UNDERSTANDING ATTY. JOHN FLANNERY’S THREE-PILLAR DEFENSE AND ARGUMENT IN THE UNDISCLOSED NEXUS OF EVIDENCE LAUNDERING BETWEEN D.E.A. & MONTANA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS (BOME) VS. DR. MARK IBSEN, MD, PAIN CARE SPECIALIST: “BOME RUSH-2”

“… 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 ALLOW 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., 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

This section examines Atty. John Flannery’s approach to how the landmark legal precedent established in Kastigar v. United States safeguards a physician’s Fifth Amendment rights during administrative medical board hearings. It highlights that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is not restricted to criminal courts but extends to civil and administrative settings, ensuring that professionals cannot be forced to provide testimony that might jeopardize their liberty. By shielding individuals from revealing direct or derivative evidence, the doctrine prevents federal agencies like the DEA from exploiting investigative leads in concurrent criminal matters. Ultimately, the source argues that medical boards cannot coerce testimony by threatening the loss of a license, as protecting a witness’s silence remains a fundamental liberty interest across all legal venues.

Kastigar Protections in Medical Board Administrative Proceedings

The Kastigar precedent (Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)) applies to Dr. Ibsen’s administrative proceedings in several key ways:

1. Application Beyond Criminal Trials to Civil and Administrative Hearings

• Broad Scope: Justice Powell, writing for the Supreme Court in Kastigar, established that the power to compel testimony is not absolute. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege is not confined to criminal proceedings, but “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal”.
• Direct Application to BOME: Under Kastigar, Dr. Ibsen is fully entitled to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination during state medical board hearings or depositions, even though the Board of Medical Examiners (BOME) is conducting an administrative licensing action rather than a criminal trial.

2. Protection Against Both Direct and “Derivative” Evidence

• Shielding Leads and Sources:Kastigar explicitly holds that the Fifth Amendment protects a witness against disclosures they reasonably believe “could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used“.
• Blocking DEA Exploitation: Because the DEA has filed charges and is conducting an ongoing criminal investigation alongside the BOME proceedings, Kastigar protects Dr. Ibsen from answering BOME inquiries that could furnish investigative leads, uncover sources of evidence, or build a chain of proof for federal criminal prosecutors.

3. Constitutional Foundation Against State Compulsion

• Fundamental Liberty Interest:Kastigar notes that the Fifth Amendment privilege “reflects a complex of our fundamental values and aspirations and marks an important advance in the development of our liberty”.
• Reinforcing Related Precedents:When read alongside Lefkowitz v. Turley (which forbids coercing a waiver of silence under threat of official penalty) and McCarthy v. Arndstein (which protects mere witnesses as fully as party defendants), Kastigar confirms that BOME cannot force Dr. Ibsen to choose between testifying or forfeiting his medical license.

The provided text examines the landmark Supreme Court ruling in McCarthy v. Arndstein, which Atty. John Flannery establishes that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies universally to witnesses in civil and administrative settings. By removing the distinction between a criminal defendant and a mere witness, this legal framework ensures that individuals cannot be forced to provide testimony that might lead to criminal liability during non-criminal proceedings. The source further illustrates this principle through the case of Dr. Ibsen, showing how the ruling interacts with other precedents to block investigative bypasses and protect against coerced evidence. Finally, it outlines the procedural requirement for particularized objections, noting that while the protection is broad, witnesses must still justify their silence on a question-by-question basis to show a legitimate risk of incrimination.

Universal Fifth Amendment Protections for Civil Witnesses

In McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924), the Supreme Court established that the Fifth Amendment privilege “protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant”.

This ruling extends constitutional protections in several key ways:

——————————————————————————–

1. Eliminating the Witness vs. Defendant Distinction

• Equal Protection: Traditionally, Fifth Amendment safeguards are associated with criminal defendants on trial. McCarthyclarifies that the constitutional shield applies with equal force to anyone called as a witness in non-criminal or administrative contexts.
• Protection Outside Criminal Courtrooms:An individual cannot be stripped of their privilege against self-incrimination simply because they are testifying as a witness in a civil action, deposition, or administrative hearing rather than standing trial as a criminal defendant.

——————————————————————————–

2. Overcoming Civil Discovery Compulsion

• Overriding Standard Discovery Rules:While civil and administrative rules generally compel parties and witnesses to appear for depositions and produce documents, McCarthy affirms it as hornbook law that witnesses in civil actions are not required to answer questions that tend to incriminate them.
• Blocking Administrative Bypasses:Regulatory agencies cannot bypass Fifth Amendment guarantees by framing an interrogation as a routine witness deposition or administrative inquiry.

——————————————————————————–

3. Application to Dr. Ibsen’s Defense

• Protection Across Overlapping Proceedings: Because the DEA and the Board of Medical Examiners (BOME) maintain overlapping criminal and administrative inquiries, McCarthy ensures that Dr. Ibsen enjoys full Fifth Amendment protections whether he is questioned as a target, an administrative party, or a witness in discovery.
• Completing the Precedent Trilogy:
  • McCarthy v. Arndstein guarantees that witness status in a civil or administrative setting confers the full privilege against self-incrimination.
  • Kastigar v. United States extends that privilege to cover derivative evidence and investigative leads.
  • Lefkowitz v. Turley bars the state from coercing a waiver of silence under threat of official or professional penalty.

——————————————————————————–

4. Practical Assertion and Procedural Burden

• Requirement for Particularized Objections:Unlike a criminal defendant who may simply decline to take the stand, a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment in civil or administrative proceedings must justify their silence.
• Demonstrating Risk: Under McCarthy and civil practice, the witness must make particularized objections to each specific discovery request or deposition question, demonstrating that the information sought could prove a crime or reveal a source of incriminating evidence.

In this text, Atty. John Flannery outlines the critical constitutional protections that shield medical professionals from unfair administrative and legal actions by regulatory boards. It frames a physician’s license as a significant property interest, which necessitates strict adherence to due process through transparent notice of charges and adequate preparation time. The source specifically highlights the danger of a “Hobson’s Choice,” where a practitioner is unconstitutionally forced to choose between their right against self-incrimination and the preservation of their career. Ultimately, the document serves as a legal framework for defending against procedural violations, such as the use of illegally seized evidence or the withholding of investigative reports.

Constitutional Safeguards for Physician Licensure and Professional Defense

In the context of Dr. Ibsen’s legal defense against the Board of Medical Examiners (BOME) and the DEA, due process rights centre on constitutional protections under the Fifth and Fourth Amendments:

——————————————————————————–

1. Property Interest in a Professional License

• Constitutional Protection: Under the Fifth Amendment (applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment), no individual may be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”.
• Recognized Right: Established law recognizes that a physician holds a cognizable property interest in their professional medical license. Because a license constitutes property, regulatory boards cannot penalize or revoke it without adhering to strict procedural due process standards.

——————————————————————————–

2. Fundamental Fairness and Right to Notice

• Concealment of Charges: Due process guarantees fundamental fairness, which mandates that an individual must be informed of claims, complaints, or evidence held against them.
• Due Process Violations in Dr. Ibsen’s Case:
  • The Board of Medical Examiners received defamatory information and charges filed by the DEA against Dr. Ibsen but withheld this information from him.
  • Withholding the DEA report conceals a hidden agenda and a conflict between an administrative licensing proceeding and a criminal investigation.
• Rushed Proceedings: Due process was further compromised when the Board’s screening panel forced the proceeding forward without granting adequate time for Dr. Ibsen to prepare an effective defense against what is described as a pre-ordained outcome.

——————————————————————————–

3. The “Hobson’s Choice” and Fifth Amendment Protections

• Protection Across All Proceedings: Under Supreme Court precedent (Kastigar v. United States, Lefkowitz v. Turley), the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to civil and administrative proceedings as well as criminal prosecutions. It protects witnesses from answering official questions if the answers might incriminate them in future criminal proceedings.
• Coerced Waiver: Forcing a physician into a Hobson’s Choice—compelling them to choose between maintaining silence to protect against criminal prosecution or testifying to preserve their medical license and livelihood—violates fundamental fairness and constitutes coerced waiver of Fifth Amendment rights.

——————————————————————————–

4. Exclusion of Illegally Seized Evidence

• Fourth Amendment Safeguards: The Fourth Amendment secures individuals and their property against unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures.
• Evidentiary Bar: Documents or effects seized without a warrant are unconstitutionally obtained and subject to suppression. Due process bars the licensing board from relying on wrongly seized evidence or posing questions derived from ill-gotten items.

🔓 🔓 🔓 

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

references:

D.E.A.: A U.S.A. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY ON TRIAL