NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC.T. SPIRIT OF REV. C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGWORTH, LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
“WE ARE NOT POWERLESS AND THROUGH OUR VIDEOS, WRITINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS WE WILL EXPOSE THE ABUSES AND TYRANNY OF UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
JUST AS THE VIDEO WAS RECORDED BY THE CELL PHONE CAMERA OF YOUNG DARNELLA FRAZIER, BORE WITNESS TO THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD THE BLOG youarewithinthenorms.com BARES WITNESS AND BOTH ALLOWS THE SYSTEM TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE”
WHEN TREATING a MEDICAL CONDITION BRINGS Criminal Indictment
June 12, 2015, Harvey Silverglate, an esteemed Boston criminal-defense, and civil-liberties litigator, author of “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” (Encounter, second edition 2011) wrote:
” Boston Federal drug-enforcement officials have made it a serious felony for doctors to overprescribe painkillers or, as the applicable law states, to prescribe controlled substances “other than for a legitimate medical purpose and in the usual course of professional practice.” But the line between legitimate and illegitimate prescription—as drawn by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Justice Department—is far from clear. This puts physicians in great legal jeopardy and too often leaves their patients to suffer needless agony.
Last month a federal jury in Boston acquitted pain-relief specialist Dr. Joseph Zolo t and his nurse-practitioner Lisa Pliner of overprescribing oxycodone, methadone, and fentanyl. This prosecution shows why drug warriors need either to clarify the currently indecipherable line between treating pain and unlawfully feeding drug addicts’ habits or get out of the business of policing and terrorizing physicians.
Unfortunately, the government uses legal ambiguity for tactical advantage and will not readily clarify the lines it expects doctors to follow at their peril.”
WHY BEING A BLACK DOCTOR OR PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE FOR A BLACK POPULATION HAS BECOME SO DANGEROUS
Walter F. Wrenn III, MD, a Philadelphia, Pa Physician targeted by DOJ-DEA and State overreach has written base on information within the inside of government:
” I have been following the assault on physicians for nearly 50 years when doctors were being charged with fraud and abuse for code violations in billing. During that time 85 percent of physicians arrested and incarcerated were black. The other 15 percent were physicians, dentists, and pharmacists who took care of black patients.
Region 2 of the National Medical Association held a workshop to teach physicians how to be compliant. They also were cautioned about getting legal help from just an attorney. We were taught what to do if the feds showed up t ur office. Then 9/11 happened and the government had to disperse across the country to deal with 9/11. 300 agents were heading to Philadelphia at the time. I became aware of this as I have a cousin who was a DEA agent who refused to continue setting up black doctors.
I also have a cousin who was an FBI agent at that time. I have been active in local politics and am in regular contact with local politicians who give me advice. One of my high school classmates was an assistant AG in Pennsylvania for 6 years and an active fundraiser for Josh Shapiro the AG who brought charges.
My friend and the new attorney say that Josh Shapiro did not oversee my case but was a lower-level assistant. I have written to the CDC and received an answer from the executive secretary who agreed with my assessment of the 2016 CDC guidelines.
I sent a letter to Merrick Garland in September 2021 and Friday received a letter that doesn’t address my concerns.
I have been going up to Capitol Hill since 1982. I’m still working on my state and federal politicians to get a hearing before the congressional judicial committee. I try not to concentrate on my case but on the general problems facing physicians and patients. I am 81 and don’t plan to practice anymore but younger physicians need a spokesperson and I plan to be that person.”
DOJ-DEA MUSCLING IN ON MEDICINE
Armed with badges and guns and profound stupidity of medical procedures the DOJ-DEA has developed into a criminal enterprise muscling in on medicine.
Harvey Silvergate further outlined in WSJ:
“In August 2004, after repeated urging, the DEA finally released guidance for the administration of narcotic analgesics. Its pamphlet, produced in cooperation with the medical community, was titled “Prescription Pain Medications: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Health Care Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel.” Even if physicians disagreed with the line between legitimate medical practice and criminal over-prescription, at least they had notice of where the government drew the line.
But the DEA’s support of the guidelines was withdrawn less than two months after they were posted on the government’s website. And so doctors were left with no official guidance about how much OxyContin is enough to relieve their patient’s pain, and how much could land them in prison.
The DEA’s retraction coincided with the federal prosecution of Virginia pain physician Dr. William Hurwitz, who was eventually convicted.
The timing struck many observers as suspicious—did prosecutors realize that Dr. Hurwitz’s lawyers could claim that his prescribing practices conformed to its guidelines?
The DEA has refused to explain why it withdrew its support, and the agency has issued no further guidance.”
“IT’S TOO DANGEROUS BEING A MEDICAL DOCTOR FROM DOJ-DEA LEGAL AMBIGUITY TARGETING ALL PRESCRIBING OF PAIN AND ANXIETY CONTROL MEDICATIONS“
WILLIAM HUSEL MD, FOUND NOT GUILTY AND THE REAL TRUTH ON HIS ACQUITTAL
Dr. William Husel was accused of ordering excessive painkillers for 14 patients in the Columbus-area Mount Carmel Health System. He was indicted in cases involving at least 500 micrograms of the powerful painkiller fentanyl.
Prosecutors said ordering such dosages for a nonsurgical situation indicated an intent to end lives. Husel had pleaded not guilty to 14 counts of murder, with his attorneys saying he was providing comfort care for dying patients, not trying to kill them.
Prosecutors presented their case against the doctor beginning Feb. 22 and put on 53 prosecution witnesses before resting on March 29. Those witnesses included medical experts, Mount Carmel employees, investigators, and family members of all 14 patients.
By contrast, defense lawyers called just a single witness – a Georgia anesthesiologist – to testify that Husel’s patients died from their medical conditions and not Husel’s actions.
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE: NO 21-1262 NORMAN CLEMENT, PRONTO PHARMACY vs. THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE UNQUALIFIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DRUGS “HAVE A USEFUL AND LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PURPOSE
The Supreme Court has long recognized that the state’s protection of “the health of its citizens . . . is at the core of its police power,” Sporhase v. Neb. ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941, 956 (1982), and has expressly rejected the notion that the CSA grants either DOJ or DEA the broad authority to regulate the practice of medicine:
[t]he [CSA] and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally. The silence is understandable given the structure and limitations of federalism, which allows the [s]tates “[ ]great latitude un- der their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons. [ ]” Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 269-70 (emphases added).
Not only does Congress know how to explicitly delegate the authority to regulate controlled substance prescribing to a federal agency, it has done so in one— and only one—narrow category: opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. Id. at 271 (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 290bb-2a is the only arena in which Congress has set federal medical standards and “indicates that when Congress wants to regulate medical practice in the given scheme, it does so by explicit language in the statute”); see also Anderson et al. at 98 (“Despite the longstanding norm of federal noninterference in medicine, . . . the federal government can regulate medical practice if it makes its intention to do so clear and un- ambiguous.”).
And even then, Congress expressly delegated the authority to set federal medical standards regarding OUD treatment to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and not a federal law enforcement agency. 42 U.S.C. § 290bb-2a (“The Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation with the Attorney General . . . shall determine the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment of the narcotic addiction. . . .”).
Federal law enforcement agencies are unqualified to determine whether drugs “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.”
21 U.S.C. § 801(1). Congress, therefore, did not even leave it to DEA to perform one of its core CSA functions—the scheduling of controlled substances— without health care agency oversight and evaluation. See id. § 811(b) (“The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings . . . [to schedule or reschedule a drug] . . . request from the [HHS] Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, . . . The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding . . . as to such scientific and medical matters.”).
Furthermore, this Court has expressly held that DOJ cannot criminally prosecute OUD prescribers under CSA Section 841(a)(1) unless they sell “drugs, not for legitimate purposes but ‘primarily for the profits to be derived therefrom’ ” and are acting outside the usual course of professional practice such that their behavior is akin to that of a “large-scale [drug] pusher, not as a physician.” Moore at 345.
Congress’s refusal to permit a federal agency to regulate the practice of medicine beyond illegal trafficking is further evidenced by the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act (1974) (NATA), which amended the CSA to permit HHS to regulate OUD treatment. NATA’s legislative history demonstrates that the Senate Judiciary Committee carefully weighed the states’ long-standing authority to regulate “the general practice of medicine” against
“the specialized circumstances within the purview of the bill [e.g., OUD treatment], which entail inordinate risks of diversion and unethical profiteering.” S. Rep. No. 93-192, at 13 (1973).
The Committee report further explains that the purpose of the NATA amendments was to “re-affirm the commitment Congress made to the nation when it passed the [CSA] by . . . facilitating the prosecution of those who engage in the criminal distribution of legitimate narcotic drugs for profit.” Id. at 15.
In sum, the CSA permits the federal prosecution of prescribers who operate as drug traffickers as traditionally understood and, thereby, knowingly or intentionally engage in prescribing conduct that exceeds the bounds of professional practice. Congress never intended to delegate to law enforcement the authority to regulate the practice of medicine by criminalizing good-faith medical mistakes. See 21 U.S.C. § 903.
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
WALL STREET JOURNAL DECEMBER 27, 2020, ARTICLE BY Michael Krauss
‘Mr. Krauss is a professor emeritus at George Mason’s Scalia Law School“
“The Justice Department last week announced a similarly groundless civil suit against Walmart. The complaint alleges that the chain’s 5,000-plus pharmacies fueled the opioid crisis by “unlawfully” filling prescriptions.
Like the hypothetical beer case, this case against Walmart mocks the rule of law. State laws require pharmacists to fill prescriptions that have been validly written by qualified medical practitioners. Pharmacists lack the expertise to second-guess doctors’ judgments about the appropriate necessity of a medication and the proper dosing for a particular patient. To prescribe a controlled substance—which includes all opioids—a physician must be qualified by the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Walmart complies with that federal rule.
The federal government sues the chain for filling valid prescriptions in compliance with state law.
— Read on www.wsj.com/articles/a-case-against-Walmart-mocks-justice-11609103413
When Walmart pharmacists have hesitated to fill legally written opioid prescriptions, they have often been subjected to state sanctions. The president of the Texas Medical Board threatened to issue “cease and desist orders” against pharmacists who “change amounts of opioids prescribed” or “override” a physician’s judgment, on grounds that doing so constitutes practicing medicine without a license. Wisconsin’s Board of Pharmacy threatened disciplinary action against a Walmart pharmacy because it “informed a local clinic that the Pharmacy would no longer fill controlled substance prescriptions from that clinic due to concerns of overprescribing.” Complaints against Walmart and its pharmacists for refusing to fill opioid prescriptions have been filed with or pursued by pharmacy boards in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, when there’s a contradiction between valid federal and state law, the former prevails. But there’s no federal law requiring that Walmart pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions that state law requires them to fill.”
LOW HANGING FRUIT