THE LEGALIZED EXTORTION
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., 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
THE PODCAST
Pip: You’re Within The Norms is covering a subject where the expert witness tried to patent his own methodology, the patent office said no, and then doctors went to federal prison anyway.
Mara: That’s the territory we’re in today — prosecutorial overreach, a forensic scoring system the USPTO rejected as an abstract idea, and what happens when Daubert hearings never happen.
Pip: Let’s start with the methodology at the center of it all.
—
The King Methodology and the Courtrooms It Controls
Mara: The post frames a central tension: a forensic expert named Dr. Timothy King has testified repeatedly in federal opioid cases against physicians, using a proprietary scoring system he calls his methodology, and courts have largely admitted it without a Daubert gatekeeping hearing.
Pip: Attorney Ronald Chapman did what those courts declined to do — he audited it himself.
Mara: Chapman describes his preparation directly: “I started with a deep dive into Dr. King’s prior testimony and was able to learn that he was no longer practicing medicine and was earning nearly all of his income acting as a hired gun for the government. I also learned that he attempted to patent his expert methodology by filing a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
Pip: So the methodology that sent physicians to federal prison was built on a framework its own author tried to commercialize.
Mara: And the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected that application on November 3, 2022. Primary Examiner Joshua Blanchette found the methodology obvious over existing prior art, classifying it as an abstract idea — specifically “methods of organizing human activity and mental processes” — rather than a scientific invention.
Pip: The patent office called it a thought process. The federal courts called it expert testimony.
Mara: The internal contradiction runs deeper. King’s patent claims the method produces data with “high certainty,” but the application itself admits there are “no objective switches, defined sets of criteria, or generally accepted medical protocols” for determining whether a prescription was issued outside the usual course of practice.
Pip: He also never defended those findings. King abandoned the application rather than rebutting the examiner, leaving the USPTO’s classification on the public record for over two years before trials proceeded.
Mara: Chapman’s cross-examination exposed the practical consequence. He pulled every article King cited, cross-referenced them against King’s findings, and found that “many of the articles, when fully read and understood, actually contradicted his opinions in his report.” The cross-examination took a full day and ended in acquittal on every charge King testified about.
Mara: The post also documents the broader pattern — cases including Dr. Neil Anand, Dr. Barbara Marino, Dr. Ron Elfenbein whose conviction was overturned, Dr. Gazelle Craig serving 35 years, and Dr. Shiva Akula — where the same methodology shaped outcomes, often without Daubert scrutiny and disproportionately affecting Black, Jewish, and South Asian physicians.
Pip: The post calls it legalized extortion. Angela Greene’s book by that name frames it as a systematic campaign, and the Daubert Diagnostic Scorecard the post includes marks peer review, known error rate, general acceptance, and objective application — all with red X’s.
Mara: Which is exactly why the series is three parts. The constitutional and evidentiary arguments around suppressed transcripts and denied hearings are still unfolding.
Pip: The question of who gets to define medical legitimacy — states or federal prosecutors — runs through all of it.
—
Mara: What this comes down to is whether a scoring system rejected by the patent office as a thought process should be the instrument that ends a physician’s career and freedom.
Pip: And whether the courts will eventually require it to survive the scrutiny it’s already failed elsewhere.
Mara: Parts two and three are coming.
