BY
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”
“WE ARE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, PHYSICIANS, DENTISTS, PHARMACISTS, NOT STREET DRUG DEALERS “
LISTEN TO JEFF SINGER MD
https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/law-enforcement-continues-meddle-pain-management
XIULU RUAN v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 20–1410. Argued March 1, 2022—Decided June 27, 2022*
” A federal regulation authorizes registered doctors to dispense controlled substances via prescription, but only if the prescription is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR §1306.04(a). At issue in Ruan’s and Kahn’s trials was the mens rea required to convict under §841 for distributing controlled substances not “as authorized.” Ruan and Kahn each contested the jury instructions pertaining to mens rea given at their trials, and each was ultimately convicted under §841 for prescribing in an unauthorized manner. Their convictions were sepa- rately affirmed by the Courts of Appeals.”
Held: Section 841’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause. Once a defendant meets the burden of producing evidence that his or her conduct was “authorized,” the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the de- fendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner. Pp. 4–16.
LISTEN TO JEFF SINGER MD
https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/law-enforcement-continues-meddle-pain-management
FROM RICHARD LAWHERN PH.D
listen to ‘red lawhern
Richard Lawhern Ph.D. on-the-air with Matt Connarton Unleashed, during the rush hour commute at Manchester New Hampshire radio, Monday July 11, 2022, at 4-5 PM Eastern Time.
The show topic was “It’s amazing how much of what ‘everybody knows’ about the US opioid crisis is wrong.” A great deal has happened since my last talk with Matt in March.
- — the implications of the Supreme Court decision in “Ruan vs. the United States”,(see references)
2. — other court rulings that the use of opioid pain relievers doesn’t comprise a ‘public nuisance’,
3. — a family successfully sues a medical practice for their failure to treat post-surgical pain, causing the suicide of a patient
4. — the recently announced and totally bogus “New England Law Enforcement Task Force”
5. — recent publications in mainstream medical journals that totally demolish the 2016 and draft 2022 CDC guidelines on the prescription of opioids
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
OR SEND
$25, 50, 100, 250, 500 or More TO CASH APP:$docnorm
TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS
So, Donate to the “Pharmacist For Healthcare Legal Defense Fund,”
reference:
XIULU RUAN v. UNITED STATES Syllabus
588 U. S. ___, ___. This culpable mental state, known as scienter, re- fers to the degree of knowledge necessary to make a person criminally responsible for his or her acts. See ibid. The presumption of scienter applies even when a statute does not include a scienter provision, and when a statute does “includ[e] a general scienter provision,” “the pre- sumption applies with equal or greater force” to the scope of that pro- vision. Ibid. The Court has accordingly held that a word such as “knowingly” modifies not only the words directly following it, but also those other statutory terms that “separate wrongful from innocent acts.” Id., at ___.
Here, §841 contains a general scienter provision—“knowingly or in- tentionally.” And in §841 prosecutions, authorization plays a “crucial” role in separating innocent conduct from wrongful conduct. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64, 73. Moreover, the regu- latory language defining an authorized prescription is “ambiguous” and “open to varying constructions,” Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243, 258, meaning that prohibited conduct (issuing invalid prescriptions) is “often difficult to distinguish” from acceptable conduct (issuing valid prescriptions). United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 441. A strong scienter requirement helps reduce the risk of “over- deterrence,” i.e., punishing conduct that lies close to, but on the per- missible side of, the criminal line. Ibid.
