EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED: THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT OF HOWARD ADELGLASS, MD, OF NEW YORK CITY

REPORTED BY 

youarewithinthenorms.com

NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS., MBA., 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., CLINTON BATTLE, JR., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF GIOVAN MBEKI, 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

HOWARD ADELGLASS MD

To Judge JED S. Rakoff
Re: Howard Adelglass

Today we found out that one of our colleagues is in a 10-day isolation period before he is sent to prison. We have followed his case as we have been charged with similar crimes.

On June 27, 2022, the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 that a physician could not be charged with a crime for prescribing a controlled medication they were authorized to prescribe. Despite this and due to the incompetency of his Court-appointed attorney, the Ruan decision was never introduced as evidence.

Based on the 34-page opinion by Justice Beyer, Dr. Adelglass never committed a crime. How can he be sentenced to jail for something that is not a crime? Regardless of his trial proceedings, the Ruan decision makes them mute. In addition, his health compounds the problem that incarceration would harm him.

WALTER F WRENN, MD

A CASE FOR HOWARD ADELGLASS, MD, OVERTURNING A WRONGFUL CONVICTION

The type of data analysis used by DEA, HHS/OIG relies on the number of prescriptions without regard to the physician’s reasonable effort under the totality of the circumstances for a particular patient.

The information is required  so to determine if appropriate attribution were made regarding:

1) The disease state of a particular patient,

2) the availability of more effective treatment with a similar safety index,

3)  objective determinants of  the minimum effective dose, therapeutic dose, and lethal dose of a particular substance for a specified patient,

4) the required “ intentional and knowing” criminal evidentiary standard set forth under Ruan v. United States,

5) HFPP 

THE PRESIDENT MUST PUT A END TO THIS WAR ON DRUGS

Refusal to Release  FOIA Information is Improper due to the following:

1. Need for Strict Scrutiny Judicial Review
   1. HFPP has a selection process for criminal investigation based on race and nation of origin. The elements of what constitutes crimes under the CSA regarding physicians are vague since the elements do not specify at what dose of a particular controlled substance, nor does the practice of medicine involving pain medications become a crime.  Due to the uncertainty of how a crime is defined, almost any physicians selected for investigation will proceed to prosecution and likely conviction. The information is necessary so that judicial review under strict scrutiny judicial review can occur. 
2. Need for Rational Basis Judicial Review
   1. The government has a legitimate reason to provide for the safe use of controlled substances. However, the current system of using NBI Medic, HFPP, CDC Guidelines, and HHS Best Pain Practice to strengthen the prosecutions of doctors is not rationally related to the legitimate government objective.  As prosecutions of physicians have risen, physicians have been prescribed less controlled substances, and the actual criminal Drug cartels have more than made up for the restraints placed on doctors via “Rainbow Fentanyl” and designer drugs, such as Stylazine. During the age of “ designer drugs,” an unending supply of chemicals designed to alter mood is available to street drug dealers, whether physicians prescribe controlled substances or not. Rational basis judicial review is important to determine whether or not physicians are the actual cause of the “ Opioids Crisis.”

1. Misuse of  Public/Private Partnership of HFPP, so to Gain  Excessive Market Share in the Health Insurance Market, Exclusion of other Market Participants, and Restraint of Trade.
   1. According to collateral Estoppel, Restraint of Trade by BCBSA and its franchisees has been determined under In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., FINAL ORDER, Master File No.: 2:13-CV-20000-RDP (MDL NO.: 2406) (N.D. Ala. 2018).  The FINAL ORDER provides on Pages 1-2:
      1. “This litigation began more than nine years ago and involves the consolidation of several actions filed by Subscriber Plaintiffs against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”) and its Member Plans (the “Member Plans” or “Blue Plans”) (collectively, “Defendants” or “Blues”). Subscriber Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendants violated Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-3, by entering into an unlawful agreement that restrained competition between them in the markets for selling health insurance and the administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products in the United States and its territories. Subscriber Plaintiffs contend that the Blues: (1) allocated geographic territories; (2) limited the Member Plans from competing against each other, even when not using a Blue name, by mandating a minimum percentage of business that each Member Plan must do under that name, both inside and outside each Member Plan’s territory; (3) restricted the right of any Member Plan to be sold to a company that is not a member of BCBSA; and (4) further agreed to other ancillary restraints on competition. (Doc. # 1082)
      2. On October 29, 2020, A4 ( Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor)  filed an 86-page complaint against BCBSM alleging 10 counts of federal antitrust law violations and various state law violations. See ECF No. 1, PageID.1-90.  Case 2:20-cv-12916-TGB-APP ECF No. 14, PageID.393 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 9.
      3. The FOIA instant Plaintiffs are anesthesiologists by virtue of education, training, experience, and board certification.  BCBSMMIC has a history of restraint of trade against anesthesiologists.  It was foreseeable that BCBSMMIC would continue to restrain the trade of anesthesiologists, under HFPP, particularly in the same federal District Court district the plaintiff’s  Pompy resides. Please see: Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor, PLLC, vs. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Company.  Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-12916. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION. 
   2. As HFPP facilitates BCBSMMIC, IBC, and BCBSA illegal activity  by the violation of the Sherman’s anti-trust Act, the HFPP/BCBSA/BCBSMMIC/IBC contract is considered void as against public policy. The plaintiffs are entitled to received all documents related to the void contract, since such information represent “fruits of the poisonous tree” flowing from the voided contract. 
   3. HFPP( Health Care Fraud Prevention Partnership) members include the DEA, OIG, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association ( BCBSA), BCBSMMIC ( Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Company).  BCBSA is a master franchisor of the individual blue cross companies, such as BCBSMMIC, and IBC.  HFPP knew, knew or should have known, that under the credentialing functions of health insurance companies either contracts, or business expectancies existed between, BCBSMMIC / IBC and various physicians.  The HFPP contracts, and agreements, express or implied, with BCBSMMIC, was not provided for by the BCBSMMIC/POMPY contract. BCBSMMIC modified contractual agreements without consideration.  Under contract law, a contract modification without consideration is void.  BCBSMMIC participation with HFPP is void as BCBS lacks consent or privilege for the substantial interference. The intent of the interference was for pecuniary gain.   BCBSMMIC allowed the tortuous interference BCBSMMIC / Dr. Pompy contract , by HFPP,  so to gain Market Share. 
   4. BCBSMMIC has a history of breaching the fiduciary duty owed to others. See SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, No. 21-1226 (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City. No. 1:16-cv-10317—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.

4. Public Policy is not served by the Omission of the FOIA Data.
   1. Prior to 2012, physicians found guilty of wrongful death could be sued under the legal theory of medical malpractice and pay millions of dollars for wrongful death lawsuits. HFPP thought it could do better than the medical malpractice bar.   HFPP started on or about 2012, with a mission to strengthen the criminal conviction of physicians, which was expected to reduce opioid overdose death.  The conviction of mostly minority physicians has occurred but at the cost of the death of numerous patients, including : Joshua  Cangliosi,  Janet Loruss, Marie Brown,  Richard Johnson, Renay Blakesley, among various other patients. As patients die, doctors are convicted under a wrongful standard, BCBSA and its franchisees control market share, and earn outsized gains.  HFPP  can not continue to knowingly further and benefit from BCBSMMIC  improper use  of an  HFPP/ BCBSMMIC/ BCBSA/ IBC contract in a manner that violates public policy . United States Attorneys
   2. HFPP partners identify physicians for criminal proceedings. United States attorneys prosecute those physicians for the HFPP Partners. If the physician is convicted or plead guilty, the partners earn a lion share of the restitution , litigated for by the United States Attorneys.  HFPP functions primarily  for the proprietary advantage of  its partners. Public Policy is indented to safeguard the health, safety, and constitutional rights of the population. The health policies as set forth under HFPP, facilitates and encourages the death of citizens, as evidence by the rising drug overdose death rates. Those policies are against the public good. 
5. FOIA Information Held by Third Parties, Including: BCBSA, BCBSMMIC, and IBC Must be Released.
   1. HFPP is a private /public partnership with equal rights of control and voice among its member partners. Members share expenses ,acquisition of data from multiple sources, and management of  algorithms.   HFPP partners include BCBSA, BCBSMMIC, IBC ( Independence Blue Cross) HHS/OIG, CMS, the DEA, among other member partners, have the common business  purpose of identifying pre-crime for the selection of physicians for criminal prosecution. 
   2. Third parties privilege fails to provide exclusion of data under a joint  enterprise scheme of conduct of the members. HFPP constitutes a joint enterprise.  Vicarious liability exists for all of the members of the joint enterprise for the conducts of the other members. BCBSA, BCBSMMIC, IBC, HHS/OIG, CMS, and the DEA are members of the joint enterprise. The plaintiffs are entitled to FOIA information of relevant third parties.
6. New-Evidentiary Standard Negates Law Enforcement Investigations, as a Basis for FOIA Denials.
   1. The HFPP members, the DEA, OIG/CMS/HHS , under an arbitrary and capricious systems of  “Red Flags,” general statistical data, distance driven by patient or a patient to obtain a prescription of controlled substances, total number of prescriptions of controlled substances written by a a physicians, among other assumptions of crime ,  as evidence of a crime under the Controlled Substance Act.  
   2. The mens rea, actus rea, and concurrence of those  “ Red Flags” are not described in : 1)  the CDC Guidelines , either the 2016, 2017, or the 2022 version, 2) HHS Best Pain Practice , 3) the Controlled substance Act, 4) or any other known statutes. 
   3. Those “Red Flags” are broadly construed, and are  not  part of a generally accepted, nationally-approved medical standard. The Defendants do not provide for a mechanism to provide notice, ability to be heard, a hearing,  a forum selection clause for litigation, and a process to provide legal remedies for : 1)  wrongful applications, 2)  and /or negligent or intentional misrepresentations,  of “ Red Flags.” Such behavior constitutes violation of procedural and substantive due process under the 5^th and 14^th Amendments. 
   4. Those “Red Flags” represent “reasonable suspicion’,” not probable cause, and certainly not  proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 
   5. Those “Red Flags” are arbitrary and capricious , because the “ alleged  red  flags” do not proactively,  clearly and objectively,  describe the prohibited conducts, or permits arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law. 
   6. Those “Red Flags” are necessary but not sufficient, to serve as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, of criminality. 

4. The “Holy Trinity ” is a manifestation of  the Divine in certain religions. The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion. The establishment clause separates church from state, Certain “ Red Flags,” where  certain medication combinations ( e.g., an opioid/ a benzodiazepine / and a  muscle relaxant), described as the “ Holy Trinity” are not are not only blasphemous or offensive to  people of the  Christians and Moslem faith, but violates the Establishment Cause of the Constitution of The United States of America. Additionally, the regarding of the combination as a evidence of crime, fails to consider the disease state of the patient, the desired outcome by the patient and the doctors, the minimum effective dose of  each member drug of the combination,  and whether or not, the doctor can safely reach the same outcome, as the “Holy Trinity” by increasing the dose of only one member of the medication combination. 
5. Those “Red Flags” falls below the “knowing and intentional”  mens rea, evidence standard,  set under Ruan.  (Ruan v U.S. Supreme Court of the United States, (No. 20–1410. Argued March 1, 2022—Decided June 27, 2022)
6. In conclusion, unless if the Defendants can prove that the FOIA Release Exclusion satisfies the recent evidentiary standard, as set forth  under Ruan, the Defendants must release the information.
7. A Preliminary Injunction Against the Defendants  is Warranted
   1. Prior to Ruan, the Defendants used an evidentiary standard, nearly akin to strict liability, in the conviction of doctors under  the controlled substance act. Pursuant to Ruan, the Defendants must adapt their algorithm in such  a manner to satisfy the “knowing and intentional” mens rea, evidence standard set under Ruan. 
   2. The Honorable Court should enjoin the Defendants from further use of the algorithm, via a preliminary injunction, lasting until the Defendants comply with the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 

We ask you to stay in his imprisonment until it can be determined whether or not Dr. Adelglass committed a crime. Charges are not facts.

Sincerely,  

FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN

THE NORMS

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fnanc.seefeldt%2Fposts%2Fpfbid02HFCzd5Fa3mPnh564gE5HcQBU5Wvap6BCBQ58gu4gKQrEUXDoXNgDQdaonZ1TS8h4l&show_text=true&width=500