NEO-ENSLAVEMENT BY ANOTHER NAME: RESERVATIONS, INTERNMENT-CAMPS, FORFEITURES, IMPRISONMENT, THE MED-SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE

APARTHEID MUSEUM, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

REPORTED BY

youarewithinthenorms.com

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. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS MD, PH.D., 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

POMPY, PAIN AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

U.S Executive Branch engages in asset confiscation schemes upon U.S. physicians and health professionals, that are analogous to the historical asset confiscation of Native-Indian Land and concentration of Native Americans upon reservations, or historical asset confiscation of Japanese Americans and concentration of Japanese Americans within internment camps.

THEY CREATE THEIR TARGETS:

DONATE LEGAL DEFENSE

OR SEND

$100, $250, $500

TO ZELLE 3135103378

CASH APP:$docnorm

The Blue Cross Blue Shield franchisees,

Healthcare Fraud Preventive Partnership (HFPP) and Blue Cross Blue Shield, for purposes of pecuniary and proprietary gains from civil and criminal asset forfeitures from “suspect class (race and religious)”, minority physicians and healthcare professionals, who subsequent to asset “stripping”, are concentrated within American prison camps.

The Due Process Clause of the 5^th and 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not violated when a prosecutor exercises discretion in, whether or not to prosecute, and what charges to bring before a grand jury, so long as the decision is not intentionally based on race, religion, or some other unjustifiable classification. (1)

________________________________________

United States v. Armstrong et al. certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit No. 95-157. Argued February 26, 1996-Decided May 13, 1996; Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978).

The Blue Cross Blue Shield franchisees, in their conduct as agents of the government within a joint enterprise, are subject to Constitutional law, such as 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. (b) Under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion. (3)

In order to prove a selective-prosecution claim, the claimant must demonstrate that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Ibid. To establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted.(4)

__________________________________________

3. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456.

4. Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U. S. 500. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, and Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U. S. 222, distinguished.

ANALYSIS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE CONTROL OF HEALTHCARE PROCEDURES

Although Ah Sin involved federal review of a state conviction, a similar rule applies where the power of a federal court is invoked to challenge an exercise of one of the core powers of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, the power to prosecute. Discovery imposes many of the costs present when the Government must respond to a prima facie case of selective prosecution.

Assuming that discovery is available on an appropriate showing in aid of a selective-prosecution claim, see Wade v. United States, 504 U. S. 181, the justifications for a rigorous standard of proof for the elements of such a case thus require a correspondingly rigorous standard for discovery in aid of it.

Thus, in order to establish entitlement to such discovery, a defendant must produce credible evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted, but were not. In this case, respondents have not met this required threshold. Pp. 463-471. 48 F.3d 1508, reversed and remanded.

A divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that, because of the proof requirements for a selective-prosecution claim, defendants must “provide a colorable basis for believing that ‘others similarly situated have not been prosecuted'” to obtain discovery. (5)

_____________________________

5. 21 F.3d 1431, 1436 (1994) (quoting United States v. Wayte, 710 F.2d 1385, 1387 (CA9 1983), aff’d, 470 U. S. 598 (1985)).

The Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en bane, and the en bane panel affirmed the District Court’s order of dismissal, holding that “a defendant is not required to demonstrate that the government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated.” 48 F.3d 1508, 1516 (1995) (emphasis deleted).

We granted certiorari to determine the appropriate standard for discovery for a selective prosecution claim. 516 U. S. 942 (1995).