“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.”
– Hubert Humphrey
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
NEUMANNS’ RULING OVERTURNS PRONTO PHARMACY et. al
–David Stein, MD
“..characterizes as a “repackaged eugenic philosophy” or Neo-Eugenics, where the justice system shifts from treating patients as individuals to forcing them to conform to law enforcement’s accepted standards through biased data analytics…”
AGENCY OVERREACH
Fifth Circuit Rejection of DEA Pharmacy Deregistration Standards
On February 03, 2022, The Pronto Pharmacy LLC of Tampa, Florida, pharmacist Norman Clement petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to vacate the administrative findings and restore his pharmacy’s registration by challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) oversight methods. Clement argued that the agency had overstepped its authority by criminalizing medical judgment and misinterpreting pharmacy practices, such as compounding and the handling of high-dose pain medications, as illicit distribution.
The text emphasized that pharmacists should only be held liable for knowingly filling illegitimate prescriptions, asserting that the DEA’s use of “red flags” unfairly replaces professional discretion with broad suspicion. It also critiqued federal agency overreach, further asserting that the DEA’s “red flag” system lacks a legal basis and improperly intrudes upon the states’ traditional power to regulate the practice of medicine and pharmacy.
On February 13, 2026, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Neumanns’ Pharmacys versus Drug Enforcement Administration, Case: 25-60068, (see order*) clarified that a pharmacist can only be held liable for filling an invalid prescription if they possess subjective knowledge of its illegality, rather than simply failingto meet a general standard of care.
In both the Pronto Pharmacy and Neumann’s Pharmacy cases, the petitioners challenge the agency’s use of “red flags” to suggest that pharmacists should have identified and refused prescriptions written by licensed physicians. These legal documents focus on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s attempts to revoke the registrations of independent pharmacies for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act, and argue that the federal government cannot criminalize good faith medical practice or take away the states’ traditional power to regulate healthcare professions.
In this judicial opinion, (Neumanns vs. D.E.A.) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a DEA order that had revoked a pharmacy’s registration, ruling that the agency overstepped its authority by misinterpreting its own regulations.
The court clarified that a pharmacist only violates their corresponding responsibility if they knowingly fill a prescription that was invalid when issued, rejecting the DEA’s attempts to impose an objective “reason to know” standard or to bypass the requirement of proving the prescription’s initial invalidity.
In Neumanns vs. Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit specifically criticized the DEA for exceeding its authority by substituting its own policy goals for established federal regulations.
The Fifth Circuit Judges determine in Neumann, that the government has exceeded its statutory authority by criminalizing legitimate medical judgment and misinterpreting the “corresponding responsibility” of pharmacists as a mandate to second-guess valid prescriptions.
The judges further determined that the “usual course of professional practice” is not merely synonymous with the state-law standard of care, meaning a pharmacist does not commit a federal violation simply by being negligent. Central to the defense is the distinction between individualized patient care—including specialty compounding for chronic pain—and the illegal manufacturing or trafficking of narcotics.
The Invisible War: Profiling and the Siege of the American Pharmacy
FEDERAL OVERREACH
PRONTO PHARMACY LLC DISPOSITIVE MOTION CHALLENGING DOJ-DEA IN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 20, 2021, and D.C. Circuit Rule 30 (c), Petitioners Norman Clement pro se in Case No. 21-1262 files this Dispositive Motion and Amends Petitioner’s Certified Index Record to include the blog youarewithinthenorms.com, hereby states,
STATEMENT
“The decision, in this case, will have far-reaching deleterious effects on the professions of Medicine, Nursing, and other Mid-Level Practitioners and Pharmacists.
After reading the TRIAL TRANSCRIPT and ALJ DECISION, many glaring errors became apparent. This document is intended to enlighten the court as to the true nature of the STANDARD of CARE as it pertains to the practice of PHARMACY.
The practice of Pharmacy has many traditional and emerging roles and a one size fits all standard cannot apply. The proof of this is that certain facets are known as retail establishments, institutional establishments, healthcare organizations, and others. Within these broad categories, there are subdivisions.”
The Limits of Agency Discretion
The Neumann’s Pharmacy ruling is a vital reminder that administrative authority is not infinite. While the DEA possesses broad discretion to protect public health, that power is tethered to the “governing text.” If an agency finds its existing regulations too cumbersome for the current crisis, it must change them through transparent rulemaking, not through the “quiet rewriting” of standards during an enforcement hearing.
The Fifth Circuit in Neumanns Pharmacy has drawn a line in the sand: “even the most urgent regulatory goals” do not excuse an agency from following its own rules. This leads to a larger, more provocative question for the future of administrative law: If an agency can redefine the “usual course” of a profession to mean whatever its current enforcement priorities demand, does the professional’s license belong to the state, or to the law?
PRONTO PHARMACY LLC
Implications for Future Regulatory Defense
While in Neumann, February 13, 2026, the Fifth District Court of Appeals court the DEA’s order as the default rule under the APA, it opted for remand rather than total dismissal.
This is a critical distinction for practitioners: the DEA may still attempt to deregister Neumann’s by applying the correct legal standards or by invoking the “public interest” factors of 21 U.S.C. § 823(g)(1).
Neumanns further affirms through its review and order the Judicial Nonfeasance of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Clement vs. Case 21.1262, “the most impactful legal realities uncovered in the litigation…
..where the line between patient care and federal crime has become dangerously blurred. The aggressive pursuit of independent pharmacists has created a dangerous chilling effect that threatens the ethical integrity of the medical profession. Fearing federal entanglement and “Giglio” violations, many practitioners have moved toward “over-compliance..”
Strategic Advantages for Future Defense
This precedent in Neumann provides a robust framework for appellate counsel challenging DEA show-cause orders:
- Demand Proof of Actual Knowledge: Counsel must demand evidence of the pharmacist’s subjective knowledge regarding a prescription’s invalidity, rejecting any “should have known” arguments.
- Assert the “Bona Fide” Shield: Practitioners can defend conduct that deviates from the standard of care as long as it remains “bona fide” professional practice, preventing the federalization of state-law negligence.
- Challenge Regulatory “Rewriting”: This ruling serves as a powerful tool to hold agencies to the plain text of their regulations, particularly when they attempt to expand liability through enforcement rather than rulemaking.
The Mirror of Justice
D.E.A.’S “Peculiar” Administrative Court System
In the ideal of the American courtroom, forensic evidence is presented as the “mirror of justice”—an objective, scientific reflection of the truth.
However, as legal analysts and practitioners increasingly observe, this mirror is often clouded by a profound tension between rigorous methodology and the admission of “junk science.”
This conflict is not merely a technical disagreement between experts; it represents a systemic failure to apply uniform standards of proof across different legal forums.
The core of this critique lies in the disparity between how scientific evidence is scrutinized in civil versus criminal contexts. While civil litigation often demands a high threshold for scientific validity, criminal proceedings frequently allow unproven or pseudoscientific tools to go unchallenged. This leads to a troubling reality where history, as Mark Twain famously observed, “doesn’t repeat itself, but it, sure enough, rhymes.”
In the modern era, this rhyme manifests as what David Stein, MD, characterizes as a “repackaged eugenic philosophy” or Neo-Eugenics, where the justice system shifts from treating patients as individuals to forcing them to conform to law enforcement’s accepted standards through biased data analytics.
The fifth circuit court has signaled that even urgent regulatory goals must be pursued within the strict confines of established law.
D.E.A. DIVERSION INVESTIGATOT RICHARD JAMES ALBERT
” ..that wasn’t part of my investigation..”
Decoupling the “Standard of Care” from the “Usual Course of Professional Practice”
The DEA frequently commits legal error by equating 21 C.F.R. § 1306.06 (“usual course of professional practice”) with state-law negligence. This is a tactical maneuver designed to convert every act of professional negligence into a federal regulatory violation.
PRONTO PHARMACY IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION IN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AUGUST 23, 2019
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Neumanns vs D.E.A.*
conclusion
Neumann’s Pharmacy v. DEA affirms that while pharmacists are often the “last line of defense” against drug diversion, that responsibility does not give the government a blank check to ignore its own rules. The court has signaled that even urgent regulatory goals must be pursued within the strict confines of established law. The DEA remains free to pursue stricter standards through proper notice-and-comment rulemaking, but it may no longer do so by misreading the regulations it is charged with enforcing.
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
HUNTED BY DOJ-DEA
BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!
OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
REFERENCES:
The PBM FRAUD Script Scam: Profits AND DECEPTION Behind the Prescription Counter
This video from the Pharmacist Steve’s Blog uses a satirical character named “Phil My Pockets” to illustrate the controversial role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) as hidden intermediaries in the healthcare system.
The narrative reveals how these entities often manipulate drug pricing by marking up costs and accepting payments from pharmaceutical companies to prioritize specific medications.
