UPDATE

BY 

NORMAN J. CLEMENT RPH., DDS.,

WITH CONTRIBUTION FROM

JACK FOLSON RPH, RICHARD C. CLEMENT BS., RICARDO FERTIL PHARMD, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., WILLIE GUINYARD BS., BERES E. MUSCHETT, BS., STRATEGIC ADVISOR

ORG: JUNE 17, 2020

THE MANIFESTO OF THE NORTH STAR PROJECT

When you see THROUGHOUT LIFE, most of your friends, colleagues, and classmates who are of degree being defiled, sanctioned, terminated, harassed, arrested, jailed, and imprisoned for a minuscule violation of a regulation or for just doing what they’ve been trained to do.
Then, at some point, you are compelled to ask yourself when

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. 

At some point in your life, you have to say and proclaim, “Enough is enough.” What are you going to do about it?
Then we must stand and fight as soldiers together or die like mice. 

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

To me, the idea that an Administrative Judge Federal showing such defiance to a Respondent would overturn nearly 200 years of medical and pharmaceutical practice makes this court worthy of oversight and disillusionment. 

WE ARE NOT POWERLESS, AND THROUGH OUR VIDEOS, WRITINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS, WE WILL EXPOSE THE ABUSES AND TYRANNY OF THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITES STATES HOUSE OVERSIGHT ON OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO DEFUND AND DISBAND THIS AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

This text is a scathing critique of U.S. Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Dowd’s ruling against Pronto Pharmacy. The authors argue that Judge Dowd’s decision, which overturned established medical and pharmaceutical practices, was based on flawed testimony and exhibited bias.

They highlight the DEA expert’s lack of investigation and accuse Judge Dowd of racism and bigotry. The authors call for congressional oversight of the DEA court system and its defunding, advocating for pharmacists’ rights and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.

They use this case to illustrate systemic issues within the DEA and its legal processes.

THIS PRESENTATION CONTAINS MUST-SEE VIDEOS THAT SUPPORT THE NARRATIVE OF THIS ARTICLE

INTRODUCTION 

On May 5, 2020, Mark D. Dowd, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, in the matter of Pronto Pharmacy, LLC Docket No. 19-42 issues RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE in a rambling decision of 148 pages, to be found so ridicules it overturned nearly 200 years of medical and pharmacy law(s) and protocols.

A group has filed Professional and Academic Fraud charges against the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, DEA Expert, and Clinical Professor Donald Sullivan.

In sworn testimony, they admitted to not having interviewed any of the patients or their prescribing physicians, nor seen nor reviewed any of the patients’ prescriptions. Professor Sullivan opined that every prescription is illegitimate.

It is further evident, on this day, that U.S. Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Dowd was so busy trying to be a bigot, so busy trying to be a racist, so busy trying to be the toughest man on the Federal bench he forgot how to be fair. 

DEBUNKING THE HYPE: D.E.A.’s JUDGE MARK D. DOWD OPIOID OVER DOSE IN CHRONIC PAIN CARE

So unethical to ignore Australia’s 28 studies over 24 million people and that human beings are different here than they are anywhere else. It’s the biggest scam ever seen but it involves sadistic♿️torture so it’s also an attack and an assault and a genocide. pic.twitter.com/JX1Mg27pdw

— BilkedToTheBrink (@Bilked2TheBrink) January 19, 2025

Judge Dowd’s decision in which the respondent, Pronto Pharmacy LLC., and the owner, Norman J Clement,( a pharmacist and dentist), who had written in his blog, youarewithinthenorms.com, that he is not authorized or qualified to challenge a “physician’s diagnosis and treatment.” Judge Dowd ruled against Clement, basing his opinion, in part, on the testimony of Donald Sullivan. Judge Mark D. Dowd wrote in his endnotes on page 44 of the Recommended Ruling:

22 Mr. Clement, Jr.’s testimony that the Respondent verified the medical legitimacy of the prescriptions it filled runs counter to Mr. Clement, Sr.’s view, as written in his blog, that he is “not authorized or qualified to challenge a physician’s diagnosis and treatment.”. If that is the case, it seems inconsistent that the Respondent would call a doctor’s office at all, let alone to confirm a diagnosis. Furthermore, it isn’t easy to understand how the Respondent ensured that prescriptions were medically legitimate if the Respondent believed it could not question a doctor’s decision to prescribe a specific medication. The Respondent’s vetting process, as described by Mr. Clement, Jr., seems superfluous if the Respondent’s pharmacists cannot question a diagnosis and treatment...”

JOSEPH L.WEBSTER, SR., MD, MBA, FACP, BS. PHARMACY:

I have reviewed the pertinent materials provided regarding Dr. Sullivan’s testimony. It is clear to me that he has a basic flaw in his thinking regarding the doctor–pharmacist relationship. The respective regulatory bodies, including the various “Boards” of Pharmacy, Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, etc., clearly outline the ‘scope of practice’ for each of those disciplines. The orderly flow of a prescription “from” the doctor to the patient – via the Pharmacist – clearly outlines where the ‘diagnosis’ has to come from. It is statutorily the purview of the pharmacist to ‘inspect and assure’ that the drug that is being given is safe and has no known incompatibilities with the patient and its holistic environment. 

It is not the pharmacist’s purview, nor is the pharmacist trained to ‘challenge the physician’s diagnosis’ verbally or otherwise with the patient. This erodes the ‘doctor-patient’ relationship and destroys the patient’s confidence in his/her physician. At the very least, it is ‘unethical’ and may very well be a HIPPA violation and beneath the standard of care as a pharmacist. 
Any healthcare provider licensed to ‘prescribe’ is governed by the conditions and circumstances under which a prescription can be written. Thus, it is illegal to prescribe for a person that the prescriber has not conducted the ‘chain of authority’ that would qualify him/her to write a prescription:  history and physical examination, formulation of a diagnosis, and discussion with the patient as well as the proposed manner of treatment in a culturally sensitive and ethically appropriate manner; and provision of an opportunity for the patient to ‘question and discuss alternative forms of treatment; etc. 

Once the provider has met all of those as mentioned above and other requirements to write a prescription, then ONLY  should a healthcare practitioner write a prescription.  I do not see where Dr. Sullivan obtained evidence that the pharmacist attempted to do any of these steps in the ‘chain of authority’ in the cases in question. Furthermore, as stated above, a pharmacist is not authorized by any health regulatory board to write control reports.

It is my professional opinion that the pharmacist in question had ‘no reason’ and, more importantly, the pharmacist had ‘no power’ to question or interrogate each provider on ‘each prescription’ that is received as long as the ‘safety, efficacy and convenience’ of the medications being prescribed meet the standards of Medication Dispensing. Any given medication can be and certainly will be provided for multiple diagnoses, and it is not even feasible for the pharmacist to ‘contact and question’ every diagnosis.

JACK FOLSON: 

As it pertains to corresponding responsibility, we do not have primary responsibility, and this is because we do not have the training in Diagnostics that would be required to proffer a second opinion.

Once a diagnosis is given, the pharmacist can only recommend the proper drug therapy for that particular patient in that specific diagnosis, and at best, this recommendation can only lack a full understanding of the diagnostic criteria.To require the pharmacist to be the final arbiter of what is or is not reasonable therapy based upon inferior knowledge of Diagnostics would be erroneous.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MUST BEGIN OVERSIGHT OF THIS COURT SYSTEM

CONCLUSION

One can never prevail in any court system or environment, even when supported with science and facts, against bias and prejudice, or when privilege is permitted to take the stand.

Yet still, it is not Judge Mark D. Dowd’s bias/racism that is troublesome; it is his stupidity in his recommended ruling, findings of facts, and conclusion of law that eviscerates nearly two hundred years of medical and pharmacy law and protocols.

FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN

THE NORMS

REFERENCES:

DEA Judicial Oversight: A Critical Analysis

Navigating the DEA’s Judicial Landscape: A Study Guide

I. Short Answer Questions

1. What central argument is presented in the excerpt “WHEN PRIVILEGE TAKES THE STAND”? (2-3 sentences)
2. Describe the criticisms leveled against DEA Judge Mark D. Dowd in the excerpt. (2-3 sentences)
3. According to the authors, what is the primary issue with Professor Donald Sullivan’s testimony in the Pronto Pharmacy case? (2-3 sentences)
4. How does Joseph L. Webster, Sr., MD, define the role of a pharmacist in relation to a physician’s diagnosis? (2-3 sentences)
5. What potential ethical and legal violations does Dr. Webster suggest might arise from a pharmacist challenging a physician’s diagnosis? (2-3 sentences)
6. Explain the concept of “chain of authority” regarding prescribing medication. (2-3 sentences)
7. According to Jack Folson, what limitations do pharmacists face when assessing the appropriateness of prescribed medication? (2-3 sentences)
8. What specific action does the excerpt call upon Congressman Hank Johnson to take? (2-3 sentences)
9. What is the significance of the phrase “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” repeated throughout the excerpt? (2-3 sentences)
10. What is the overall tone and purpose of the excerpt? (2-3 sentences)

II. Answer Key

1. The central argument is that Judge Mark D. Dowd’s ruling in the Pronto Pharmacy case demonstrates bias and a disregard for established medical and pharmacy practices, particularly concerning the role of pharmacists in questioning physician diagnoses.
2. Judge Dowd is criticized for being biased, racist, and exceeding his authority in his ruling. The excerpt accuses him of prioritizing a tough image over fairness and undermining centuries of medical and pharmaceutical legal precedent.
3. The primary issue with Professor Sullivan’s testimony is that he admitted to not reviewing patient prescriptions or consulting with prescribing physicians before opining that all prescriptions filled by Pronto Pharmacy were illegitimate.
4. Dr. Webster argues that a pharmacist’s role is to ensure the safety and appropriateness of medication dispensed but not to challenge a physician’s diagnosis. He emphasizes that diagnosing is solely within the physician’s scope of practice.
5. Dr. Webster suggests that a pharmacist questioning a physician’s diagnosis could damage the doctor-patient relationship, erode patient confidence, constitute a HIPAA violation, and fall below a pharmacist’s acceptable standard of care.
6. The “chain of authority” refers to the process a physician must follow before prescribing medication. This includes conducting a physical examination, establishing a diagnosis, and discussing treatment options with the patient. This establishes the physician’s authority to prescribe.
7. Jack Folson argues that pharmacists lack the diagnostic training to assess the basis of a physician’s diagnosis fully and, therefore, cannot be expected to make definitive judgments about the appropriateness of prescribed medications.
8. The excerpt calls upon Congressman Hank Johnson, as Chair of the Subcommittee on Federal Court Operations, to oversee the DEA Court System, alleging that it operates outside of established Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedures.
9. The repetition of “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” emphasizes the authors’ frustration with perceived injustices within the DEA judicial system and their call for immediate action and reform. It serves as a rallying cry against perceived tyranny and abuse of power.
10. The excerpt’s tone is indignant and accusatory. The purpose is to expose what the authors perceive as flaws and biases within the DEA Court System, specifically through Judge Dowd’s ruling in the Pronto Pharmacy case, and to advocate for oversight and potentially the defunding of the DEA.

III. Essay Questions

1. Analyze the authors’ argument that pharmacists should not question a physician’s diagnosis. Consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a position for both patients and the healthcare system as a whole.
2. Discuss the ethical implications of expert testimony in cases like the Pronto Pharmacy case. How can the integrity and objectivity of expert witnesses be ensured, and what are the potential consequences of biased or unqualified expert testimony?
3. The excerpt calls for Congressional oversight of the DEA Court System. Evaluate the potential arguments for and against increased Congressional involvement in the operations of specialized judicial bodies like the DEA’s court.
4. Analyze the use of charged language and rhetorical strategies employed by the authors. How do these strategies contribute to the overall effectiveness or detriment of their argument?
5. Consider the broader context of the excerpt’s publication in 2020. How might contemporary events and social movements have influenced the authors’ perspective and the reception of their argument?

IV. Glossary of Key Terms

• DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration, a federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws.
• Administrative Law Judge: A judge who presides over hearings and issues rulings on disputes involving administrative agencies.
• Respondent: The party against whom a legal action or complaint is filed.
• Scope of Practice: The defined legal boundaries of what healthcare professionals are authorized to perform within their respective fields.
• HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a federal law protecting the privacy of patient health information.
• Chain of Authority: The established process a physician must follow when prescribing medication, ensuring appropriate diagnosis and informed consent.
• Federal Rules of Evidence: Rules governing the admissibility of evidence in federal court proceedings.
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rules dictating the procedures and processes for civil lawsuits in federal court.
• Subcommittee on Federal Court Operations: A Congressional subcommittee responsible for oversight of the federal judiciary.
• Defund: To withdraw funding from an organization or program.
• Bias: Prejudice or inclination that influences judgment unfairly.
• Privilege: A special right, advantage, or immunity granted to a particular person or group.

DEA Judge Dowd’s Ruling: Bias and Systemic Issues

Briefing Doc: DEA Administrative Judge Dowd’s Ruling and its Implications

Main Theme: This document heavily criticizes the ruling of DEA Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Dowd in the case of Pronto Pharmacy, LLC and its owner, Norman J. Clement. The authors argue that Judge Dowd’s decision demonstrates bias, ignorance of established medical and pharmacy practices, and reliance on flawed expert testimony.

Key Arguments and Facts:

• Judge Dowd’s ruling overturns established medical and pharmacy practices. The authors claim that the judge’s decision requiring pharmacists to challenge physicians’ diagnoses contradicts nearly 200 years of medical and pharmacy law and protocols.
• Judge Dowd exhibits bias and prejudice. The document uses strong language, accusing Judge Dowd of being a “bigot” and a “racist.” It suggests that his personal biases influenced his ruling against Clement, a Black pharmacist.
• Reliance on flawed expert testimony. The authors criticize the testimony of DEA expert Donald Sullivan, stating that he admitted to not reviewing patient prescriptions or consulting with prescribing physicians. They further argue that Sullivan’s opinion that all the prescriptions were illegitimate is baseless.
• Violation of the pharmacist’s scope of practice. The document emphasizes that pharmacists are not qualified to challenge physicians’ diagnoses. They argue that doing so would erode the doctor-patient relationship and potentially violate HIPAA regulations. They cite expert opinions from Dr. Joseph L. Webster and Jack Folsom, both experienced pharmacists, to support this claim.
• Call for congressional oversight. The authors call upon Congressman Hank Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on Federal Court Operation, to investigate the DEA Court System, alleging that it operates outside established Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedures.

Important Quotes:

• “It is further clear, on this day, U.S. Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Dowd was so busy trying to be a bigot, so busy trying to be a racist, so busy trying to be the toughest man on the Federal bench he forgot how to be fair.”
• “It is not the pharmacist’s purview, nor is the pharmacist trained to ‘challenge the physician’s diagnosis’ verbally or otherwise with the patient. This erodes the ‘doctor-patient’ relationship and destroys the patient’s confidence in his/her physician.” – Dr. Joseph L. Webster.
• “As it pertains to corresponding responsibility, we do not have primary responsibility, and this is because we do not have the diagnostics training required to proffer a second opinion.” – Jack Folsom.
• “Therefore, Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia’s 4th district, as chair of the Subcommittee on Federal Court Operation, is incumbent on overseeing the DEA Court System, which operates outside the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedures.”

Overall Tone: The document adopts a highly critical and accusatory tone toward Judge Dowd and the DEA Court System. It portrays Clement as a victim of prejudice and calls for significant reforms to the system.

Note: This briefing doc reflects the views and opinions expressed in the provided source material. It is important to consider these arguments within the context of potential biases and the need for further investigation and verification of the claims presented.

Bias in the DEA Administrative Court

DEA Administrative Court FAQ

1. According to the authors, What is the main issue with the DEA Administrative Court?

The authors argue that the DEA Administrative Court system is inherently biased and operates outside the bounds of standard legal procedures like the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedures. They cite the case of Pronto Pharmacy LLC, where Judge Mark D. Dowd’s ruling seemingly disregarded established medical and pharmacy laws, relying instead on questionable expert testimony.

2. What is the authors’ criticism of DEA Expert Donald Sullivan’s testimony in the Pronto Pharmacy case?

The authors contend that Professor Sullivan’s testimony was flawed because he admitted to not reviewing patient records and prescriptions or consulting with treating physicians. They argue that Sullivan’s opinion that every prescription was illegitimate was baseless and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the pharmacist’s role.

3. What is the core argument concerning the pharmacist’s role concerning a physician’s diagnosis?

The authors emphasize that pharmacists are not qualified to challenge a physician’s diagnosis. Their role is to ensure the safe dispensing of medication, identify potential drug interactions or contraindications, and not question the underlying medical rationale for a prescription.

4. How does the authors’ argument connect the pharmacist’s role in patient care and the doctor-patient relationship?

The authors believe that requiring pharmacists to second-guess physicians’ diagnoses undermines the doctor-patient relationship and potentially violates patient privacy (HIPAA). They argue that questioning a doctor’s judgment in front of the patient can erode trust and confidence in the prescribed treatment.

5. What are the authors’ concerns regarding the “chain of authority” in prescribing medication?

The authors stress that physicians have a legal and ethical responsibility to follow a “chain of authority” when prescribing medication. This involves conducting a thorough patient history and physical examination, establishing a diagnosis, discussing treatment options with the patient, and obtaining informed consent. They argue that pharmacists are not positioned within this chain to question the physician’s judgment.

6. What do the authors believe is the proper scope of a pharmacist’s responsibility when dispensing medications?

The authors maintain that pharmacists should focus on “safety, efficacy, and convenience” when dispensing medications. This includes verifying the prescription’s legitimacy, checking for potential drug interactions, and ensuring the patient understands how to take the medication properly.

7. What specific actions do the authors call for in response to their concerns?

The authors call for Congressional oversight of the DEA Administrative Court system, particularly by the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Federal Court Operation. They specifically urge Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia’s 4th district to investigate the court’s practices.

8. What overall message does the authors convey through the phrase “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”?

The authors use the phrase “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” to express their frustration with what they perceive as an unjust system that targets healthcare professionals, particularly those from minority groups. They aim to rally support and call for action to reform the DEA and its court system.