“Attorney John P. Flannery filed an emergency motion to postpone a medical board screening panel for Dr. Mark Ibsen, arguing for due process and protection of free speech rights. The motion contends that dormant complaints against Dr. Ibsen were revived to silence his advocacy for chronic pain patients, citing a past due process violation and the First Amendment. The motion emphasizes the importance of protecting robust speech and the right to public advocacy without fear of retaliation.“
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
RAILROADED AND FIGHTING
“..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…”
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED
FOR NOW you are within
THE NORMS
REFERENCES:
“..In this searing critique, Julie Killingsworth denounces the 2016 CDC opioid prescribing guidelines as evidence-based junk science driven by academic ego rather than rigorous clinical evidence. She argues that influential figures like Jane Ballantyne have weaponized flawed data and arbitrary definitions to conflate legitimate chronic pain management with addiction, effectively abandoning vulnerable patients. By highlighting the lack of recent practical experience among the guidelines’ authors, Killingsworth suggests that these policies represent a naked attempt at intimidation, a destructive ideological crusade that prioritizes anti-narcotic zealotry over the lived reality of incurable suffering. Ultimately, the text serves as a call to expose the corruption and dehumanization inherent in medical protocols that treat complex physical diseases with “shady” academic guesswork..”
THE RUAN DECISION
The provided article discusses the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Ruan v. United States, which fundamentally changed how medical professionals are prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act. The decision established a “good faith” defense, requiring the government to prove a practitioner subjectively knew they were acting without a legitimate medical purpose rather than just making an objective error.
This high legal threshold prevents the DEA and prosecutors from using high prescription volumes alone as definitive evidence of criminal activity. By emphasizing a doctor’s intent to treat, the ruling creates a clear legal distinction between licensed medical providers and illicit drug traffickers. Ultimately, the text argues that this precedent protects physicians from wrongful criminalization caused by aggressive regulatory overreach or medical disagreements.
1. How does Ruan distinguish medical professionals from street drug dealers?
2. Why are pill counts insufficient to prove a doctor’s guilt?
3. What challenges do prosecutors face when proving subjective intent?
THE GOOD FAITH DEFENSE FOR MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
The “good faith” defense for medical practitioners is a legal protection established to ensure that doctors and pharmacists are not criminally prosecuted for medical mistakes made while attempting to treat patients. This defense was significantly strengthened by the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling in Ruan v. United States, yet it was all but ignored by Department of Justice Prosecutions and discarded by Federal Judges such as Chad Kenny.
SUPREME COURT RESTORES THE GOOD FAITH DEFENSE
DECISION OF THE COURT
Download
Key components of this defense include:
- Requirement of Subjective Knowledge: To convict a practitioner under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the government must prove that the defendant “subjectively knew” the prescription was issued without a legitimate medical purpose. It is not enough to show that the doctor’s actions were objectively unreasonable or didn’t meet a specific standard; the government must prove the doctor knew they were acting outside the law.
- Protection Against Medical Mistakes: The sources argue that the DEA often attempts to “criminalize good faith medical mistakes” by treating them as criminal acts rather than professional errors. The “good faith” defense serves as a barrier against this, as criminal negligence cannot be established if the practitioner acted with an “intent to treat” rather than an intent to distribute drugs illegally.
- Evidence Beyond “Pill Numbers”: Under this defense, “numbers alone” (such as high dosages or pill counts) cannot determine if a crime has been committed. Because a practitioner treating severe chronic pain or addiction will naturally have higher prescribing averages, the defense requires the government to look beyond data points and prove the individual’s subjective intent.
- Impact on Prosecutions: This high standard of proof led to the dismissal of cases such as United States v. James Barclay, where prosecutors determined they could not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required by the Ruan decision to establish criminal negligence.
- Distinction from “Drug Dealers”: The Supreme Court decision in Ruan emphasizes that doctors and pharmacists are fundamentally different from street drug dealers because they possess formal education, are registered with the DEA, and prescribe FDA-supervised medications with the legitimate intent to treat illness. The good faith defense protects this professional status by requiring proof of criminal intent rather than just a deviation from a guideline
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RUAN DECISION?
The Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in Ruan v. United States (often cited as Ruan-Khan) has established significant legal hurdles for the government in prosecuting medical practitioners under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). According to the sources, the primary legal implications are:
