apology and Clarifications
On September 13, 2025, I emailed Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone and I asked her to apologize for her false accusations about myself (see below), provide materials and information that Dr. John Braxton Suffield provided her with, clarify whether Dr. John Braxton Suffield informed her about his role in Ms. T’s BCHRT proceedings, clarify how much she charged for her services and who paid for them, and provide any explanation for her secret ex parte attempt to influence live judicial proceeding (e.g., whether, for example, someone blackmailed her, held her at gun point, to write her ex parte secret submissions) (Read my email to Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone).
Unfortunately, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did not reply.
Accordingly, on September 19, 2025, I emailed Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone again. I noted that she did not apologize or reply in any way, and that the reminder email was my final request for her to apologize for her false accusations and to clarify and to explain her conduct (Read my reminder email to Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone).
Again, as of today, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did not reply. Just like Dr. Elisabeth Sherman, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone chose to bury her head in the sand and maintain radio silence.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone Lied To the Tribunal
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone‘s ex parte secret submissions demonstrate that Dr. Bone lied to the Tribunal.
In paragraph 13, Dr. Boone declared (under penalty of perjury) that my (Dr. Bob Uttl’s) statements about test authors and test publisher publishing test items “for anyone around the world to see” was “not accurate.” Dr. Boone wrote:
13. Dr. Uttl claimed that test authors and test publishers publish test items “for anyone around the world to see,” but this is not accurate. He cites a book published by Butcher, the author who revised the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI], and while it is true that test items were contained in the book, the book was published in 1990, long before test security was a major concern….
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s Declaration, under penalty of perjury, dated July 22, 2025, para 13
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone stated, under penalty of perjury, that my statement was “not accurate” (accusing me of either lying or being incompetent), but she admitted in the very next sentence that my statement was in fact “true”, that Butcher et al. (1990) in fact did publish the MMPI items just as I stated in my email to Dr. John Braxton Suffield.
Clearly, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone‘s declaration under penalty of perjury that my statement was “incorrect” was an obvious falsehood, an obvious lie.
For clarity and more context, in response to Dr. John Braxton Suffield, on April 28, 2025, I, Dr. Bob Uttl, wrote the following relevant paragraphs in an email to Dr. John Braxton Suffield:
Regarding your regrets that “some test materials have found their way into the public domain”, you must know that many test materials including test items and questions are publicly available not because of some nefarious conduct of unethical psychologists but because test authors and test publishers chose to publish them for anyone around the world to see. As you also must know, many test materials, for example, the RCFT [Rey Complex Figure Test], were published decades ago and the fact that they were later adopted by some test publisher to generate commercial profits does not make them unpublished and does not suddenly make them publicly unavailable. You seeking protective order for what you ought to know is already public is not only dishonest but it misleads the Tribunal.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the field of neuropsychology and you did not yet have a chance to examine such classic texts as Lezak, Spreen and Strauss, and other texts. I have provided the references for you below if this is something novel to you (they include the items for the SDMT, RCTF, and many other tests):
- Lezak, Howieson, et al. (2012). Neuropsychological Assessment Oxford UniversityPress
- Strauss, Sherman & Spreen (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests.
Moreover, if the public is interested in items on various tests, they can also order them from amazon.ca/com and elsewhere (e.g., abebooks.com, Minnesota University Press). For example, the MMPI-2 items that you painstakingly redacted are detailed verbatim in Butcher et al. (1990) Development and use of the MMPI-2 content scales. (available from amazon, abebooks, Minnesota University Press).
Of course, the public can also google it.
An Excerpt from Dr. Bob Uttl’s Email to Dr. John Braxton Suffield, dated April 28, 2025
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone lied to the Tribunal in her ex parte secret submissions; at the time of her declaration “under penalty of perjury”, Dr. Boone knew and acknowledged that my statement was correct, yet she chose to tell the Tribunal, under penalty of perjury, that it was “not accurate.” For anyone interested, Dr. Butcher’s et al. book can be ordered from amazon.ca, Minnesota University Press, AbeBooks, etc. and it can also be borrowed from hundreds of libraries around the world.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s Ex Parte Secret Submission To The Tribunal Is An Extraordinary Affront To The Fundamental Fairness and the Open Court Principle
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone presents herself as a professional who “provides expert witness testimony in personal injury and criminal litigation, and serves as consultant” in legal proceedings. Yet, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone either has no idea that it was grossly inappropriate for her to make the ex parte secret submission to the BC Human Rights Tribunals, or Dr. Boone knew it was grossly inappropriate but chose to make her inappropriate ex parte submissions to support Dr. John Braxton Suffield and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay against Ms. T nevertheless.
Rule 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
…
Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications:
(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,*…
Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, American Bar Association, February 14, 2020
The most charitable explanation for Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s conduct is that Dr. Boone is completely clueless, completely oblivious to the fundamental requirements that judicial proceedings must be fair, open, transparent, and free from secret attempts to influence the courts/tribunals by ex parte letters, suitcases of cash, boxes of fine chocolates, and other bribes.
However, it seems next to impossible that Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone had no idea what the fundamentals of the US and Canadian justice systems are. It seems impossible that Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone had no idea that in the US and Canada judges and tribunal members cannot decide cases based on how many secret ex parte letters they receive in support of one or other party to the proceedings, or based on which party and their groupies deliver judges/tribunal members bigger and heavier suitcases of cash.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone must know that only a corrupt judge, a corrupt tribunal member, or a corrupt decision maker could possibly consider her ex parte secret submissions in their decision.
It may be that Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone, a well credentialed clinical neuropsychologist — Fellow of American Psychological Association and Fellow of National Academy of Neuropsychology — suffers from folie de grandeur, or delusion of greatness, and believes that she is above the law, that rules of conduct in judicial proceedings do not apply to her, and that ethics codes and laws apply only to other, lesser people.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s Support of Dr. John Braxton Suffield — An Expert Witness — And The School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone‘s attempt to secretly influence judicial proceedings is also astonishing because Dr. Boone ought to know/must know, given her self-professed extensive expert witness experience, that expert witnesses such as Dr. John Braxton Suffield cannot become advocates for a party that retain them. Being an advocate is a party’s lawyer’s job and incompatible with the duties of expert witnesses to be truthful, independent, impartial and free from bias.
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did not attach with her ex parte secret submissions materials and information that Dr. John Braxton Suffield provided her with and that she relied on. But, presumably, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did her due diligence and asked Dr. Suffield what his role in the proceedings was, and presumably, Dr. John Braxton Suffield disclosed to her that he has been “an expert witness” called by the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay. Presumably, Dr. John Braxton Suffield also disclosed to Dr. Boone that he was under cross-examination (i.e., Dr. Suffield’s cross-examination was not and is not yet complete) and that he was not allowed to talk to anyone about his testimony.
In fact, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone has known for years, at least since 2013, that an expert witnesses cannot function as an advocate for the retaining side. In her book titled Clinical Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology (Boone, 2013), Dr. Boone criticized some other neuropsychologist and stated: “This plaintiff neuropsychologist apparently did not appreciate that the role of an expert is not to function as an advocate for one side or the other…”).
Accordingly, assuming Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did her due diligence and assuming Dr. Suffield disclosed his role in the BCHRT proceedings, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone must have appreciated that Dr. John Braxton Suffield, an expert witness, contacting her and providing her with the information in an attempt to get her to write her ex parte secret submissions to the BC Human Rights Tribunal made Dr. John Braxton Suffield an advocate for himself and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay (Respondents/Defendants).
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone secret ex parte submissions in support of the expert witness — Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s – and the expert witness’ retaining party — the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay — is astonishingly improper and unprofessional conduct.
As noted above, only a corrupt judge or a corrupt tribunal member could ever accept and consider Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone‘s secret ex parte submissions. If Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone is this clueless (rather than malicious and corrupt herself) she ought to relinquish her license to practice until such time she familiarizes herself with the fundamental fairness principles, the open court principle, the applicable codes of ethics (e.g., registered/clinical psychologists ought not to make false statements to courts/tribunals, ought not to mislead courts/tribunals, ought to be transparent), and other relevant guidelines.
I note these ought not to be difficult concepts to grasp for PhD level, well credentialed clinical neuropsychologist. For example, I am nearly certain Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone would like to present her side of the story if someone makes a complaint of unprofessional conduct against her to the California Board of Psychology and that she would not appreciate a decision maker accepting and considering secret ex parte submissions about her and/or large suitcases of cash or other bribes.
Who Paid For Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s Ex Parte Secret Submissions To The Tribunal? Did Dr. John Braxton Suffield Paid For Dr. Boone’s “Services” And How Much? Did the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay Paid For Them?
Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did not reply to my inquiries as to what she charged for Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s consultation and for writing her ex parte secret submissions to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. However, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone chargers what some may consider eye popping sums of money for her services. For example, Dr. Boone’s “Services & Fees” pages states that “Consultation (per hour)” is US “800.00” (nearly a quarter per second). In fact, just to open a case, Dr. Kyle Brauer Booner charges USD 2,000.
Using Dr. Boone’s fee structure, I asked GROK for an independent estimated cost of Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s consultation with Dr. Boone and Dr. Boone writing her 10 page under oath Declaration.
[QUESTION:]
What is likely to be a cost of consultation only (i.e., no testing or assessment of anyone) with clinical neuropsychological expert (Board Certified, Fellow of American Psychological Association, Fellow of National Academy of Neuropsychology, who charges USD 800 per hour and for the expert to write 10 page under oath declaration for the court?
[GROK’S ANSWER:]
To estimate the cost of a consultation (excluding testing or assessment) with a clinical neuropsychological expert who is Board Certified, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and a Fellow of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, charging $800 per hour, plus writing a 10-page under-oath declaration for court, we can break it down as follows:
- Consultation Cost (No Testing or Assessment):
- Since no testing or assessment is involved, the consultation likely involves activities like reviewing records, discussing the case with attorneys, or providing expert opinions based on existing data. Such consultations typically take 1–3 hours, depending on case complexity and the extent of discussion or record review required. Assuming a midpoint of 2 hours for a thorough consultation:
- 2 hours × $800/hour = $1,600.
- Declaration Writing Cost:
- Writing a 10-page under-oath declaration for court requires synthesizing information, analyzing relevant data, and drafting a legally precise document. Experts typically charge their hourly rate for such tasks. Estimating 10–15 hours for drafting, reviewing, and finalizing a 10-page declaration (approximately 1–1.5 hours per page, standard for detailed legal documents):
- 12 hours (midpoint estimate) × $800/hour = $9,600.
- Additional Considerations:
- The estimate assumes the $800/hour rate applies to both consultation and writing, with no additional fees (e.g., for expedited work or administrative tasks) since none were specified.
- If the consultation requires more extensive record review or discussions, the time could increase, but 2 hours is a reasonable baseline for a consultation without testing.
Total Estimated Cost:
- Consultation (2 hours): $1,600
- Declaration (12 hours): $9,600
- Total: $1,600 + $9,600 = $11,200
Range Estimate:
- If the consultation takes 1–3 hours and the declaration takes 10–15 hours, the total cost could range from:
- Low end: (1 hour consultation + 10 hours declaration) × $800 = $8,800
- High end: (3 hours consultation + 15 hours declaration) × $800 = $14,400
- Thus, the likely cost is approximately $8,800–$14,400, with $11,200 as a reasonable midpoint.
Note: Actual costs may vary based on the expert’s specific practices, case complexity, or geographic location. For an accurate quote, contacting the expert directly is recommended.
GROK.COM, September 20, 2025
At current exchange rate, USD 11,200 corresponds to CAD 15,434.
Did Dr. John Braxton Suffield pay Dr. Kyle Braur Boone for her services USD 800.00 per hour, or the estimated CAD 15,434? If not Dr. Suffield, who did? The School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay? Did Dr. Suffield pass the cost of his consultation with Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone onto the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay? Did Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone give Dr. John Braxton Suffield some friendly discount? Did they barter for mutual services support?
Unfortunately, as of now, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone did not disclose who and how much they paid for her services (or what a consideration for her services was), for her ex parte secret attempt to influence the Tribunal in favor of Dr. John Braxton Suffield and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay.
Who Is Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone? What Is Her Historical Relationship With The Truth?
Googling Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone reveals that Dr. Boone is no stranger to making stuff up for a court in legal proceedings.
Dr. Bone was retained by corporate defendants in Robert Rios v. Ames True Temper Inc et al (Case: EDCV11-320CAS), was deposed by the plaintiff’s lawyer, and video of her 2-hour long deposition was posted and is available online: Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s DepositionIn Rios v. Ames True Temper Inc.
Remarkably, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone testified that she knowingly fabricated her under oath declaration to the Court that she was making $250,000 per year in her side practice. Below is the transcript of the relevant part of Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s testimony: Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s testimony on how and why she fabricated her under oath declaration.
QUESTION: And currently, what are you doing professionally?
DR. KYLE BOONE: I’m a full professor at Alliant University, in the particular school that’s called the California school of forensic studies, I am a full professionary at President, then I also have a small private practice on the side where I do neuropsychological assessments.
QUESTION: And you make approximately $250,000 a year in your side practice.
DR. KYLE BOONE: I don’t know. I don’t think that much.
QUESTION: The doctor do you recall signing the declaration under penalty of perjury that you made $250,000 a year in that practice.
DR. KYLE BOONE: Yes, I do.
QUESTION: You now recall that you make approximately $250,000 a year in your side practice.
DR. KYLE BOONE: That was the estimate I provided but I really, I had no data to go on. So I had to provide it. That’s what I turned over.
QUESTION: Well, doctor you signed a declaration under your penalty of perjury and advised the court, because it was a disputed issue, I’ll say in your deposition, when you refused to answer that question. Ah, and you signed a declaration that you made $250,000 per year. Was that true?
DR. KYLE BOONE: According to my best estimate at the time, but I had no data to rely upon.
QUESTION: What’s your feeling today? Do you make more than that or less than that?
DR. KYLE BOONE: I believe less than that.
QUESTION: What do you think you really make?
DR. KYLE BOONE: I don’t know. I get a lot of 1099s from different sources from book sales from test sales from doing workshops, medical legal work, criminal cases, at the request of disability insurance companies. And when the 1099s come in, I do not divvy them up into different uh, categories, so I don’t really know.
QUESTION: When you signed the declaration under penalty of perjury, did you appreciate that you were advising the court that this was true and accurate information that you made $250,000 per year in your side practice?
DR. KYLE BOONE: That was the best estimate that I had at that time. But again, I had no data to rely upon, I don’t know if it’s accurate or not,
QUESTION: Did you tell that to counsel that you had no data to come to come to that number …?
DR. KYLE BOONE: Yes, I did. And I was told I had to provide a number, so I provided a number
QUESTION: Is that case on the list?
DR. KYLE BOONE: Which case?
QUESTION: The one where you supplied a declaration that you made $250,000 per year year in your side practice.
DR. KYLE BOONE: I don’t know which case that’s I don’t know which case it is.
QUESTION: I’ll mark this document 3. Is this the declaration or a copy of a declaration that you signed under penalty of perjury that you made $250,000 per year in your side practice?
DR. KYLE BOONE: Yes,
QUESTION: That’s your signature on
DR. KYLE BOONE: Yes.
QUESTION: the second page.
Excerpt from the Deposition of Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone, taken on June 18, 2012, in Robert Rios v. Ames True Temper Inc et al (Case: EDCV11-320CAS)
To summarize, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone testified, under penalty of perjury, that she — the well-credentialed clinical forensic neuropsychologist “expert” — knowingly fabricated her declaration for the Court that she was making $250,000 per year in her side practice.
In the video of her deposition, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone nonchalantly offered a rather extraordinary explanation for her lie: a lawyer asked her to put down the number, she had no data as to what the number was, so she fabricated the number and declared it to be true and accurate number for the court, under penalty of perjury. In other words, she threw the lawyer under the bus.
The extract/clip of Dr. Boone’s relevant testimony is below (3:16 minutes:seconds).
Apparently, Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone lying to the Tribunal in her ex parte submission (Declaration), as detailed above, was not Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s first, under penalty of perjury, lying rodeo.
Conclusions
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s secret advocacy campaigns managed, so far, to persuade at least two well-known and well credentialed clinical neuropsychologists — Dr. Elisabeth Sherman and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone — to secretly attempt to influence live judicial proceedings by writing ex parte submissions to the Tribunal in support of Dr. John Braxton Suffield and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay‘s.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal correctly rejected both of these extraordinarily improper, secret, ex parte attempts to corrupt the course of justice, forwarded both Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone’s ex parte secret submissions to the parties, and Dr. Sherman and Dr. Boone’s astonishing conduct came to light.
Disturbingly, both Dr. Ellsabeth Sherman and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone also chose to knowingly lie to the Tribunal in their secret ex parte submissions.
Equally disturbingly, when asked to apologize and to explain their improper conduct, both Dr. Elisabeth Sherman and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boon stuck their heads in metaphorical sand, maintain radio silence, and did not respond.
As to Dr. John Braxton Suffield, at the outset of his direct examination, Dr. Suffield promised “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and he also stated that he understood his duty “not to be an advocate for any party”:
TRIBUNAL: And you are being called today to testify as an expert witness in this proceeding. As an expert, you have a duty to help this tribunal and not to be an advocate for any party. Do you understand that duty and solemnly promise to give evidence that is true, independent, impartial and free from bias?
DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: I do.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s solemn promise to tell the truth and not to be an advocate
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s secret advocacy campaigns to drum up support for his and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay‘s position and to secretly influence the Tribunal is incompatible with Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s duty and his promise to the Tribunal.