youarewithinthenorms.com
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., 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., M.B.A., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., 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, IN THE SPIRIT OF WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF RICHARD KAUL, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, AISHA GARDNER, 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
Pronto Pharmacy v. DEA: Challenging the Corresponding Responsibility Rule
Norman J Clement, Pronto Pharmacy, LLC, vs. United States Drug Enforcement, docketed October 5, 2022, Case 22-6000, before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, cert not granted
INTRODUCTION
This petition, nicknamed “Little Boy,” was docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, filed by Norman J. Clement on 10/5/2022, and Pronto Pharmacy LLC, challenges the DEA’s authority to revoke pharmaceutical registrations based on unresolved “red flags” of prescriptions.
The central argument is that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has exceeded its statutory authority by using “red flags”—arbitrary guidelines rather than medical evidence—as a substitute for determining whether prescriptions are legitimate.
The petitioner argued that the DEA had exceeded its congressional mandate by creating subjective guidelines that interfere with the practice of medicine and the clinical judgment of healthcare providers.
Central to the legal argument at the time was the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in Ruan v. United States, which requires the government to prove a defendant knowingly or intentionally acted without a legitimate medical purpose.
The petition asserted that the DEA improperly uses these arbitrary “red flags” as a proxy for illegitimacy without providing medical evidence or allowing testimony from the original prescribing physicians. Further, the document contends that these enforcement tactics result in cruel and unusual punishment for patients suffering from chronic pain and violate the Due Process Clause.
Introduction-cont
The Divergence of Law Enforcement and Medical Practice: The Criminalization of Care: Restoring Balance to Federal Drug Enforcement in Pain Management
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was architected as a “closed regulatory system” intended to monitor the legitimate flow of controlled medications while preventing diversion. However, a dangerous strategic tension has emerged where federal law enforcement objectives increasingly collide with the fundamental right of physicians to exercise medical judgment.
This trend—the “criminalization of pain management”—represents a systemic risk to healthcare stability. By treating clinical disagreements as criminal conspiracies, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has chilled the provider environment, effectively dismantling the standard of care for millions of Americans living with intractable pain.
Central to this conflict is the “Corresponding Responsibility” of pharmacists under 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). The regulatory history of this provision is telling. When first proposed in 1971, the regulation lacked the word “knowingly,” a move that would have imposed near-strict liability on pharmacists for any prescription later deemed illegitimate.
Following vigorous protests from the medical and pharmaceutical communities regarding the impossibility of pharmacists second-guessing the diagnostic nuances of a doctor-patient relationship, the DEA added the “scienter” requirement. The word “knowingly” was inserted specifically to protect pharmacists acting in good faith from unwarranted liability.
Today, however, the DEA is aggressively eroding this protection, bypassing established legal boundaries to transform pharmacists into investigative proxies of the state.
2. Jurisdictional Overreach and the Erosion of Judicial Precedent
The current enforcement landscape is increasingly defined by ultra vires actions—administrative maneuvers that operate outside the DEA’s statutory mandate. By “paraphrasing statutory language” to manufacture authority, the DEA has created a new category of “unauthorized prescriptions,” a concept found nowhere in the CSA. When an agency operates beyond the limits set by Congress, it creates an “extraordinary case” that necessitates the withdrawal of judicial deference. The DEA is effectively “moving the goalposts” while the game is in play, bypassing the “Notice and Comment” rulemaking required under 21 U.S.C. § 903 to generate de facto law.
The strategic importance of reining in this overreach is underscored by the precedents of Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) and Ruan v. United States (2022). The DEA’s current interpretation of “legitimate medical purpose” violates three core legal pillars:
- The Limited Authority Doctrine: As established in Gonzales, the Attorney General lacks the authority to declare entire classes of activity as “outside the course of professional practice” by mere implication. The DEA’s authority is limited to registration and scheduling, not defining the practice of medicine.
- The Scienter Requirement: Following Ruan, the government must prove a practitioner “knowingly or intentionally” acted in an unauthorized manner. Using “reason to know” as a substitute for actual knowledge constitutes an illegal evidentiary shortcut.
- The State Medical Board Boundary: The DEA’s own internal admissions contradict its enforcement actions. In letters to Congress and Dr. Richard Lawhern, DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Thomas W. Prevoznik explicitly stated: “DEA does not act as the Federal equivalent of a state medical board… and lacks the authority to issue guidelines that constitute advice relating to the general practice of medicine.”
Despite these admissions, the agency continues to use the “Red Flag” system as a regulatory weapon to bypass these very boundaries.
3. The “Red Flag” Construct: De Facto Regulation via Proxy
The “Red Flag” system is the primary mechanism for “subjective, arbitrary, and capricious” enforcement. These “flags” are not found in the CSA or CDC guidelines; they are administrative inventions used as a proxy for illegitimacy. In administrative hearings, the DEA uses these indicators to presume a prescription is unauthorized without ever proving it lacked a medical purpose.
The Disconnect Between Enforcement and Medicine
| DEA Red Flag Indicator | The “So What?” (Strategic Impact on Care) | Scientific/Medical Counter-Argument |
| Traveling long distances to fill prescriptions | Rural and rare-disease patients are denied care when local pharmacies lack stock or expertise. | Choice is often dictated by insurance networks, drug shortages, or the location of a specialized practitioner. |
| High dosages of controlled substances | Creates a “one-size-fits-none” ceiling that forces rapid tapering and patient abandonment. | Innate metabolism and genetic variability mean one patient’s therapeutic dose is another’s sub-therapeutic dose. |
| Combination therapies (e.g., “cocktails”) | Doctors fear prescribing multi-modal relief (e.g., opioids + benzodiazepines) for comorbid conditions. | Multi-modal treatment is the clinical gold standard for complex, chronic disease management. |
NEUMANNS’ PHARMACY VS. D.E.A. THE GAME CHANGER
The evidentiary standard supporting these flags is alarmingly hollow. In the Suntree Pharmacy case, the DEA relied on Dr. Gordon, a clinical hospice pharmacist working from home, while in the Pronto Pharmacy case, the agency relied on Dr. Donald Sullivan, a professor at Ohio State University. Neither expert was a current retail practitioner. Critically, both admitted under cross-examination that they could not cite a single piece of peer-reviewed medical literature to support the “red flag” guidelines they used to justify revoking registrations. This reliance on home-based consultants represents an “administrative bypass” of sound medical science.
4. The MME Metric: Flawed Science as a Regulatory Weapon
The strategic danger of using Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) to dictate clinical dosing cannot be overstated. While MME provides a convenient bureaucratic metric, it is a “one-size-fits-none” tool that the source context correctly labels “devoid of scientific utility.” The technical failures of MME as a regulatory ceiling include:
- Failure of Pharmacokinetics: The metric ignores the physiological reality of drug absorption into the bloodstream and the vastly different half-lives of various medications.
- Genetic Variability: Individual metabolic rates, governed by genetics, ensure that clinical response to a set dose is never uniform.
- The False Equivalence of Opioids: The CDC conversion table assumes a linear relationship that does not exist. For instance, converting Oxymorphone at a 3x factor and Oxycodone at 1.5x ignores the unique pharmacological properties of each substance.
Treating the “90 MME” ceiling as a hard limit is “bad medicine” that creates a chilling effect, forcing practitioners to choose between their professional judgment and their legal survival.
5. Real-World Consequences: The Human Cost of Regulatory Deviation
The “mass over-reach” of the DEA has transitioned from a jurisdictional dispute into a human rights crisis. When law enforcement acts as an “umpire” who changes the rules mid-game, the most vulnerable patients suffer “cruel and unusual punishment.”
- The Chilling Effect on Intractable Pain: Fear of being labeled “drug dealers in white coats” has paralyzed the medical community. Doctors now frequently refuse to treat patients with ALS or other terminal conditions, fearing the high-dose palliative care required will trigger a DEA investigation.
- Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) and Barriers to Care: Despite SCD being specifically exempt from the 2016 CDC Guidelines, patients like Gilinda Dame-Fincher face constant denial of care due to pharmacy “red flagging.” The regulatory climate is so toxic that only an estimated 20 adult hematology specialists remain in the U.S. to care for this entire population.
- The Case of Walter R. Clement: The death of Walter R. Clement, a 34-year veteran of the Detroit Police Department, stands as a tragic indictment of current policy. Mr. Clement died in “horrific agonizing untreated pain” from ALS because his doctors were cowed by federal scrutiny. The bitter irony is that his own brother, Norman Clement, is a pharmacist who understood the medicine but was powerless to help him against the systemic fear of over-prescribing.
6. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations for a Balanced Approach
The current divergence between drug enforcement and medical science is an unsustainable administrative failure. We must restore a balanced regulatory approach that respects both the rule of law and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.
To correct this trajectory, the following policy shifts are mandatory:
- Restoration of the Scienter Standard: The DEA must be required to provide actual evidence of a prescription’s illegitimacy—proving the practitioner knowingly acted without a medical purpose—before revoking a registration.
- Recognition of Medical Subject Matter Expertise: The DEA must honor its own admission that it is not the “Federal equivalent of a state medical board.” Clinical standards must be set by medical professionals, not by diversion investigators.
- Abandonment of Arbitrary Proxies: The use of “red flags” and MME ceilings as proxies for criminality must be replaced with individualized, patient-centered care standards that account for biological and genetic variability.
The rule of law must protect those operating in good faith. A pharmacist is not a street drug dealer, and federal enforcement protocols must be realigned to respect the medical expertise that is essential to the health and general welfare of the American people.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Norman J Clement, Pronto Pharmacy, LLC, vs. United States Drug Enforcement, docketed October 5, 2022, Case 22-6000, before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, cert not granted
Beyond the Pharmacy Counter: How the DEA is Quietly Redefining the Practice of Medicine
“When does a golf ball become a football?”
The question we posed before the Supreme Court of the United States as pharmacists was: when does a golf ball become a football? At what point in the game does a baseball bat turn into a hockey stick? And when does the umpire call a strike across the plate, or a third down?
When does the referee decide that a prescription written for a “legitimate medical purpose” becomes illegal, causing a pharmacy to violate its responsibilities, even if there is no evidence of the prescription’s illegitimacy?
At what point on the mile marker does a prescription written by a licensed provider to treat a medical condition become illegal? Or can the umpire change the rules of the game to impose scienter as a way to impose more fines and expand his or her authority?
The case of Pronto Pharmacy v. DEA serves as a visceral microcosm of a national crisis. Pharmacists are now trapped in a legally untenable position: caught between a physician’s valid, life-sustaining prescription and a federal agency that increasingly acts not as law enforcement, but as a national medical board. The central question of this battle is chilling: Has the DEA unilaterally assumed the power to overrule doctors and redefine the very boundaries of medical legitimacy?
On December 18, 2021, the community served by Pronto Pharmacy in Tampa, Florida, lost a lifeline. Through a sudden administrative revocation of its registration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) effectively shuttered the local business, not because of proven drug trafficking, but because the pharmacy’s owner, Norman J. Clement, refused to allow federal agents to replace his clinical judgment with a checklist of “red flags.”
This was not just a regulatory dispute; it was a total tactical assault on the professional independence of healthcare providers.
The “Red Flag” Proxy: When Suspicion Replaces Proof
The DEA’s case against Pronto Pharmacy hinges on the “corresponding responsibility” of pharmacists under 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). However, the agency has weaponized this regulation by treating “red flags”—subjective indicators of potential diversion—as absolute proof of illegitimacy. In the DEA’s view, filling a prescription with an unresolved red flag is a violation, regardless of whether the medication was actually necessary for the patient’s well-being.
The legal logic here is fundamentally broken. As argued in the petition, “red flags” represent, at best, a “reasonable suspicion.” Yet the DEA uses these suspicions to bypass the constitutional requirement for proof. This is administrative sleight of hand designed to “move the goalposts” mid-game.
To borrow the absurdity from the petitioner’s own legal argument: At what point in the game does a baseball bat become a hockey stick, and at what point does the umpire call a strike across the plate “third down”? By the time the provider realizes the rules have changed, their registration has already been seized as “ill-gotten gain” through forfeitures and fines.
“As a Law Enforcement agency, DEA is not a position to authorize or dictate what a doctor prescribes to a patient. DEA cannot grant waivers of any kind when it comes to the practice of medicine because no such [waiver] exists… DEA regulates the flow of controlled substances, not the practice of medicine.”
The Great Regulatory Contradiction: A Lack of Medical Expertise
There is a glaring double standard in the DEA’s regulatory logic. In official correspondence to Congress and the public, the agency maintains that it “lacks the authority to issue guidelines that constitute advice relating to the general practice of medicine.” Yet, in the windowless rooms of administrative hearings, the DEA does exactly that. They rely on “experts”—consultants like Dr. Gordon and Dr. Sullivan who testify while “working from home”—to overrule the clinical decisions of physicians who have actually examined, diagnosed, and treated the patients in question.
The petition exposes the use of “red flags” as “arbitrary and capricious” for the following reasons:
- Absence of Clinical Basis: They are not found in CDC Guidelines (2016, 2017, or 2022) or HHS Best Pain Practices.
- Lack of Standards: They are not part of any generally accepted, nationally approved medical standard.
- Vagueness: They fail to proactively, clearly, or objectively describe prohibited conduct, providing no “fair warning” to providers.
- Legal Deficit: They fall below the mens rea (guilty mind) standard established by the Supreme Court in Ruan v. United States, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a practitioner subjectively knew a prescription was unauthorized.
The Flaw of “One-Size-Fits-None” Math: The MME Myth
At the heart of the DEA’s enforcement regime is the Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME), a mathematical conversion used to set a “one-size-fits-all” cap on opioid dosing—typically at 90 MME. The petitioner argues this is “bad medicine” based on a “one-size-fits-all” philosophy that ignores the basic tenets of pharmacology.
Scientific reality dictates that MME-based policies are meaningless because they fail to account for individual pharmacokinetics—how the body actually processes a drug. Factors such as absorption rates into the bloodstream, the half-life of specific compounds, and genetic variations in metabolism mean that two patients taking the same dose can have vastly different physiological responses. By enforcing a physician’s “guide” as a rigid law, the DEA is effectively criminalizing the personalized care required for complex, chronic pain.
The Human Cost: From ALS to Sickle Cell
The shift from medical care to law enforcement oversight has created a “chilling effect” that treats suffering patients as “drug seekers” and their providers as “drug dealers in white coats.” This stigmatization has resulted in what the petition calls the “needless suffering and deaths” of thousands.
This struggle is personal. Norman J. Clement fought this legal battle in the shadow of his own brother’s agony. Walter R. Clement, a 34-year veteran of the Detroit Police Department, passed away in September 2022 in “horrific agonizing untreated pain” from ALS because his physicians were terrified that over-prescribing would lead to a DEA raid.
Sickle Cell Disease (SCD)
The tragedy extends to patients like Gilinda Dame-Fincher, who suffers from the excruciating pain of Sickle Cell Disease (SCD). Despite SCD being explicitly exempt from the very CDC guidelines the DEA cites for enforcement, Dame-Fincher has been denied her prescribed OxyContin by pharmacies citing “red flags.” This is the reality of the DEA’s overreach: patients with terminal and chronic illnesses are being left to wither in agony while the “umpires” of law enforcement play doctor.
Compounding vs. Manufacturing: Moving the Goalposts
The DEA’s attempt to justify the revocation of Pronto Pharmacy’s registration also involved a technical recharacterization of “anticipatory compounding.” The agency alleged that by preparing medications in advance of a prescription, the pharmacy was “manufacturing” controlled substances without authorization.
Pronto Pharmacy maintains it followed every requirement of Florida law (FAC Rule 64B16-27.700) and the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 353a). The pharmacy engaged in routine, regularly observed prescribing patterns and maintained established historical relationships with patients—the legal hallmarks of compounding. By re-labeling this as “manufacturing,” the DEA is not just targeting one pharmacy; it is moving the goalposts to threaten the entire specialized pharmacy industry, often to generate revenue through administrative forfeitures.
Conclusion:
The Umpire and the Rule of Law
The legal ground shifted in 2022 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan v. United States. That ruling was clear: to convict a healthcare practitioner, the government must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant knew they were acting without authorization.
The DEA’s current system, which revokes registrations based on “reasonable suspicion” of “red flags” without ever proving the underlying prescriptions were illegitimate, is a direct assault on that constitutional standard.
If a law enforcement agency can redefine medical legitimacy without a medical degree and use subjective markers to override the professional judgment of licensed doctors, then the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of the regulator. We must ask: If the DEA is allowed to act as the umpire, the coach, and the rule-maker all at once, who is truly left to look after the American patient?
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
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:
