MONDAY APRIL 14, 2025: PODCAST UPDATE AND REVIEW AS ANAND’S TRIAL GOES TO JURY: D.E.A.’s ANN MILGRAM, D.O.J’s AUSA GLENN LEON ARE DESTROYING THE BEST DOCTORS IN AMERICA, DR’s RUAN, NORRIS, ANAND, WRENN, HANSEN, LEWIS, BRIZUELA, et al., “OUTSIDE THE USUAL PRACTICE OF MEDICINE”

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

“VICTORY WILL COME TO US ONLY THRU THE PATHWAY OF STRUGLE”

dr. norman j clement, rph, dds

This online article from “youarewithinthenorms” April 4, 2024 alleges that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and certain members of the Department of Justice (DOJ) are unjustly targeting and “destroying” highly qualified medical professionals, particularly doctors prescribing pain medication.

The author contends that these actions, led by figures like DEA Administrator Anne Milgram and AUSA Glenn Leon, are based on accusations of practicing “outside the usual practice of medicine.”

The piece further criticizes the DEA’s administrative courts, claiming they operate unfairly and disproportionately impact minority pharmacists and physicians, hindering patient access to necessary care and violating constitutional rights.

RUAN, NORRIS vs. DEA

On June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ruan v. United States, — U.S. —-, 142 S.Ct. 2370 (2022). In Ruan, the Supreme Court held that the government must “prov[e] that a defendant knew or intended that his or her conduct was unauthorized,” which inserted a mens rea requirement that had not previously been recognized. Id. at 2382; see United States v. Khan, 989 F.3d 806, 825 (10th Cir. 2021), vacated and remanded by Ruan, 142 S.Ct. 2370 (holding that “§841(a)(1) and § 1306.04(a) require the government to provide that a practitioner-defendant either: (1) subjectively knew a prescription was issued not for a legitimate medical purpose; or (2) issued a prescription that was objectively not in the usual course of professional practice”). 

In Ruan Justice Beyer rejected analogous suggestions in other criminal contexts. (see Ruan-Kahn pages 5 thru 12. “We conclude that §841’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to the “except as authorized” clause.

This means that in a §841 prosecution in which a defendant meets his burden of production under §885, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.  We vacate the judgments of the Courts of Appeals below and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. “

CHALLENGING THE D.E.A’S ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS OF THE KANGAROO’S

The DEA enforces two sets of laws. They enforce federal laws and D.E.A laws.  Under federal laws, there are constitutional protections and guidelines.  Under the DEA laws, there are tacit laws.   The D.E.A. court serves the certified federal officers as an administrative court.  

What is so unique about the D.E.A courts are criminal search warrants are signed by the D.E.A Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  When the items are seized, the hearing is an administrative hearing.  

What makes this so confusing is, there is no clear distinction between the enforcement of criminal laws and DEA laws. All DEA cases in these courts proceeding are solely based on the “numbers of Pills” received and filled.

1. DEA Diversion Investigators often interview no patients or prescribing practioners and violate patients right to seek care by tracking their travel to seek medical using google maps. 

2. These Courts never address the disease states of the Patient receiving the narcotic analgesic medications, this important information and facts are excluded from Court Testimony.

3. The DEA created a law called Pharmacist corresponding responsibility “under the Controlled Substances which compels the Pharmacist to practice medicine by withholding medical treatment from a patient based on MME unscientific guidelines, without reviewing radiographs, physicians progress notes or conducting a physical examination of the patient.

4. The DEA has set arbitrary prescription limits on the amounts of medications Black Owned, Hispanic, Asian Pharmacies are permitted to fill and the distance their patients can travel. While predominately white own pharmacies allowed to fill narcotic medication into the millions of tablets, capsules, liquids without being questioned by DEA Diversion. 

5. The DEA System is blatantly biased and unfair. Blacks, Asians, Hispanic Pharmacist, and owners are frequently targetted charged, and prosecuted for being involved with the diversion of narcotics of specific patients, for a specific prescription from a so-called ” pill mill doctor”, only to see the same patients with the same prescription and same doctor who is no longer vilified as a “pill mill doctor” get their prescription filled at a white own pharmacy and that is ok with the DEA.****

6. The Court is designed to violate the Human Right of the patient to seek medical care and acts arbitrarily and capriciously to violate all constitutional rights of both patients, pharmacists, and practitioners. Further DEA has relied on fear and bullying, rest and seizure of property to silence most black pharmacists and owners.

CHAPMAN LAW FIRM MARCH 22, 2024

This legal document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai against the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and its Administrator.

The government prosecutor added a litany of erroneous, misleading but scandalous and headline-grabbing analytics suggesting that on some days in 2015 services were billed for more than 24 hours of work and that my practice sent bills on deceased Medicare beneficiaries after the date of death.

The government investigators and prosecutor believed that this minority Muslim physician of Syrian origin who is solo practicing, will quickly relent and submit to a plea agreement. Dr. Rifai is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt an administrative process initiated by the DEA.

He argues that the DEA’s actions, including the use of an administrative subpoena and the requirement to participate in a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, violate his constitutional rights, specifically his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, especially in light of a pending criminal case against him.

Furthermore, the complaint challenges the constitutionality of the DEA’s Administrative Law Judge system itself, referencing Supreme Court precedent regarding the appointment and authority of ALJs.

CARL NELSON: “THIS NOT NEWS, OR WORTHY OF BEING REPORTED “SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT”

 Regarding DEA Actions Against Medical Professionals

1. What are the central allegations made in this source regarding the DEA and DOJ?

The source alleges that the DEA, particularly through Administrator Anne Milgram, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically AUSA Glenn Leon, are unjustly targeting and “destroying” highly qualified doctors and pharmacists across America. It claims these actions are often based on accusations of prescribing or dispensing outside the “usual practice of medicine,” particularly concerning opioid medications, and are not always grounded in evidence of actual harm or diversion.

2. What is the significance of the Supreme Court case Ruan v. United States mentioned in the source?

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ruan v. United States is presented as a critical development. It established that the government, in prosecuting a doctor for unauthorized prescribing under the Controlled Substances Act, must prove that the doctor knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner. This introduced a “mens rea” (criminal intent) requirement that the source suggests was previously lacking in many DEA prosecutions, potentially offering a stronger defense for accused practitioners.

3. What are the criticisms leveled against the DEA’s administrative courts?

The source heavily criticizes the DEA’s administrative courts, referring to them as “kangaroo courts.” Key concerns include the lack of clear distinction between enforcing criminal laws and “DEA laws,” the fact that criminal search warrants can be signed by DEA Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and that hearings often focus solely on the “numbers of pills” without considering patients’ medical conditions or the prescribers’ clinical judgment. The source also highlights a case involving Ridley’s Family Market challenging the constitutionality of the ALJ’s role due to a lack of presidential supervision.

4. How does the source describe the DEA’s investigative practices?

The source portrays DEA Diversion Investigators as engaging in questionable practices, such as allegedly interviewing no patients or prescribing practitioners and tracking patients’ travel using methods like Google Maps, which is described as a violation of patients’ right to seek care. The source claims that important medical information, like patients’ disease states, is often excluded from court testimony in these DEA cases.

5. What is the concept of “Pharmacist Corresponding Responsibility” as described in the source, and what are the criticisms of it?

The source explains “Pharmacist Corresponding Responsibility” as a DEA-created rule that compels pharmacists to effectively practice medicine by withholding treatment (controlled substances) based on unscientific MME (morphine milligram equivalent) guidelines. The criticism is that this forces pharmacists to make medical decisions without access to crucial patient information like radiographs or physician notes, thus interfering with the doctor-patient relationship and potentially denying necessary medication.

6. What allegations of bias and unfairness are made against the DEA in the source?

The source alleges significant bias and unfairness within the DEA system, claiming that Black-owned, Hispanic, and Asian pharmacies are frequently targeted, charged, and prosecuted for dispensing narcotics to specific patients with prescriptions from doctors initially labeled as “pill mills.” However, the source contends that when the same patients with the same prescriptions from the same doctors (no longer deemed “pill mills”) fill their prescriptions at white-owned pharmacies, the DEA raises no concerns.

7. How does the source characterize the impact of DEA actions on patients?

The source argues that the DEA’s actions violate the human right of patients to seek medical care. It suggests that the DEA’s approach, focused on prescription numbers rather than medical necessity, arbitrarily and capriciously infringes upon the constitutional rights of patients by creating barriers to accessing prescribed medications.

8. What call to action or support is evident in the source?

The source includes a direct call to “DONATE LEGAL DEFENSE” funds for Dr. Mark Ipsen, MD, and lists various methods for sending financial support, including Cash App and Zelle. This indicates an effort to raise money to aid medical professionals facing legal challenges from the DEA. The inclusion of names of other doctors facing prosecution also serves to raise awareness of their situations and potentially garner support.

THE RIDLEY COMPLAINT MORGAN, UTAH

BACKGROUND

“Ridley’s brings this action to stop an unlawful adjudicative process in and by a federal agency, conducted by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) who is unconstitutionally shielded from the President’s supervision.

In the event that these unlawful D.E.A proceedings result in adverse findings against Ridley’s, the D.E.A’s ALJ likely will permanently and wrongfully revoke Ridley’s ability to dispense controlled substances to the rural community of Morgan, Utah, causing disruption to the community as well as significant financial harm to Ridley’s.

Such insupportable adverse findings by the D.E.A’s ALJ also will prejudice Ridley’s defense in a pending civil lawsuit against the Government, which has completed fact and expert discovery and is merely awaiting a trial date.“

SNELL &WILMER L.L.P

This legal document is a complaint filed by Ridley’s Family Markets, Inc. against several entities, including the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Ridley’s is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt an administrative proceeding initiated by the DEA.

The core of Ridley’s complaint is that the administrative law judge overseeing the DEA process is unconstitutionally insulated from presidential oversight, violating Article II of the Constitution.

Ridley’s argues this flawed structure could lead to an unfair revocation of their ability to dispense controlled substances, causing significant harm and prejudicing their defense in a related civil lawsuit.

MARCH 25, 2024

DONATE LEGAL DEFENSE

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