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., DR. LINDA WHITBY, MD., L.JOSEPH PARKER, MD., 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
!!! YOU BESS WATCH OUT FOR THE LITTLE OLD WHITE LADY, DR. TIMOTHY E. “RAT” KING, MD!!!
SHE!!! WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!! AND WILL PREVAIL!!!!
CLICK LINK BELOW
Treating Doctors as Drug Dealers: The DEA’s War on Prescription Painkillers by Ronald T. Libby
WE ARE MEN AND WOMEN SUFFERING CHRONIC INTRACTABLE DISEASES OF PAIN
WE DECLARE WAR ON DR. TIM “JOSEPH MENGELE, jr. THE RAT,” KING, MD., MD BECAUSE HE DECLARED WAR ON US
NOT STREET DRUG TRAFFICKERS!!!
… 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.
This man was a physician, he was not a fraud?
SOME BRIEF BACKGROUND HISTORY OF PREVIOUS CASES AGAINST D.E.A
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN DRUG STORES
“The CSA recognizes pharmacists’ circumscribed role in dispensing controlled substances. It provides that pharmacists may not dispense Schedule II controlled substances “without the written prescription of a practitioner,” 21 U.S.C. § 829(a), and that they risk criminal and civil liability if they do, see id. §§ 841(a), (c), 842.
The CSA’s implementing regulations further explain that a prescription for a controlled substance “must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). The regulations separately provide that such a prescription “may only be filled by a pharmacist, acting in the usual course of his professional practice and either registered individually or employed” by a registered entity. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.06.
Although § 1306.04(a) regulates prescribers and pharmacists, the two roles are far from interchangeable, including for determining potential liability. With different licenses, education, skill sets, responsibilities, and workplaces from physicians, pharmacists play a vital but distinct role in a patient’s care.
Specifically, when dispensing a controlled substance to a patient, as prescribed by a physician, a pharmacist relies on the physician’s assessment of the patient’s needs.
The pharmacist has neither examined nor diagnosed the patient and lacks the information the physician has collected on the patient’s medical situation, records, and history, including such things as x-rays, ultrasounds, lab results, and treatment plans.”
In resolving the issues presented in these cases— including whether a good-faith defense is available to a practitioner charged with violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)—the Court should take care not to weaken the knowledge requirement in § 1306.04, insofar as it applies to pharmacists. That requirement is a critical safeguard against unwarranted liability, which could unduly chill pharmacists from performing duties vitally important to public health…”
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Norman Clement, pro-se
Petitioner
Case: No. 21-1262
v.
Drug Enforcement Administration,
Respondent
MOTION STAYING THE MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
The Appellant moves, pro se, to submit this Motion to Stay Mandate filed September 27, 2022, in the above Case from a May 25, 2022 decision, barring a summary reversal of the DEA Administrative court and further based on the United States Supreme Court ruling in Ruan-Khan vs. the United States case: No- 20-1410. pending the filing of a petition for a writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States of America and hereby state;
STAYING THE MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
QUESTION PRESENTED
1. On June 27, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia DEA Administrator’s decision to revoke Pronto Pharmacy’s DEA registration interpreting 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) to not require evidence of a prescription’s illegitimacy before deciding it was dispensed in violation of the regulation.
2. This vague regulation is fraught with misconceptions. In Gonzales, the Attorney General thought he could interpret “legitimate medical purpose” under § 1306.04(a). Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). The Court explained, however, he exceeded his limited authority under the Act. Id. More recently, a circuit split as to whether “knowingly” applied to “except as authorized” under the CSA brought the regulation back before the Court. Ruan v. the United States, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) (slip op.).
3. This Petition raises the third misconception. In ignoring Gonzales, the DEA has interpreted “legitimate medical purpose” so that a pharmacy violates its corresponding responsibility whether or not there is evidence of a prescription’s illegitimacy. Holiday CVS, Fed. Reg. 62316 (2012). This ultra vires authority has allowed the DEA to discipline pharmacists for failing to resolve “red flags” before filling a prescription. See Id. Sadly, when challenged in court, the DEA hides behind the great deference awarded to administrative agencies. This Petition seeks to fight this harmful deference and asks the Court:
4. Whether a pharmacy violates its corresponding responsibility under 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) and knowingly fill a prescription for a controlled substance not issued for a legitimate medical purpose where the prescription’s legitimacy remains undetermined?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
OCTOBER 4, 2022
Norman J Clement
Norman J Clement, pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on OCTOBER 4, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed via ECF and/or served via e-mail AND US MAIL upon the following:
I, Norman J Clement, hereby certify that I’ve electronically filed and agree to utilize the foregoing Respondent’s Notice of Filing the Certified List of the Record with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by using the appellate CM/ECF system, on OCTOBER 4, 2022 jointly. I certify further that Petitioner is pro se and that service will is accomplished by electronic mail to
Anita Gay, Esq United States Department of Justice Criminal Division/ Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section, 145 N Street, NE, Room 2E-404 Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 353-7629 anita.gay2@usdoj.gov
Norman J Clement
Norman J Clement pro. se
THIS CASE BEFORE SCOTUS WAS DOCKETED CASE 22-6000 BUT WAS NOT GRANTED CERT (DECEMBER 9, 2022 AND JANUARY 11, 2023) HOWEVER THESE ISSUE AGAINST DEA HAVE NOT GONE AWAY DESPITE THE RUAN RULING
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
NORMAN J CLEMENT,
Petitioners,
v.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
__________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
NORMAN J CLEMENT, PRO SE
PO. BOX 28139
TAMPA, FLORIDA 332682
(313) 510-33788
YWTN@UMICH.EDU
OCTOBER 7, 2022 SUPREME COURT PRESS PRO SE PETITIONER
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
On June 27, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia DEA Administrator’s decision to revoke Pronto Pharmacy’s DEA registration interpreting 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) to not require evidence of a prescription’s illegitimacy before deciding it was dispensed in violation of the regulation.
This vague regulation is fraught with misconceptions. In Gonzales, the Attorney General thought he could interpret “legitimate medical purpose” under § 1306.04(a). Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). The Court explained, however, he exceeded his limited authority under the Act. Id. More recently, a circuit split as to whether “knowingly” applied to “except as authorized” under the CSA brought the regulation back before the Court. Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) (slip op.).
This Petition raises the third misconception. In ignoring Gonzales, the DEA has interpreted “legitimate medical purpose” so that a pharmacy violates its corresponding responsibility whether or not there is evidence of a prescription’s illegitimacy. Holiday CVS, Fed. Reg. 62316 (2012). This ultra vires authority has allowed the DEA to discipline pharmacists for failing to resolve “red flags” before filling a prescription. See Id. Sadly, when challenged in court, the DEA hides behind the great deference awarded to administrative agencies. This Petition seeks to fight this harmful deference and asks the Court:
Whether a pharmacy violates its corresponding responsibility under 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) and knowingly fills a prescription for a controlled substance not issued for a legitimate medical purpose where the prescription’s legitimacy remains undetermined?
OR SEND
$10, $15, $20, $25,$50, $75, 175, $500. OR MORE TO CASH APP:$docnorm
ZELLE 3135103378
or Donate to the “Pharmacist For Healthcare Legal Defense Fund,”
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
Before I became disabled, how I satisfied the DEA’s stupid requirement for “medical necessity” was simply writing a ICD9 code on the rx if it was not there. I called the dr office and asked for the ICD9 dx code for why the medication was prescribed by the dr if it was not on the rx. Most drs put the ICD9 code on the rx now.