THE NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATABANK: REGULATORY TYRANNY AND THE 5TH AMENDMENT TAKINGS CLAUSE CLOSING THE POLICE POWER LOOPHOLES THAT PERMIT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BLACKLISTING TO BYPASS JUST COMPENSATION: “A SACRED MESSAGE FROM THE THREE (3) RICHARDS”

reported by

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

NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK A UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCLUSIONARY DIRECTORY OF REGULATORY TYRANNY AND EROSION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT TAKINGS CLAUSE

This article, presented by youarewithinthenorms.com, brings together the works of Drs. Richard Willner of the Center of Peer Review Justice, Richard Epstein, Professor and Legal Scholar, and Richard Lawhern, Patient Advocate and Subject Matter Expert on Public Health Policy for Pain Management. It examines the erosion of property rights through the lens of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, arguing that modern government actions often constitute uncompensated seizures.

The article traces the evolution of legal standards from physical land grabs to complex regulatory takings, in which administrative rules effectively destroy the economic value of private assets. Specifically, the authors critique “regulatory tyranny” in the medical field, highlighting how the National Practitioner Data Bank and aggressive federal investigations can dismantle a physician’s career without due process.

Legal scholar Richard Epstein’s theories are utilized to argue for a broader interpretation of the Constitution that treats excessive zoning, taxation, and professional blacklisting as compensable harms. This collection serves as a call to close the “police power” loophole that allows the state to bypass the mandate for just compensation when destroying private property or livelihoods.

NPDB A FAILED EXPERIMENT AND THE 5TH AMENDMENT TAKING CLAUSE A SACRED MESSAGE FROM THE 3 RICHARDS

The Police Power Loophole and Regulatory Tyranny

The “Police Power Loophole” refers to a significant legal conflict in which the government’s inherent authority to protect public health, safety, and morals—known as police power—is invoked to bypass the Fifth Amendment’s mandate for “just compensation.” While the Takings Clause is designed to prevent the government from forcing individual citizens to bear the full cost of public benefits, this loophole allows the state to categorize destructive or restrictive actions as non-compensable regulatory exercises.

The Nuisance Exception and Its Expansion

Historically, the “nuisance exception” allowed the government to destroy or confiscate property without payment if it was considered a public nuisance, such as diseased trees or a brewery during Prohibition. However, the sources argue that a dangerous strategic loophole has emerged, in which this exception is expanded to deny compensation even to innocent property owners.

A primary example cited is the case of Lech v. Jackson:

• The Incident: Police destroyed an innocent family’s home using explosives, guns, and a battering ram to flush out a shoplifter who had broken in.
• The Ruling: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this was a non-compensable exercise of police power, meaning the city owed the family nothing for their devastated home.
• The Critique: Critics argue this creates a “moral hazard,” allowing the state to offload the financial costs of law enforcement onto unoffending private citizens.

Collapsing Constitutional Protections

The sources contend that the police power loophole “collapses” the distinction between two separate constitutional inquiries established in Lingle v. Chevron:

1. The Due Process Question: Is the government action a valid and reasonable exercise of police power?
2. The Takings Question: Even if the action is valid, does the resulting burden on the private owner “go too far” and necessitate compensation?

By treating police power as a categorical exemption, courts allow the exception to “swallow the rule” of the Takings Clause. Furthermore, the sources note that in the landmark Lucas case, the Supreme Court listed only three “background principles” that preclude a taking claim (pre-existing state property law, nuisance law, and uses never part of the original title); police power is conspicuously absent from this list.

Connection to “Regulatory Tyranny”

This article links this loophole to a broader phenomenon of “Regulatory Tyranny,” a term used by legal theorist Richard Epstein to describe the administrative state’s ability to achieve redistribution and professional exclusion without paying a constitutional price.

This is particularly evident in the medical field:

• The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB): Described as a professional “blacklist,” it allows for the “federalization of private malice,” depriving physicians of their career interests without due process [ARTIFACT 1].
• Shadow Regulatory Environments: Federal agencies like the DEA and DOJ are accused of using unchecked regulatory power to destroy medical practices and livelihoods, paralleling how local law enforcement used the police power loophole to destroy physical property in the Lech case.

Restoring the Takings Clause is presented as the essential defense against this “shadow” environment, ensuring that the government’s ability to diminish property value is not treated as an inherent right, but as a public cost that must be compensated.

Constitutional Erosion:

The Fifth Amendment and the Destruction of Medical Practices in the Shadow Regulatory Environment

1. The Shifting Taxonomy of the Takings Clause

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause—stipulating that private property shall not be “taken for public use, without just compensation”—has transitioned from a clear-cut shield against physical land seizures into a sophisticated modern frontline against “Regulatory Tyranny” within the administrative state.

For the senior litigation strategist, this is no longer a matter of eminent domain; it is an era of “inverse condemnation,” where government conduct effectively cannibalizes property value without an official filing. Counsel must weaponize the modern taxonomy of takings to pierce the veil of administrative oversight and reveal the underlying uncompensated seizure of business enterprises.

This evolution, spanning from the post-Civil War era to the current day, reflects a move from direct appropriations to a complex risk environment where the boundary between “police power” and unconstitutional theft is increasingly fluid.

Evolution of Takings Jurisprudence

Era	Primary Legal Focus	Representative SCOTUS Cases
1870–1922: Appropriations	Direct physical invasions; regulatory restrictions tested under Due Process theories.	Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.
1922–1978: Dawn of Regulatory Takings	Recognition that severe regulations can constitute a taking even without physical entry.	Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
1978–Present: Modern Taxonomy	Development of a four-fold framework; decoupling of Due Process from Takings analysis.	Penn Central, Loretto, Lucas, Horne II

The 2005 decision in Lingle v. Chevron served as a “clarifying moment,” resetting the rules of engagement by decoupling due process inquiries—which merely ask if a regulation is reasonable—from takings analysis, which focuses on the actual burden imposed on the property.

This decoupling is a strategic necessity; it demands a more rigorous taxonomy for assessing regulatory risk, ensuring that a valid “police power” action is still scrutinized for its devastating economic impact on elite medical practitioners like Dr. Barbara D. Marino and Dr. Lesly Pompy.

THE ALGORITHMIC WEAPON

While property theory provides the backdrop, practitioners must master the “workhorse” framework developed over the last forty years to expose how modern regulatory interference operates as a predatory mechanism.

2. The Four-Fold Framework of Modern Takings

Correctly categorizing government interference is a strategic mandate. The classification determines whether an action is a per se taking, requiring automatic compensation, or if it must be subjected to a difficult ad hoc balancing test. Senior litigators must force the court to recognize when an action has crossed the line from “oversight” to a categorical seizure.

Modern jurisprudence identifies four distinct categories of takings:

1. Physical Takings: Under the Loretto standard, any permanent physical occupation by the government—or a third party it authorizes—is a per se taking. As reaffirmed in Horne II, this categorical duty to compensate applies to personal property just as it does to real property.
2. Total Regulatory Takings: Established in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, this rule applies when a regulation eliminates 100% of the economically beneficial use of a property.
3. Partial Regulatory Takings: This is the “workhorse” category, evaluated under the Penn Central ad hoc test. It applies when a regulation diminishes value but falls short of a total economic wipeout.
4. Land-Use Exactions: Conditions on development permits must meet the Nollan/Dolan standards of “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality.”

Strengthening the Nuisance Exception and the Police Power Loophole

Under the Lucas “prior inquiry” test, there are only three background principles that preclude a taking claim: pre-existing state property law, nuisance law, and uses never part of the original title. “Police Power” is conspicuously absent from this list. The case of Lech v. Jackson serves as a stark warning; when the Tenth Circuit allowed the destruction of an innocent family’s home under the “police power” exception, it allowed a loophole to swallow the rule. Counsel must argue that the police power is the limit of authority, not a “free pass” to disregard the Fifth Amendment.

While per se rules offer clarity, the most predatory operations occur within the “Partial Regulatory” sphere, where the state utilizes “shadow” environments to bypass traditional safeguards.

3. The “Shadow Regulatory Environment”: Public-Private Alliances

In the “shadow regulatory environment,” joint operations between federal agencies (DEA/DOJ) and private entities (insurers) purposefully bypass constitutional safeguards. This environment is defined by “inverse condemnation,” where government conduct cannibalizes business value without a formal filing. These alliances, such as the “James Stewart” operation—a collaboration between Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and the MANTIS task force—function as a coordinated strike against private medical enterprises.

Strategic tools within this environment include:

• Pretextual DEA Audits: Administrative audits utilized as a cover for criminal investigation.
• Extraction of “Involuntary Consent”: Leveraging threats to professional registrations to bypass Fourth Amendment protections.
• Character Manipulation: Framing predatory, targeted actions as mere “regulatory oversight.”

Strategist’s Note: The “shadow” environment is not a policy accident; it is a deliberate attempt to evade per secategorization and force medical practitioners into the grueling Penn Central balancing test, where the government can more easily mask its predatory intent behind the “public interest.”

4. The Penn Central Analysis of Regulatory Investigations

The Penn Central test is the primary mechanism for balancing private rights against the state’s purported public interest. Because most medical practice destructions do not immediately result in a 100% loss of all physical assets, this factor-based inquiry is the essential battleground.

The test utilizes three “factors of particular significance”:

1. Economic Impact: Measuring the financial loss to the owner.
2. Investment-Backed Expectations: Analyzing “distinct” or “reasonable” expectations.
3. Character of Government Action: Distinguishing between a general “adjustment of benefits” and actions that resemble a physical invasion.

The “So What?” of Character and Expectations

Character of Government Action: When the government shifts from legitimate industry adjustment to predatory, public-private “shadow” operations, its character changes from a “public overseer” to a “trespassory invader.” This tactical deviation weighs heavily toward taking.

Investment-Backed Expectations: Medical practices are intangible property. Drawing a parallel to the Monsanto trade secret case, physicians have protected expectations in their professional practice. While the Concrete Pipe decision suggests lower expectations in “heavily regulated” fields, the Monsanto precedent confirms that specific guarantees (like licensure and confidentiality) create property interests that cannot be “taken” without compensation.

The Strategist’s Note on the “Williamson County” Trap: Litigants must beware of the state exhaustion prerequisite. This procedural trap requires owners to seek compensation in state forums first, often leaving them barred from federal relief once the state system is exhausted.

5. Case Study: The Systematic Destruction of Dr. Lesly Pompy’s Practice

The investigation into Dr. Lesly Pompy and his practice (IPMA) is the quintessential example of a regulatory taking of a business enterprise. It is a blueprint for how the “shadow environment” operates to destroy intangible property.

• Physical Taking Elements: The seizure of $750,000 in assets via facially defective bank account warrants constitutes a direct appropriation of personal property under Horne II.
• Character of Action as Tactical Deviation: The use of “pretextual DEA audits” and Investigator Bishop’s “warrantless reentry” into the practice—after it was supposedly secured—shifts the character of the action from regulation to predatory invasion. This is a specific tactical deviation that must be used to trigger Penn Centralliability.

The “So What?” Impact: Despite acquittal on 39 counts, the business was destroyed. This resulted in “battered pain syndrome” for patients cut off from care. This case, alongside that of elite surgeons like Dr. Barbara Marino, proves that the regulatory process itself functions as an uncompensated taking. These individual failures are institutionalized through national exclusionary directories.

6. Systemic Institutional Deviations: The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB)

The NPDB has transformed from a quality assurance tool into a professional “exclusionary directory.” It is a permanent “blacklist” that deprives a physician of their “Liberty Interest”—their protected interest in their career and reputation—without due process.

The State Action Doctrine and the Federalization of Malice

The NPDB is the federalization of private malice. Under the State Action Doctrine, when the federal government adopts and publishes private “corporate verdicts” on federal letterhead, it converts private conduct into state action. This is the “hook” for Fifth Amendment claims; the government cannot launders unverified allegations through federal channels to bypass constitutional constraints.

The Seven Constitutional Voids of the NPDB

1. Lack of De Novo Review: No fresh evaluation of facts by an impartial government adjudicator.
2. Lack of Appeal: “Corporate verdicts” are issued as final with no avenue for judicial correction.
3. Lack of Discovery: Physicians are denied the evidence used against them in the reporting process.
4. Lack of Confrontation: No right to cross-examine accusers or challenge reporting entities.
5. Immunity from Libel: Removal of market-based checks allows for the publication of injurious, unverified information without reprisal.
6. The “Roach Motel” Effect: Engineered for ease of entry; removal of false information is a practical impossibility.
7. Lack of Verification: The federal government abdicates its duty to verify accuracy before global dissemination.

This “Multiplier Effect” ensures that a single report triggers a cascade of administrative peril across the DEA and state boards, keeping the practitioner in a state of perpetual defense and structural unemployment.

7. Conclusion: The Mandate for Constitutional Restitution

The current state of regulatory jurisprudence allows for what Richard Epstein calls “Regulatory Tyranny.” The administrative state is being utilized to achieve redistribution and professional exclusion without paying the constitutional price. We must close the “Police Power Loophole”; the authority of the state (Lech v. Jackson) must not be allowed to “swallow the rule” of the Takings Clause.

The Mandate for Reform:

• Abolish the NPDB: Systems that shield private defamation behind federal authority and bypass constitutional due process must be dismantled.
• Restore Lingle: Courts must recognize that even a valid exercise of police power can “go too far” and necessitate compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment is the final defense against an unaccountable “Shadow Regulatory Environment.” We must resist any doctrine that treats the government’s ability to diminish property value as an inherent right. Restoring the Takings Clause is the only way to curb the aggressive, unaccountable overreach of the administrative state.

🔓 🔓 🔓 

ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE

OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED

FOR NOW you are within

THE NORMS

REFERENCES:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Eii1TikFg