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., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD 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, 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 KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, 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
Our Government is increasingly preoccupied with anticipating threats, and their current use of pre-crime, criminal forensic tools, and theories are the antithesis of the traditional criminal justice system’s focus on past crimes. Traditionally, criminal justice and punishment presuppose evidence of a crime being committed. This time-honored principle is violated once the punishment is meted out “for crimes never committed”.
PRE-CRIME SUMMARY REPORT
Pre-crime ideology intervenes to punish, disrupt, incapacitate, or restrict those deemed to embody future crime threats. The term precrime embodies a temporal paradox, suggesting that a crime has not occurred and that the crime that has not occurred is a foregone conclusion.
Pre-crime in criminology dates back to the positivist school in the late 19th century, especially to Cesare Lombroso’s idea that there are “born criminals” who can be recognized, even before committing any crime, based on certain physical characteristics.
Biological, psychological, and sociological forms of criminological positivism informed criminal policy in the early 20th century. For born criminals, criminal psychopaths, and dangerous habitual offenders, eliminatory penalties (capital punishment, indefinite confinement, castration, etc.) were seen as appropriate.
Pre-crime generates a fake science (Junk Science)
In the movie “Minority Report”, Precrime is the name of a criminal justice agency, the task of which is to identify and eliminate persons who will commit crimes in the future. The agency’s work is based on the existence of “precog mutants,” a trio of “vegetable-like” humans whose “every incoherent utterance” is analyzed by a punch card computer.
As Anderton, the Precrime agency chief, explains this procedure’s advantages: “In our society, we have no major crimes … but we do have a detention camp full of would-be criminals”. He cautions about the basic legal drawback to pre-crime methodology: “We’re taking in individuals who have broken no law.”
THE MINORITY REPORT-THOUGHT CRIME-1984
This means there is no way to know whether misused drugs originate from theft of warehouses or trucks versus those prescribed by physicians. Indeed, the claim that “pill mills” are responsible for drug addiction, deaths, and morbidity is fake science.
George Orwell introduced a similar concept in his 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), using the term thought crime to describe illegal thoughts which held banned opinions about the ruling government or intentions to act against it.
In Philip K. Dick’s 1956 science fiction short story “The Minority Report,” the concept was brought to wider public attention by Steven Spielberg’s film Minority Report, loosely adapted from the story. Modern computer scientists and philosophers argue against the possibility of pre-crime predictions of human behaviors due to the inability of artificial intelligence to be equivalent to a human mind due to violations of the Church-Turing thesis, Taski’s undefinability theorem, and Godel’s incompleteness theorems.
“…putting people into prison will not help sick people get well, whereas giving them medicine will…”
The Government, through the National Benefit Integrity Medic (NBI MEDIC) engages in Pre-Crime, criminal forensics, data analytics, artificial intelligence, and computer programs, with titles like “Multi-Prescriber Vulnerability”, “Pill Mill Doctor” project, Trio Prescriber 1.0 and 2.0, Doctor Shopper Prescriber, Pill Mill Prescriber 2.0, Subsys Analysis, Death Analysis, Peer Comparison, Prescriber Schedule II Controlled Substances Risk Assessment 1.0, Pharmacist Clinical Reviews, Subsys Analysis, Death Analysis, Predictive Model Learning Analytics Tracking Outcome (PLATO) tool and Peer Comparison PLATO Profile.
PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION ALLOWS DEA TO EVISCERATE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ 4TH AMENDMENTS RIGHTS
Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began.
In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment‘s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer. This practice gained support after the Supreme Court’s 2009 Herring v. United States decision.
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DEMONSTRATES HOW DEA GOES ABOUT VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CHARGED PROVIDERS BY PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION METHODS SEE PAGE 14THRU 33
PRE-CRIME LESSONS OF CLARENCE DARROW BLAME AND PUNISHMENT
Clarence Darrow is generally regarded as one of the greatest criminal defense lawyers in American history and was made famous in his defense of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Leopold and Loeb decided to plan and execute a sensational “perfect crime” to garner public attention and confirm their self-perceived status as “supermen.”
Leopold was particularly fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of “supermen” (Übermenschen), interpreting them as transcendent individuals possessing extraordinary and unusual capabilities whose superior intellects allowed them to rise above the laws and rules that bound the unimportant, average populace.
Leopold believed that he and Loeb were such individuals; as such, by his interpretation of Nietzsche’s doctrines, they were not bound by any of society’s normal ethics or rules.
In a letter to Loeb, he wrote, “A superman … is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may do.”
Clarence Darrow’s central legal arguments in Court addressed Free Will versus Determinism:
Is the criminal justice system basing blame, punishment, and accountability on an insecure foundation?
Do people have free will? Is determinism true where everything that happens is caused to happen?
Do all happenings have causes? Are there actions that could be proven to be uncaused?
Does nature and heredity, which a person has no control over or molding by circumstances and nature, cause action?
Darrow questioned: Whether determinism is an empirical theory because for a statement to be empirical, it must be either supportable in principle or refutable in principle.
Is deliberation the essence of free will?
Do humans have an awareness of free will? Whether the awareness of free will conflict with determinism?
Whether determinism is compatible with free will?
Whether determinism is compatible with moral responsibility?
Can the criminal justice system blame someone for their actions because they can’t help it?
Do people deliberate about what they are going to do or do people have no choice in what they actually choose?
Do we actually have inner intuitions?
Do people only have genuine freedom if their actions and choices are uncaused?
Modern criminal justice science and systems argue that free actions are done for a purpose. Under a criminal justice system, people must be morally responsible for what they do because blame, punishment, and morality would make no sense unless people are morally responsible.
Blame and punishment are used to change people’s behavior, deter people from acting wrongly, and protect others from harm. Blame and punishment would not be legitimate unless someone could have avoided doing what he did.
Darrow argued that for blame and punishment to be legitimate, the law must identify behaviors in question as undesirable so that blaming and punishment are effective in changing behavior and deterring people from doing wrong, and protecting people from harm.
Darrow argued that the difference between punishment and treatment is that they are used to change different conditions people are in; putting people into prison will not help sick people get well, whereas giving them medicine will.
Darrow questioned if morality is nothing more than a system of likes and dislikes rather than a system of objective moral laws. To say that a person can do something different from what he does, in a sense presupposed by moral responsibility, is to say that no one forces him to do what he does, and no one prevents him from doing something different. Actions are caused by people’s beliefs, desires, and choices.
Darrow argued that humans could not be morally responsible for uncaused choices because they are not connected to our character traits or personality patterns.
Darrow argued that humans could only be morally responsible for uncaused choices when we are confronted with genuine alternatives when we make them. Darrow’s legal arguments are the foundation of Morissette, Rehaif, Elonis, and Ruan.
“[A] basic principle that underlies the criminal law” is “the importance of showing what Blackstone called ‘a vicious will.’” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2196 (2019) (citing William Blackstone, Commentaries on Laws of Eng. 21 (1769)).
PLATO PRE-CRIME MODELING SYSTEM DOOMS ALL PROVIDERS OF HEALTHCARE
In practice, that principle has led to “the understanding that an injury is criminal only if inflicted knowingly.” Id.; see also Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723, 734 (2015) (“[W]rongdoing must be conscious of being criminal.” (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252 (1952))). See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952) (“The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion.
It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.”).
As emphasized in United States v. Rosenberg, 515 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1975), “the jury [must] look into [a practitioner’s] mind to determine whether he prescribed the pills for what he thought was a medical purpose or whether he was passing out the pills to anyone who asked for them.” Id. at 197.
Through proactive pre-crime analyses, the NBI MEDIC, Qlarant generates thousands of “high-risk” leads regarding healthcare fraud and controlled substance medication diversion.
The MEDIC uses the PLATO pre-crime modeling system to identify fraud, waste, and abuse patterns. PLATO incorporates a real-time predictive-modeling fraud detection process, according to the NBI MEDIC.
ATTORNEY JEFFERY SESSION’S HEALTHCARE PRE-CRIME TARGETING PACKAGE PROGRAM
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
$100, $250, $500
TO ZELLE 3135103378
DEA TARGETS PROVIDERS ON ASSETS
Former DEA agent: assets can determine whose office practice