The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress..” …Frederick Douglass
DEA SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND TARGETING OF PRONTO PHARMACY, TAMPA, FL.
ORIGINALLY REPORTED IN
January 28, 2020
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
“..that wasn’t a part of my investigation..”
INTRODUCTION
This document presents an argument that the Drug Enforcement Administration engaged in selective enforcement and racial bias by shutting down Pronto Pharmacy while ignoring nearby competitors with much higher distribution rates.
The author utilizes comparative data to demonstrate that Pronto Pharmacy dispensed a significantly lower volume of opioids than neighboring facilities, yet it was the only business targeted for closure under claims of posing an imminent danger.
By highlighting these statistical disparities, the text suggests that the federal agency used arbitrary and fraudulent calculations to justify the destruction of a business owned by an African American male.
Sargent Clement claimed that the DEA disregarded its duty tasked with combating illicit drug trafficking and distribution within the U.S. by unfairly dismantling Pronto Pharmacy Llc, a minority-owned pharmacy business. These findings strongly suggest that the regulatory actions against Norman Clement were motivated by discrimination rather than by legitimate concerns for public safety. own statistics
Ultimately, Walter R. Clement critiques systemic inequality by arguing that the DEA’s actions were a discriminatory exercise of power rather than a genuine effort to address the opioid crisis.
Truth and Justice
The Drug Enforcement Administration has no steady state of enforcement. It appears they are led to apply arbitrary rules to justify selective enforcement tactics.
According to the DEA Certificate of Registration Number FP230207621, U.S.C. § 824(d), “because Pronto Pharmacy’s continued registration constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety.” During the period of DEA operation upon Pronto’s Pharmacy, there were nine pharmaceutical facilities, within a six-mile radius of Pronto’s Pharmacy, operating and selling opioids.
During the same period of time, the DEA raided Ponto’s Pharmacy. These pharmacies fill opioid prescriptions and continue to operate to this day. Of the nine pharmaceutical facilities currently operating, each pharmacy is filling more opioid prescriptions than Pronto Pharmacy.
The DEA’s actions have made it clear that federal agents have targeted Pronto Pharmacy. Moreover, the agency that employs the DEA agents has identified and targeted Pronto Pharmacy with false claims. The DEA has ignored its own data and placed the owner-operator of Pronto Pharmacy in imminent danger to the public under U.S.C. § 824(d).
COMPARATIVE VOLUME ANALYSIS
Examining two of the nine pharmacies located in Hillsborough County, along with Pronto Pharmacy.
Exhibit 1.
PMSI Pharmacy, 4502 WOODLAND CORPORATE BLVD SUITE 105 TAMPA FL 33614
A large number of pills for the county
- 26,253,800 pills were shipped to this pharmacy between 2006 and 2012.
- About enough for 44 pills per year for each of the 83,874 people who live within five miles of this pharmacy.
Exhibit 2.
OMNICARE PHARMACY OF FL, LP OMNICARE PHARMACY OF FL, LP8603 FLORIDA MINING BOULEVARD TAMPA FL 33634
Large number of pills for the county
- 13,816,900 pills were shipped to this pharmacy between 2006 and 2012.
- About enough for 22 pills per year for each of the 86,780 people who live within five miles of this pharmacy.
It becomes clear that, individually, each of these two pharmaceuticals receives and produces more opioids to the streets than Pronto Pharmacy. Whereas, at Pronto Pharmacy, 348,000 pills were shipped between 2006 and 2012. About enough for less than one pill per year for each of the 104,932 people who live within five miles of this pharmacy.
ARGUMENT
After examining the DEA data, it becomes obvious their data points are inaccurate. Each of these pharmacies is within 6 miles of the others. These date points would therefore overlap multiple pharmacies within the data areas.
If it covered the entire area, it would be clear that Pronto pharmacy would dispense fewer than one pill per year to each of the 104,932 people who live within five miles of this pharmacy. The true number would most likely be .5 pill per year of each (…).
The DEA has used fraudulent calculations to acquire a sense of achievement. They therefore used an arbitrary calculation to single out Norman Clement, an African American male, owner and operator of Ponto’s Pharmacy, to raid and destroy his business. It is clear that no other pharmacy within the area is being forced to stop business operations.
It could be the reason that an African American male single-handedly contributed to the growth of the opioid crisis.
How then is PMSI Pharmacy allowed to operate when they are filing 25,905,800 more opioids within the same geographical location as Pronto Pharmacy, and they are still operating?
Yet, an African American male is prevented from conducting business in Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough County. Conclusion: Data as a Shield for Justice.
The case of Pronto Pharmacy is a masterclass in why data literacy is essential to modern civil rights advocacy. Comparative analysis allows us to see through the “imminent danger” labels and identify when the government has abandoned its duty to enforce consistently. Numbers provide the objective baseline necessary to challenge the subjective biases of those in power. In the hands of an educated public, data acts as a shield, ensuring that “justice” is defined by facts rather than the arbitrary whims of a regulatory agency.
DISCUSSION
The DEA justified the “imminent danger” claim against Pronto Pharmacy by invoking U.S.C. § 824(d), asserting that the pharmacy’s “continued registration constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety”.
This statutory provision was cited in the DEA Certificate of Registration Number FP230207621 during the agency’s action on August 29, 2019.
However, the sources argue that this justification was based on several flawed or manufactured premises:
• Application of Arbitrary Rules: The author contends that the DEA lacks a “steady state of enforcement” and instead applied “arbitrary rules” specifically to justify selective enforcement tactics against this pharmacy.
• Use of “False Claims” and “Fraudulent Calculations”: The sources allege that the agency targeted Pronto Pharmacy with “false claims” and utilized “fraudulent calculations” to create a sense of achievement for federal agents.
• Ignoring Internal Data: The DEA reportedly ignored its own data when making the imminent danger claim. Had the data been analyzed accurately, it would have shown that Pronto Pharmacy dispensed significantly fewer opioids than its neighbors—averaging less than one pill per year for each person within a five-mile radius.
• Disregard for Comparative Risk: The “imminent danger” label was applied to Pronto while the DEA allowed nine other pharmaceutical facilities within a six-mile radius to continue operating. Each of these facilities filled more opioid prescriptions than Pronto; for example, PMSI Pharmacy filled over 25 million more opioids than Pronto, but was not deemed an imminent danger.
Closing Insight: Data transparency is the bedrock of accountability. When the math does not align with the government’s mandate, comparative analysis is our most potent tool for proving that justice has been sidelined in favor of selective enforcement.
The Sargent Clement suggested that rather than being based on a genuine threat to public safety, the DEA’s justification was a tool used to single out and destroy the business of the owner, Norman J. Clement. Evaluation of Selective Enforcement and Racial Targeting.
Selective Enforcement is a violation
Selective Enforcement is a violation of the principles of federal oversight and carries severe constitutional implications under the Equal Protection clause. It occurs when an agency targets a specific individual or business for enforcement while ignoring similarly situated entities. This practice is particularly egregious when it appears to target minority-owned businesses under the guise of bureaucratic necessity.
The DEA’s targeting of Norman Clement, an African American male owner-operator, fits the profile of selective enforcement. While white-owned or corporate-owned neighbors like PMSI and Omnicare were permitted to distribute millions of opioids without interruption, Mr. Clement’s business was raided and destroyed.
The “So What?” Layer: Bureaucratic Performance Theater The evidence suggests that the DEA utilized “arbitrary rules” and “fraudulent calculations” as a mechanism for quota-driven enforcement. Rather than addressing the primary sources of opioid volume, the agency engaged in “bureaucratic performance theater,” choosing a vulnerable, minority-owned target to secure an enforcement “win.”
The STORY OF D.E.A. AFGHANISTAN AND THE OPIOID CRISIS: A Tangled Web: Opium, Corruption, and Contradictions
🤯 🤯 🤯
🤯
RICHARD JAMES ALBERT
🤯
EXPOSING THE DEA’S FRAUDULENT RED FLAG ANALYSIS
So, when Diversion Investigator Richard James Albert returned to Pronto Pharmacyisit in May 2019, make no mistake, his actions, directed by his handlers—Susan Langston, DEA Divisional Director for the State of Florida in Miami; Aimee Hickerson, Diversion Supervisor for Florida assigned to Pharmacies; John Beerbower, Esq., United States Attorney for the DEA; and Donald R.. Sullivan, RPh., PhD, a Professor at Ohio State University College of Pharmacy—never appear to have involved examining or interviewing patients or prescribing physicians.
They relied on their use and implementation of junk science in court testimony and were laser-focused on finally disrupting, dismantling, and destroying the business of Pronto Pharmacy LLC, similar to their previous actions against Superior Pharmacy of Tampa, Florida, and Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy in Oak Hill, West Virginia.
DEA’s argument has been that Pronto Pharmacy’s compounding of controlled medications was deemed manufacturing and that Pronto Pharmacy needed a separate manufacturing registration. This was because their retail registration license does not cover manufacturing. The chart of guidelines contradicts all DEA assertions made by DI Albert and his handlers against Pronto Pharmacy.
“..The DEA agent Richard Albert prepared a warrant that was ” opinion-based “on a red flag that Pronto Pharmacy engaged in manufacturing controlled substances..”
DI Alpert of DEA stated in his testimony, he did not know state law or federal law as it pertains to Pronto Pharmacy LLC alleged in order to show cause. DI Alpert further stated he use a form default letter which is located in DEA’s Computer system to write the Order to Show Cause which he had started in April, 20019, 3-months prior to their raid of August 29, 2019.
“..This is an assumption that a crime was committed within the Pronto Pharmacy. Pronto Pharmacy is a licensed pharmaceutical company by law that can compound medications..”
EXPOSING THE DEA’S FRAUDULENT RED FLAG ANALYSIS
The DEA agent Richard Albert prepared a warrant that was ” opinion-based “on a red flag that Pronto Pharmacy engaged in manufacturing controlled substances. This is an assumption that a crime was committed within the Pronto Pharmacy. Pronto Pharmacy is a licensed pharmaceutical company by law that can compound medications.
This selective application of the law suggests that the “imminent danger” designation was weaponized not to protect the public, but to achieve a sense of achievement at the expense of Norman Clement’s Civil Rights and livelihood.
Testimony of Richard james albert
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SISCO
JUDGE DOWD: And is it your job, is it part of your investigation in these cases, to reach out to the prescribing physicians to determine if there’s a legitimate medical reason to justify the prescription, the opioid, or whatever that’s actually prescribed? Is that part of your investigation?
Richard Janes AlpertDI ALPERT: That wasn’t part of my investigation. No sir.
Mr.Sisco: Okay. So you talked to the patients, right?
DI Alpert: Did I talk to the patients?
Mr.Sisco: Yes, sir.
DI Alpert: No, sir
Richard James Albert
Mr.Sisco:You didn’t talk to the patients?
DI Alpert: No, sir
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. SISCO
Q. Good morning, Mr. Albert
A. Good morning.
Q. We’ve met before on a number of occasions, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in the 12 weeks of training that you received as a diversion investigator you were taught to be thorough in your investigation, correct?
A. Yes, sir
Q. And to gather as much information as you can to support an allegation that you were investigating, correct?
RICHARD JAMES ALBERT DEA DIVERSION INVESTIGATOR
A. Yes, sir
Q. And in this case, you followed that training, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir
Q. So it was important for you to make sure that everything that you did, that you documented, was an accurate refection of your investigation efforts, right?
A. Yes, sir
Q. All right, And you ran down available leads
A. What are you referring to?
Q. Well, you know, I presume that as part of your investigation, you looked to see whether there was any information that was contrary to other information you’d come up with in the case, right?
A. I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to.
Q. You would want to know if there was some information that was out there that differed from the conclusions that you’d reached, right?
A. I’m not sure what you’re asking as far as…
Q. Well, let’s make this basic.
A. Okay.
**Jurisdiction over who defines compounding or manufacturing lies with the FDA. Had DI Alpert consulted with the FDA or understood the rules governing pharmaceuticals, perhaps the outcome would have been far different. Had DI Alpert reviewed the DOH Administrative finding of 2018 and our response, he might have been better informed about the subject matter and would not have proceeded with a criminal complaint. See administration 20017-18 case: ph201705581, also, Atty Dale Sisco’s response and DOH findings.
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
REFERENCE:
1.
