ATTY. RONALD CHAPMAN SPEAKS: AUDIO HISTORY OF NARCOTIC LAWS AND PROSECUTIONS, TRIAL OF DR. KENDALL HANSEN MD., “THE LESSONS MISSING THAT GIVES RISE TO THE FLAWED CREDIBILITY OF BOTH ERIC DETER AND DR. TIMOTHY KING, MD.”

“…Narcotics are the most powerful painkillers available, but doctors are afraid to prescribe them out of fear they will be prosecuted by overzealous law enforcers, or that they will turn their patients into addicts. . . “We are pharmacological Calvinists,”

…Dr. Steven Hyman, director of the National Institute of Mental Health. 2005

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., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, 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, 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

“The Medical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that when administered properly, opioid therapy rarely, if ever, results in “accidental” or opioid abuse.”

…ronald T libby cato institute 2005

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND MISREPRESENTATION

The issue of prosecutorial misconduct came under scrutiny, with the prosecution allegedly misrepresenting Dr. King’s testimony to bolster their case. Dr. King’s vague and unexplained requirement for functional assessment allowed the prosecution to present his opinions as decisive evidence, potentially misleading the jury.

BIASED TESTIMONY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Repeatedly appearing as an expert witness for the prosecution in the Eastern District, Dr. King’s biased and misleading statements raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. It is argued that he operates as a medical fig leaf for prosecutors, who use his testimony to support their narrative on opioid use, often disregarding differing medical opinions.

DR. KING’S FORENSIC SYSTEM “THE HIGHER END OF LOW” AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Another contentious issue involves Dr. King’s patented system used to determine whether a healthcare provider violated controlled substances laws. This system allegedly creates perverse incentives. Dr. King incorporates statements made during his testimonies into his standards, potentially targeting more providers and securing additional contracts as a government expert and insurance consultant.

“There is a distinction— which seems especially difficult for law enforcement officials and policymakers to make—between “physical dependence” and “addiction.” 

…ronald T libby cato institute, 2005

!!WARNING!!

“THIS MAN WAS A PHYSICIAN; HE WAS NOT A FRAUD”

“…And is it not true that historically, most, if not all, of the great breakthroughs and advances in medical science have been made by people who did not follow the conventional way of doing things? They followed a new way, their way, and most of the conventional physicians of their day would have disagreed with them because this is not the way it has always been done. And if that is the new — it bothers me that this kind of evidence can send a person to prison for as long as this has been going, some many, many years, but in any event, that that is the sort of evidence that is the basis for criminal liability…”

Paul L. Friedman: No question he was a physician, and no question he had —

opinion

THE ANATOMY OF AN OPIOD TRIAL SPEAKER ATTORNEY RONALD CHAPMAN AND THE LACK OF CREDIBILITY OF DOJ-DEA EXPERT DR. TIMOTHY KING, MD (MUST HEAR AUDIO REVIEW [1hr.45min.])

CHALLENGING DR. KING’S EXPERTISE: MISREPRESENTATION OF STUDIES AND OPIOID EQUIVALENCIES

Further questions arose about Dr. King’s expertise when he cited studies to support his claims but seemingly misrepresented the evidence presented in those studies. Additionally, his reliance on morphine milligram equivalents (MME) as a standard for opioid prescriptions was critiqued, as such equivalencies lack scientific rigor and fail to account for inter- and intrapatient variability.

Debunking the “Thou Shall Not Exceed 90 MME” Assertion

Dr. King’s emphatic statement that opioids should never exceed 90 MME was challenged, as this absolute limit conflicts with existing FDA and DEA policies. The lack of scientific evidence supporting this claim and the discrepancy with current prescription practices raise questions about Dr. King’s credibility.

FLAWED ANALYSIS OF ERIC DETER

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case of Dr. Timothy King, the “Rat King,” serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of expert testimony within the legal system. As the allegations against him highlight, pursuing justice requires a steadfast commitment to integrity, transparency, and adherence to scientific principles. Only through rigorous scrutiny and reform can the integrity of expert testimony be preserved, ensuring that justice is served and the well-being of patients remains paramount.

!!UKUNQOBA!!

!!HAIL TO THE VICTORS!!

!!GO BLUE!!

!!DR. NEIL ANAND, MD!!

!!!A FIGHTER!!!

“GIVE US THE FOIA’s DOJ-DEA; WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE???”

FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN

THE NORMS