“..WE ARE NOT POWERLESS, AND THROUGH OUR VIDEOS, WRITINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS, WE WILL EXPOSE THE ABUSES AND TYRANNY …JUST AS THE VIDEO WAS RECORDED BY THE CELL PHONE CAMERA OF YOUNG Darnella Frazier, BORE WITNESS TO THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD THE BLOG youarewithinthenorms.com bears WITNESS AND BOTH ALLOWS THE SYSTEM TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE..”
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
Understanding Ruan protections: a unanimous 9-0 u.s. Supreme Court Ruling
a “good faith” medical defense
The Ruan v. United States (often cited as Ruan-Khan) decision was a landmark unanimous 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court that significantly altered the prosecution of medical practitioners under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The ruling established and strengthened a “good faith” medical defense, ensuring that practitioners are not criminally prosecuted for medical mistakes made while attempting to treat patients.
The Subjective Knowledge Standard
The most critical implication of the Ruan decision is the establishment of a subjective knowledge standard regarding a practitioner’s intent.
- Burden of Proof: To secure a conviction, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant subjectively knew a prescription was issued without a legitimate medical purpose.
- Beyond Negligence: It is no longer sufficient to show that a doctor’s actions were objectively unreasonable or deviated from professional guidelines; the prosecution must prove the doctor knew their actions were unauthorized.
Evidence and “Pill Numbers”
The ruling changed the type of evidence required for prosecution, specifically addressing the use of data-mined metrics.
- Insufficiency of Data: The sources state that “going strictly by ‘pill’ numbers is not enough to support a prosecution”.
- Context of Care: Because practitioners treating severe chronic pain or addiction naturally have higher prescribing averages, high dosages or pill counts cannot independently serve as proof of a crime without evidence of the practitioner’s subjective state of mind.
Impact on Prosecutions and Resistance
The high standard of proof required by Ruan has already impacted federal cases, leading to the dismissal of indictmentswhere prosecutors determined they could not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, such as in United States v. James Barclay.
However, the sources also indicate significant resistance to these protections:
- Reported Non-Compliance: One source claims the Ruan ruling is being “ignored by most federal district courts, the DEA, and prosecutors”.
- Judicial Disregard: The “good faith” defense has reportedly been discarded by certain federal judges, such as Chad Kenny, and is “all but ignored” by the Department of Justice.
- Ideological Conflict: This disregard is characterized in the sources as a “naked attempt at intimidation” and a “destructive ideological crusade” that prioritizes “anti-narcotic zealotry” over the legal mandates of the Supreme Court.
Limiting Executive and DEA Authority
The Ruan decision reinforces the concept that the structure of the CSA reflects Congress’s unwillingness to cede medical judgment to executive officials like the Attorney General or the DEA.
- Expertise Matters: Legal arguments following the decision assert that qualified medical professionals—not law enforcement agencies—must determine if a prescription is medically legitimate.
- Challenge to Deference: The ruling suggests the DEA’s internal interpretations of medical regulations may not be entitled to “Auer deference” because the agency lacks clear congressional authorization to make medical judgments.
Distinction Between Doctors and Drug Dealers
The ruling creates a clear legal distinction between DEA-registered practitioners and street drug dealers.
- Intent to Treat: Practitioners possess formal education and a legitimate “intent to treat,” which fundamentally differentiates them from dealers.
- Protection from Prosecution: By requiring proof of criminal intent, the decision protects doctors from being prosecuted as “drug dealers in white coats” for what may actually be good-faith medical disagreements or errors.
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED
FOR NOW YOU ARE WITHIN
Follow along as I make the tie-ins.
THE NORMS
