“..They thought they could bury us, but didn’t know We were seeds..”

from 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, IN THE SPIRIT OF 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., 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

CLICK AND LISTEN TO THE POWERPOINT BELOW

Memorandum Order from a U.S. District Court regarding a lawsuit filed by SmartCareRx

This legal document is a Memorandum Order from a U.S. District Court granting a preliminary injunction against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to a pharmacy called SmartCareRx.

This court order grants a preliminary injunction to SmartCareRx, an Orlando pharmacy, partially blocking the Drug Enforcement Administration’s immediate suspension of its license to dispense controlled substances.

THE NEUMANN PHARMACY RULING IS A GAME CHANGER FOR PHARMACISTS

The court determined that the pharmacy is likely to succeed on its claims because the DEA provided a flawed and delayed explanation for the alleged “imminent danger” and failed to provide the due process of a prompt hearing. While the DEA accused the pharmacy of filling prescriptions for fictitious patients, the judge found these allegations insufficiently supported and noted that the agency currently lacks the administrative staff to even schedule a required hearing.

Consequently, the pharmacy may resume operations for most medications, though it remains prohibited from dispensing the three specific opioids at the heart of the government’s investigation until a final decision is reached.

Case Analysis Report: Judicial Standards for Challenging DEA Immediate Suspension Orders (Adya LLC v. DEA)

Executive Overview of the Memorandum Order

The decision in Adya LLC v. DEA represents a landmark judicial intervention that has effectively blunted the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) most aggressive regulatory weapon: the Immediate Suspension Order (ISO).

Historically, the ISO has functioned as a “death penalty” for independent pharmacies, stripping them of their registration without a prior hearing and triggering an immediate exodus of physicians and customers.

This ruling, however, provides a strategic blueprint for pharmaceutical counsel to challenge the DEA’s exercise of emergency powers, demonstrating that the agency’s authority does not mandate arbitrary or procedurally deficient enforcement.

The case originated from a year-long investigation into SmartCareRx, an Orlando pharmacy, which the DEA concluded in the spring of 2024. Despite the supposed urgency, the DEA sat on its findings for over four months before serving the ISO in December.

This delay was exacerbated by agency intransigence; SmartCareRx proactively offered to cease dispensing the three high-risk drugs at issue to address safety concerns, but the DEA ignored the offer, opting instead for a total business shutdown. Facing imminent collapse, the pharmacy moved for a preliminary injunction.

The resulting order is a rare check on administrative overreach, highlighting the court’s role in protecting a registrant’s right to due process against an agency that failed to maintain even the basic infrastructure required to provide a prompt hearing.

NEUMANN’S PHARMACY VS D.E.A.

The following analysis deconstructs the jurisdictional, evidentiary, and constitutional hurdles that the DEA failed to clear, providing a roadmap for future litigation against summary administrative deprivations.

——————————————————————————–

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Navigating 21 U.S.C. § 824(d) and § 877

For pharmaceutical registrants, forum selection is a tactical decision that can determine the survival of the business. The DEA frequently attempts to force ISO challenges into the federal courts of appeals under 21 U.S.C. § 877, a venue that favors the agency through slower timelines and more rigid review standards.

However, the Adya LLC court reaffirmed the “default rule” of district court jurisdiction, identifying a critical “jurisdictional loophole” for emergency relief.

Statutory Provision	Judicial Interpretation in Adya LLC	Impact on Registrant Litigation Strategy
21 U.S.C. § 824(d)	Recognizes ISOs remain in effect until dissolved by a “court of competent jurisdiction.” The court interpreted this to include District Courts.	Enables registrants to seek immediate, localized relief ab initio before a single judge rather than a three-member appellate panel.
21 U.S.C. § 877	Strictly limited to “final determinations.” Because an ISO is a preliminary finding, it does not trigger exclusive appellate review.	Prevents the DEA from shielding ISOs from district court scrutiny by falsely labeling them as final agency actions.

Deconstructing the “Finality” Argument

The DEA’s argument that ISOs fall under § 877 due to their “direct and immediate effect” was a strategic gambit that failed. The court emphasized that an ISO is a “preliminary finding” and “tentative” decision, subject to change during administrative proceedings.

The “So What?” for counsel is found in an embarrassing admission by the DEA’s own legal team: during oral arguments, counsel admitted they were “not aware of a case where an ISO has been directly appealed to a circuit court.” This admission more than confirms that the DEA’s push for appellate-only review is a litigation tactic unsupported by precedent, allowing registrants to confidently seek immediate District Court intervention to stay the “death penalty” of a suspension.

D.E.A. UNDER FIRE PRONTO PHARMACY LLC, TAMPA, FL. AUGUST 29, 2019

“..that was not part of my investigation..”

——————————————————————————–

Deconstructing the “Imminent Danger” Standard

To bypass the requirement of a pre-suspension hearing, the DEA must meet the high evidentiary bar of “imminent danger” under 21 U.S.C. § 824(d)(2). The Adya LLC court identified a “foundational failure of reasoned decisionmaking,” outlining three specific lapses that rendered the DEA’s finding arbitrary and capricious:

1. Temporal Attenuation: The DEA waited over four months after concluding its investigation to issue the ISO. The court correctly noted that a danger cannot logically be “imminent” if the agency feels comfortable sitting on the evidence for an entire fiscal quarter.

2.Logical Inconsistency: The DEA’s theory of a “drug deal” was physically impossible. The agency alleged a suspicious handoff occurred on March 14, yet its own records showed the pharmacy did not even purchase or receive the opioids in question until March 18. This is not a mere clerical error; it is an evidentiary impossibility that collapses the agency’s primary narrative.

3. Ambiguity of Evidence: The DEA relied on a list of “fictitious patients” identified only by initials. When the DEA refused to provide names, SmartCareRx conducted an independent investigation and found public records that matched those initials. This shook the DEA’s evidentiary foundation, proving that the agency’s “fake patient” claims were, at best, poorly researched.

DEA VS. PHARMACISTS

The “So What?” of Agency Failure

These failures demonstrate that the DEA’s action was “arbitrary and capricious” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Furthermore, the court criticized the DEA for ignoring 21 C.F.R. § 1301.36(c), which allows for limited suspensions.

The DEA failed to explain why it shut down the pharmacy entirely when it could have simply suspended the three specific drugs at issue. For counsel, this signifies that the DEA must not only prove danger but also justify the breadth of the suspension—a vulnerability registrants must exploit by proposing “carve-outs” during litigation.

——————————————————————————–

Constitutional Dimensions: Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process

In pharmaceutical law, the distinction between a benefit “applicant” and a “holder” is paramount. As a registration holder, SmartCareRx possessed a “protected entitlement” that the government could not revoke without due process. Judge McFadden’s application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test revealed a systemic due process failure within the DEA:

The Private Interest: The court acknowledged the “devastating” and “catastrophic” impact of an ISO, citing the loss of customer goodwill and the collapse of physician trust as irreparable harms that monetary damages cannot fix.

The Risk of Erroneous Deprivation: This risk is amplified by the DEA’s ALJ infrastructure crisis. In a staggering display of administrative ignorance, DEA counsel did not even know if the agency had any ALJs available to hear the case, only discovering a “recently-appointed acting ALJ” after the hearing concluded.

The Government Interest: The court found the government’s interest in further delaying a hearing to be “weak” once the specific drugs were seized and the alleged threat was neutralized.

The “So What?” of the Infrastructure Crisis

The DEA’s failure to maintain a functional hearing infrastructure creates a constitutional vulnerability for every ISO it issues. If the government promises a “prompt” hearing but lacks the personnel to provide it, the registrant is left in an unconstitutional “limbo.”

Counsel should target this “ALJ shortage” in every challenge, as it transforms a statutory delay into a systemic Fifth Amendment violation.

——————————————————————————–

Remedial Strategy: The “Narrowly Tailored” Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy, but it becomes the necessary antidote to agency overreach. In Adya LLC, the court merged the “balance of equities” and “public interest” factors to craft a remedy that allowed the pharmacy to survive while addressing legitimate safety concerns.

The Court’s Order required the DEA to return the registration and “unseal” controlled substances, subject to a specific carve-out:

The Three Core Carve-outs: The DEA’s suspension was enjoined for all substances except for the three drugs at the center of the investigation: oxycodone, hydromorphone, and promethazine with codeine.

Tactical Insight: Voluntary Cessation and the Injunction Bond

A critical strategic move by SmartCareRx was its “voluntary cessation” of the problem drugs. By proactively offering to stop dispensing the high-risk substances, counsel stripped the DEA of its “public safety” shield, making it easier for the court to find that the public interest favored the pharmacy’s continued operation.

Furthermore, regarding the Injunction Bond, SmartCareRx took the lead by suggesting a $30,000 amount. Because the DEA provided no evidence that this was insufficient, the court accepted the figure. This teaches future litigants to be proactive in suggesting bond amounts to influence the financial conditions of their own relief.

Conclusion: A Roadmap for Registrants The Adya LLC decision provides a definitive roadmap for challenging DEA overreach by targeting three specific areas:

Jurisdictional Clarity: Utilizing § 824(d) to secure District Court intervention.

Evidentiary Gaps: Exposing temporal delays and “physically impossible” factual claims in the DEA’s investigation.

Procedural Infrastructure: Highlighting the DEA’s inability to provide the “prompt” hearings required by the Constitution.

🔓 🔓 🔓 

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

REFERENCE:

MANIPULATION OF HOLY TRINITY COCKTAIL COMBINATION BY D.E.A-DOJ

The Core Argument

(This Is The Heart)

On May 9, 2024, Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai stood before a federal jury and heard the words every defendant prays for: “Not Guilty” on all four counts of healthcare fraud. For most, an acquittal marks the end of a nightmare. For Dr. Rifai, a board-certified psychiatrist, it was merely the opening act of a grueling structural war against the “Administrative State.”

Despite the jury’s rejection of the government’s criminal case, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continued its crusade to revoke Dr. Rifai’s registration to dispense controlled substances.

This battle, now unfolding in the Third Circuit, exposes the harrowing mechanics of an unaccountable “fourth branch” of government. Dr. Rifai finds himself trapped in a procedural purgatory, forced to defend his livelihood before an agency tribunal that he argues is constitutionally illegitimate.

the questions

???

The central curiosity of this case is one that should alarm every citizen: How can an individual challenge an agency’s power if the law commands them to endure an “unconstitutional” process to its completion before a real judge is allowed to intervene?

Dr. Rifai’s struggle highlights a growing constitutional debate over whether federal agencies are subject to the same laws as the people they regulate. Most importantly, the struggle of Medical providers such as pharmacist Laura Neuman of Neumann’s Pharmacy, Tullah, La, Drs. Lesly Pompy, MD, Norman J. Clement, RPh, DDS, of Dental Survey of America and Pronto Pharmacy LLC, Tampa, Florida, et. al., also reveal that these agencies’ intrusions and overreaches are built on half-truths that support their foundation of Judicial Architectural Deception to imprison more medical providers with the utmost efficiency.

Dr. Rifai is arguing:

The DEA’s adjudicatory system is structurally unconstitutional

Specifically:

ALJs Are Improperly Shielded from Presidential Control
   •   DEA Administrative Law Judges have dual-layer removal protection
   •   They are insulated through:
      •   Merit Systems Protection Board
      •   “for cause” removal limitations

That creates a break in:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution

Why it matters:
   •   Executive power must remain accountable to the President
   •   These ALJs exercise real federal authority without that accountability

⸻

🧠 The Breakthrough Theory (This Is HUGE)

“The Proceeding Is the Injury”

This is the most important part.

Instead of saying:

“I was harmed by the final decision” Rifai argues:

“I am harmed by being forced to go through an unconstitutional process at all”

This is grounded in:
Axon Enterprise v. FTC (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=2)

👉 Key idea:
   •   You do NOT have to wait
   •   You can challenge:
      •   the forum
      •   the structure
      •   the legitimacy of the system itself

📌 The article puts it clearly:

The injury is being subjected to an illegitimate proceeding

⸻

⚠️ The Jurisdiction Trap (Critical Insight)

The government’s position:
   •   You must go through the entire DEA process
   •   THEN appeal to a circuit court under:
      •   21 U.S.C. § 877

The problem:

👉 That creates a Catch-22
   •   You can’t challenge the system until after it harms you
   •   But by then:
      •   your practice
      •   your livelihood
      •   your case posture

may already be destroyed

⸻

🧩 Rifai’s Counter (Strategically Brilliant)

He argues his claims are:

✔ “Wholly Collateral”

Meaning:
   •   He is NOT arguing:
      •   whether he prescribed correctly
   •   He IS arguing:
      •   whether the system judging him is constitutional

👉 That distinction is everything

⸻

🔗 The Bigger Legal Trend (You Need This) This is not isolated.

There is a national shift happening:
   •   SEC v. Jarkesy (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=3)
   •   Lucia v. SEC (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=4)
   •   Axon Enterprise v. FTC (chatgpt://generic-entity?number=5)

All pushing toward:

Administrative agencies cannot act like independent courts without constitutional limits

And even outside the DEA:
   •   Courts are increasingly questioning agency adjudication, lacking independence and due process

⸻