“..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..”
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
emergency motion filed by attorney John P. Flannery on behalf of Dr. Mark Ibsen,
This legal document is an emergency motion filed by attorney John P. Flannery on behalf of Dr. Mark Ibsen, requesting a thirty-day postponement of a medical board screening panel. The primary purpose of the filing is to secure the physician’s constitutional right to due process, arguing that he must be allowed to review and refute allegations before the board makes a “charging decision.”
Flannery contends that the sudden revival of dormant complaints constitutes an unfair “rush to judgment” that may be a retaliatory effort to chill free speech following the doctor’s public advocacy for chronic pain patients. Ultimately, the text seeks to transform a secretive.
DUE PROCESS PROTECTS PROFESSIONAL LICENSE AND REPUTATION
Due process protects “property” interests, which in this case includes Dr. Ibsen’s professional license and reputation. Citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., the motion explains that property is an “individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except for cause”. Additionally, the Supreme Court case Board of Regents v. Roth is cited to emphasize that “liberty” and “property” are “broad and majestic terms” that extend beyond the ownership of physical goods to the “whole domain of social and economic fact”
The Board committed a significant error approximately 14 years ago during a previous proceeding involving Dr. Ibsen
According to the motion, the Board committed a significant error approximately 14 years ago during a previous proceeding involving Dr. Ibsen. In that instance, the Board ignored and struck favorable findings that a Hearing Examiner had made regarding Dr. Ibsen.
The details of this error and its resolution include:
- Due Process Violation: Dr. Ibsen challenged the Board’s adverse finding in State Court. The court ruled that the Board had reviewed the Hearing Examiner’s report inappropriately, which constituted a violation of due process.
- Reversal of License Suspension: Because of this violation, the State Court reversed the Board’s decision to suspend Dr. Ibsen’s license to practice medicine.
- Court-Ordered Remedy: The court directed that a second, “objective, detached and [a] qualified hearing examiner” be appointed to review the case.
- Final Outcome: This second examiner found the original findings of fact and the experts’ assessments to be correct. Consequently, the original favorable finding was upheld.
The motion cites this “stumble into error” to argue that the current Board must be cautious and avoid a “too casual a review” of Dr. Ibsen’s due process rights in the current matter.
Free Speech Rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, are being compromised in the case of Dr. Mark Ibsen.
A professional license must never function as a leash to silence a citizen’s criticism of government policy. The timing of the Board’s actions against Dr. Ibsen—following a two-year dormancy—suggests an attempt to “chill” his speech regarding the plight of chronic pain patients. Dr. Ibsen engaged in two specifically protected forms of expression:
- Public Addresses: Speaking out on the medical and social crises facing abandoned pain patients.
- Lobbying: Meeting with members of Congress on Capitol Hill to advocate for legislative reform.
These rights ensure that the fear of losing a property interest (the license) does not force a professional into a state of self-censorship.
The motion argues that Free Speech Rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, are being compromised in the case of Dr. Mark Ibsen. Specifically, the motion alleges that the timing of the Board’s proceedings appears calculated to “chill” his right to disagree with the Board’s underlying policies.
Key aspects of the free speech argument presented in the sources include:
- Retaliatory Timing: Counsel for Dr. Ibsen suggests a correlation between Dr. Ibsen’s public advocacy and the emergence of complaints against him. Notably, after Dr. Ibsen recently met with members of Congress to lobby on behalf of chronic pain patients—an effort that received media coverage—additional complaints were added to the screening panel’s docket.
- Protection of Robust Speech: The motion emphasizes that the “true value of free speech is that it protects robust speech,” which may be “rough to hear” or uncomfortable for those in power. It asserts that the Founders prioritized free speech as the “first right in the Constitution”.
- Right of Access and Comment: Montana is noted for creating an access point for citizens to be heard by their government. The motion argues that it is a constitutional right for the public to comment on policy, such as the handling of chronic pain patients, even if their appeals are emotional or “not ‘comfortable'” for public servants to hear.
- Public Advocacy as a Catalyst: Dr. Ibsen has spoken continuously about what he perceives as a “broken” process and policy regarding patient care. The motion contends that he has a right to this public address without facing administrative actions that seem “outcome determinative” or intended to “rock the boat” of his advocacy.
The Constitution protects these activities through the True Values of Free Speech:
- Protection of Robust Speech: The First Amendment protects speech even if it is “rough to hear” or “uncomfortable” for public servants. It is a fundamental right to express emotion and disagreement with public policy.
- Constitutional Right of Access: Montana law specifically creates an “Access Point” for citizens to be heard. When a board retaliates against a professional for speaking out, they effectively close that access point and violate the right to comment on government policy without fear of “outcome-determinative” punishment.
!!HANDS OFF OUR DR. IBSEN!!
Conclusion:
Constitutional protections exist to ensure that the “rush to judgment” of a screening panel does not replace the rule of law.
We must remain vigilant because, as Justice Stewart famously noted in Board of Regents v. Roth, the founders of this nation knew “that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.” These protections are designed to evolve and endure, ensuring that the professional’s right to practice, to speak, and to be heard remains a fundamental pillar of a free society.
Ultimately, the motion posits that public servants have a duty to ensure that citizens who express strong sentiments—especially those who feel they have been hurt by public policy—feel heard and treated fairly, which is the fundamental request Dr. Ibsen is making through this motion. The First Amendment and the Professional Advocate.
🔓 🔓 🔓
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
So it was that the bison came upon a family of mice who were all sick, but they had nothing with which to pay for the doctor’s aid. “But without my care, your children will die. I must help, it is my duty,” he said.
Without a thought, the doctor gave them his aid, one after the other, and each mouse he healed was grateful. Soon, however, he began to tire and eventually became exhausted, yet still more mice came. “Surely, though, this deed will be worth it in the end,” he thought, and strengthened his resolve.
