THE LEGALIZED EXTORTION: D.EA. AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FLAWED KING OF MEDICAL DECEPTION USED THROUGHOUT THE LAND, SENDING THOUSANDS OF PHYSICIANS IN AMERICA TO FEDERAL PRISON, WHILE FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURTS FAIL TO DAUBERT (PART-1 OF A 3-PART SERIES)

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

DR. TIMOTHY KING, MD System of Medical Deception

How does King’s methodology define calibrating to state medical standards?

Dr. King’s methodology defines calibrating to state medical standards as a mandatory precondition that must be satisfied before reaching any conclusion regarding the legitimacy of a physician’s prescribing.

According to the sources, the methodology (as detailed in King’s patent application) requires the expert to perform the following steps to achieve this calibration:

• Study Local Regulations: The Qualified Medical Expert (QME) must “obtain and study copies of the regulations” that specifically describe the generally accepted standards of care and pain management conceptswithin the practice of medicine for the specific state or jurisdiction where the medical provider is located.
• Acknowledge Jurisdictional Authority: The methodology acknowledges that the practice of medicine is carried out strictly under the “purveyance of medical practitioners practicing under state medical board jurisdiction”.
• Adhere to State Standards of Care: The patent states that because medicine is regulated at the state level, the determination of “medical legitimacy” is a matter governed by state law, rather than federal law or a universal forensic standard.

The defense argues that this requirement for state-level calibration is essential because, under legal precedents like Gonzalez v. Oregon, the federal government cannot use the Controlled Substances Act to define or regulate the practice of medicine, as that authority belongs exclusively to the states. Therefore, for the methodology to be reliable, it must be calibrated to the specific state-governed standard of care.

What were the USPTO’s reasons for finding the methodology obvious?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), through Primary Examiner Joshua Blanchette, rejected Dr. King’s patent application (No. 16/666,971) on November 3, 2022, after finding the methodology obvious over existing prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The sources provide the following context regarding the USPTO’s reasons for this finding:

• Lack of Scientific Innovation: The examiner concluded that the methodology was not a scientific invention but rather a “thought process” and a method of “organizing human activity and mental processes”.
• Absence of Novel Objective Standards: The rejection highlighted a significant internal contradiction within King’s own application. While King claimed his method provided data with “high certainty,” he admitted in paragraph of the application that there are “no objective switches, defined sets of criteria, or generally accepted medical protocols” that can conclude if a prescription was issued outside the usual course of medical practice.
• Reliance on Non-Unique Processes: By finding the claims “obvious over existing prior art,” the USPTO essentially determined that the steps King outlined—such as reviewing medical charts and integrating data—did not represent a unique or non-obvious advancement over existing forensic or investigative methods.

The youarewithinthinthenorms.com et. al., further note that rather than rebutting these findings of obviousness or defending the scientific merits of his work, Dr. King abandoned the application. This abandonment left the USPTO’s classification of the methodology as an “abstract idea,” rather than as a valid scientific innovation, on the public record.

How did the USPTO define his methodology as a ‘thought process’?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formally defined Dr. King’s forensic methodology as a “thought process” by categorizing it as an abstract idea rather than a patentable scientific invention.

According to the sources on Dr. King, the USPTO’s rejection of Application No. 16/666,971 on November 3, 2022, was based on the following specific legal and technical findings:

• Mental Processes under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Primary Examiner Joshua Blanchette found that the methodology amounted to nothing more than “methods of organizing human activity and mental processes” without any patentable application. This classification directly characterizes the system as a series of mental steps rather than a scientific instrument.
• Obviousness over Prior Art: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner determined that the claims were “obvious over existing prior art,” suggesting that the methodology lacked the unique scientific innovation required for a patent.
• Internal Contradictions Regarding Objectivity: The rejection highlighted a conflict within the application itself; while King’s abstract claimed the method provided data with “high certainty,” the body of the application (paragraph) admitted there are “no objective switches, defined sets of criteria, or generally accepted medical protocols” to determine if a prescription was issued outside the usual course of medical practice.

The defenses in both the Anand and Marino appeals argue that this USPTO classification as a mere “thought process” means the methodology fails to meet the reliability standards required by Daubert because it has never been peer-reviewed, tested for error rates, or validated as a scientific invention. Furthermore, the sources note that Dr. King abandoned the application rather than defending the scientific merits of the methodology against these USPTO findings.

Did King’s expert report include specific state medical standards?

Based on the sources, it is not explicitly stated that Dr. King’s expert report included specific state medical standards; rather, the sources emphasize that his patent mandates this calibration as a requirement that the defense argues was not demonstrated in his report,

The research done by youarewithinthenorms.com, et al., highlights a significant gap between the standards Dr. King claimed to follow and the contents of his actual expert report:

• Patent Requirements for State Law: Dr. King’s patent application (US 2020/0143925 A1) explicitly requires a “Qualified Medical Expert” to “obtain and study copies of the regulations” describing the generally accepted standards of care in the specific state or jurisdiction of the physician being reviewed,,. This is presented as a mandatory precondition to reaching any conclusion on medical legitimacy,.
• The Defense’s Challenge to the Report: The motion argues that the expert report provided as the government’s Rule 16 disclosure reached conclusions of “illegitimate prescribing” while disregarding objective findings (such as MRIs and EMGs) and failing to integrate PDMP data—all of which are also mandatory standards under his patent,,,,.
• Lack of Proof of Calibration: The defense asserts that because the pre-trial Daubert hearing was denied, Dr. King was never required to demonstrate whether he actually studied and applied specific state regulations,,. They argue that the suppressed transcripts from his prior cases are the “only evidence” of whether his methodology, when applied under a state governing standard of care, ever produces a result favorable to a defendant,,.
• Contradiction of Authority: The motion points out that under legal precedents like Gonzalez v. Oregon, the determination of medical legitimacy belongs exclusively to the states,. The defense contends that Dr. King’s report relied on his own “proprietary forensic methodology” rather than the state law it claimed to be calibrated to,.

In summary, while Dr. King’s methodology is built on the premise of being calibrated to state medical standards, the defense maintains that there is no evidence in the record to show he fulfilled this requirement in his report for this case.

How did King define medical legitimacy in his patent?

In his patent, Dr. King defines medical legitimacy not as a fixed scientific standard, but as a determination that “falls to the opinion of medical experts willing to testify in court”,.

The sources detail several key components and contradictions within King’s definition of medical legitimacy as outlined in his patent (US 2020/0143925 A1):

• State-Level Jurisdiction: King’s patent acknowledges that because the practice of medicine is carried out under the “purveyance of medical practitioners practicing under state medical board jurisdiction,” the determination of legitimacy must be governed by state standards,.
• Mandatory Calibration: As a precondition to reaching any conclusion on legitimacy, the methodology requires a “Qualified Medical Expert” (QME) to “obtain and study copies of the regulations” that describe the generally accepted standards of care and pain management in the specific state or jurisdiction of the physician being reviewed,.
• Forensic Scoring System: Legitimacy is assessed through a proprietary scoring system that uses “objective criteria” to reach a legal conclusion,. These criteria, which King labels “Standards of Care,” include factors such as:
  • Review of imaging and electro-diagnostics (Standard No. 2),.
  • Integration of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data (Standard No. 6),.
  • Evaluation of whether there is an “excessive number of injections” (Standard No. 5),.
• Admission of No Objective Protocols: Despite claiming his methodology produces “objective evidentiary data that shows with high certainty” whether a prescription is legitimate, King admits in paragraph of his patent that “there are no objective switches, defined sets of criteria, or generally accepted medical protocols” for concluding that a practitioner has issued a prescription outside the usual course of medical practice,,.

The defense highlights that while King’s patent claims to provide an objective framework for legitimacy, the USPTO ultimately rejected it as an “abstract idea” and a mere “thought process” rather than a scientific invention. Additionally, the motion argues that King’s methodology effectively allows the government to determine the conclusion of “illegitimate prescribing” beforehand by providing a curated sample of “suspicious” charts for the expert to analyze,.

How did Dr. King respond to the USPTO’s 2022 rejection?

Dr. King did not formally defend or appeal the USPTO’s findings; instead, he abandoned the patent application entirely. The research from youarewithinthenorms.com, et al.,detail the nature of this non-response:

• Refusal to Defend: Rather than responding to the Primary Examiner’s November 3, 2022, rejection, King chose to abandon the application. This meant he did not attempt to counter the USPTO’s classification of his methodology as a non-patentable “abstract idea” involving mere “mental processes”.
• Silence on “Obviousness”: He did not provide a rebuttal to the examiner’s determination that his claims were “obvious over existing prior art”.
• Public Record of Abandonment: Both the formal rejection and King’s subsequent abandonment of the application were on the public record for over two years before the trial began.

The defense in both cases of Drs Neil Anand and Barbara Marino, MD, an MD Anderson-trained Ob-Gyn Oncology Surgeon, argues that by abandoning the application rather than defending its scientific merits, King effectively failed to validate the very methodology he used to reach his expert conclusions.

Dr. King and his “Universal Precautions”

According to and most importantly noted by Ronald W. Chapman II, JD, LLM, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chapman Law Group, Troy, Michigan, a master of communication and persuasion, blending classical training in philosophy, rhetoric, and behavioral economics with modern expertise in law and strategy, he writes;

“Last summer, I had the pleasure of dismantling Dr. Timothy King, a purported expert in federal criminal opioid cases. Dr. King was a hired gun for the government and made 90% of his income roaming around the country taking the witness stand in federal criminal cases against doctors alleged to have “overprescribed” opioid pain medication. Because of this, his methodology had become quite predictable. He would review a targeted set of medical records provided to him by the government, add them to a fancy little chart he called his “bible,” which he believed would objectively determine that a physician was engaged in drug trafficking simply because the physician failed to document a sufficient medical need for the opioid pain medication.

He (king) even sought to obtain a United States Patent for his method of “objectively” determining criminality – fortunately, the patent was not approved – likely because his methods amounted to mere junk science. Dr. King used a few articles published in medical journals that described “best practices” for pain management physicians to create this “standard”. One of them was titled “universal precautions”. And by applying these articles and the requirements in them to the conduct of the physician in question, he would determine that the physician was not adhering to the “standard of care” for a prescribing physician.

Dr. King had done this many times before, including in the Ohio case of a physician who was convicted at trial, where his attorney failed to obtain a counter-expert. I was hired to appeal this case and to challenge Dr. King’s testimony before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; the appeal is currently pending.

I wasn’t about to let him do this again and so I methodically prepared to cross-examine Dr. King and challenge each and every opinion he offered on the stand.

I started with a deep dive into Dr. King’s prior testimony and learned that he was no longer practicing medicine and was earning nearly all of his income by 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. This would obviously be a fruitful area of cross-examination because juries are less likely to believe those testifying for their own pecuniary gain. In addition, I pulled every article cited in his report and cross-referenced the articles’ information with his findings. I was able to determine that in many areas of his testimony, he was either conflating the standards applied in his beloved articles or failing to follow their guidance. Many of the articles, when fully read and understood, actually contradicted his opinions in his report. Then I looked at his analysis and determined that in his review of important medical records in the case he made vital errors in interpretation and utterly failed to review certain records.

Prepared with hundreds of documents, transcripts of his prior testimony, his report, and a list of errors in interpretation, I set out to cross-examine him after he skillfully laid out his opinions to the jury. I started by showing his bias. That he only testified for the government in such cases and that he was paid a handsome sum of money to be there that day. Then I moved on to locking him in to the standard he applied in his articles by showing each one of them and forcing him to testify that he applied those resources to his review of the case. After locking him in, I was able to show the jury that he didn’t follow his own standard by presenting passages from articles that directly contradicted his theory of the case. I then set out to challenge his actual opinions by showing portions of the medical records introduced into evidence that indicated my client actually satisfied the rigorous standard he employed.

The cross-examination took an entire day. And by the end of it, the jury didn’t believe a word he said, which resulted in an acquittal for every drug charge that Dr. King testified about.

🔓 🔓 🔓 

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:

Dr. Rifia…. “struggle 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.”

THE FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEM OF JUSTICE

The tulsafication of doctor DR. Harvey Jenkins, MD

DR. SHIVA AKULA, MD TRIAL AND BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE

(20 YEARS FEDERAL PRISON)

AKULA 1.

AKULA 2.