THE BACKGROUND
POMPY VS. DRUG ENFORCEMENT: CASE NO: 25-836 OF GOVERNMENT WRECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH
REPORTED IN
January 18, 2026
youarewithinthenorms.com
NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT MS., MBA., BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., IN THE SPIRIT OF REV. C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF WILLIE GUINYARD BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF RICHARD KAUL, MD., BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER F. WRENN III, MD., ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NDJOU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
1. Fourth Amendment Violations and Investigative Misconduct
The Fourth Amendment claims in this litigation rest upon the Franks standard, which dictates that a warrant is invalidated if it is based on an affidavit containing statements made with “reckless disregard for the truth” that are material to the finding of probable cause.
The plaintiffs identify two primary categories of material misstatements attributed to Detective Robert Blair and Marc Moore:
• Statistical Distortion: Blair’s affidavit claimed that 96.13% of Dr. Pompy’s 177 patients were prescribed controlled substances. This figure was derived by comparing Dr. Pompy to a pool of 2,304 providers. The plaintiffs argue this was a “fundamental flaw,” as Dr. Pompy was a chronic pain specialist in an underserved area, while the comparison pool primarily consisted of hospital-based anesthesiologists treating acute, short-duration surgical pain.
• Billing Code Misrepresentation: Blair alleged Dr. Pompy used inflated CPT codes by claiming the physician spent 15–60 minutes per visit, while undercover agent Howell reported less than one minute of face-to-face time. However, the Medicare billing manual specifies that face-to-face time is an “ancillary factor” and only controls the code selection if over 50% of the time is spent counseling. The primary drivers of the CPT codes are “medical decision making,” “patient history,” and “physical examination,” which Blair allegedly disregarded.
A separate violation involves Defendant Brian Bishop’s “Second Warrantless Search.” After MANTIS officers completed the initial raid and “secured the premises” to prevent unauthorized entry, Bishop reentered the home “sometime later on the same day” without a new warrant. While the defense argues this was a “reasonable continuation” of the first search, the Keszthelyistandard suggests otherwise.
In Keszthelyi, the Sixth Circuit found a reentry was not a reasonable continuation when officers had no reason to believe the search was incomplete. Here, the search was arguably “concluded” when the initial team departed, terminating the authority conferred by the state warrant.
These constitutional claims, however, face substantial jurisdictional barriers, particularly regarding federal officers.
2. The Algorithmic War on Doctors and Patients: “The Dark Shift” in healthcare?
What is the core concern addressed by the term “The Dark Shift” in healthcare?
The core concern of “The Dark Shift” is the alarming transformation of corporate and intelligence community surveillance techniques into medical surveillance tools, deployed against American physicians and patients.
This represents a profound mission creep, in which skills initially used for corporate espionage or national security are now repurposed to criminalize medical practice. That this shift prioritizes algorithmic compliance over compassionate patient care, leading to the persecution of doctors and a decline in access to essential medical services, particularly for pain management.
How are “healthcare analytics” being used to target physicians, and what is the role of former intelligence operatives?
“Healthcare analytics” are described as a repackaging of intelligence community expertise, utilizing techniques like pattern recognition, data analysis, covert collection, and behavioral profiling. Former CIA and NSA operatives, who once tracked terrorists or monitored foreign communications, are now applying their tradecraft to medical data and prescription databases.
This creates a “shadow intelligence agency” focused on medical surveillance, where these experts develop and implement algorithms that identify “anomalous” medical practitioners, often leading to their criminal prosecution.
What are the “perverse incentives” created by this system of medical surveillance?
The system creates a “profitable pipeline of physician persecution.” Companies with intelligence community ties profit from developing sophisticated surveillance algorithms and securing contracts.
Former intelligence officers earn high salaries applying their skills to medical data. Federal agencies justify expanded budgets by highlighting the increasing number of physicians flagged by these systems.
Success is measured by prosecutions and surveillance capabilities rather than by improvements in patient care or reductions in overdose deaths, leading to an inherently self-perpetuating and expanding system.
3. The Illusion of a Simple Number: Why “Mme. per Day” Isn’t as Simple as You Think
In pain medicine and public health, few metrics are as important as Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) per day. It is widely regarded as a standardized, objective measure used to assess the dosage of opioid medications a patient receives.
It guides clinical decisions, influences public policy, and is even incorporated into state law. But what if this seemingly solid number was an illusion?
This article will reveal the four hidden definitions used to calculate Mme./day. Using a single patient example, we will demonstrate how these methods yield vastly different results, with serious real-world consequences for patients, clinicians, and researchers alike.
Imagine four analysts are given the exact same patient data: the same prescriptions, filled over the same time period. They are all tasked with identifying “high-dose” patients using the same official “90 Mme./day” threshold. Logically, they should all identify the same people. But they don’t. In fact, they come up with wildly different lists, disagreeing on who is and who is not a high-dose patient.
How is this possible? The variability comes not from the complex pharmacology of Mme. conversion factors, but from the surprisingly ambiguous and unstandardized interpretation of a simple, three-letter word: “day.”
——————————————————————————–
What is Mme? and Why Does It Seem So Important?
Morphine Milligram Equivalents (Mme.) is a value used to standardize different opioid medications into a single scale. It allows clinicians and researchers to compare the total potency of a patient’s prescriptions, even if they are taking multiple types of opioids. Crucially, this scale is based on the medications’ equivalent pain-relieving (analgesic) effect, not their direct pharmacological properties.
Mme. was originally developed decades ago from small hospital trials designed to help doctors safely switch patients from one opioid to another. Over time, however, a critical assumption was made: that this measure of analgesic effect also represents toxicological risk, such as the risk of an overdose.
As researcher Dr. Nabarun Dasgupta notes, “…there’s a big assumption that’s being made. That’s all, not always made public…”
This assumption has propelled Mme. to the forefront of the opioid crisis response. Today, the metric is used to shape major clinical guidelines, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation to use caution when prescribing above 90 Mme./day.
The concept has become so influential that it has been “enshrined in law in at least fourteen States,” creating the false impression that it is a standardized, unchangeable clinical fact.
WHAT IS OUR PATH FORWARD?
While MME seems like a straightforward pharmacological truth, the real complexity lies in the seemingly simple arithmetic used to calculate it on a “per day” basis.
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
OR TO CASH APP:$docnorm
BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!
“..one day you will make a difference..”
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
When the CDC updated the guidelines in 2022, it gave Maine the authority to keep chronic pain patients under 50mme. At least that’s the take of Dr Noah Nesin.