“..the fight for freedom is one of eternal vigilance.”
…Joan Watson, Detroit, Mi
reported in
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, IN THE SPIRIT OF FOREST TENNANT, MD., 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
In the legal context of professional defense against state licensing boards and law enforcement, a physician’s constitutional protections bridge several distinct constitutional amendments:
1. Property Interest in a Medical License and Due Process
- Constitutional Property Right: Under the Fifth Amendment (applied to state actions via the Fourteenth Amendment), no person may be deprived of “life, liberty or property without due process of law”. Established constitutional law recognizes that a physician holds a cognizable property interest in their professional medical license.
- Notice and Fundamental Fairness: Procedural due process guarantees fundamental fairness, which mandates that a practitioner must receive notice of any claims, complaints, or evidence held against them by regulatory authorities. Concealing law enforcement filings or secret complaints from a licensee violates due process by hiding an underlying administrative-criminal conflict.
2. Fifth Amendment Privilege Across Administrative Proceedings
- Universal Application: The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not restricted to criminal courtrooms.
- Witness Protection (McCarthy v. Arndstein): Under McCarthy v. Arndstein, the Fifth Amendment protects a witness in a civil discovery or administrative proceeding as fully as a party defendant in a criminal case. A physician called to testify in a licensing board deposition retains the full right to decline answering incriminating questions.
- Requirement for Particularized Objections: In administrative and civil contexts, a physician cannot make a blanket refusal to testify; instead, they must raise particularized objections to each specific question, demonstrating how a response could provide incriminating evidence or investigative leads.
3. Protection Against Coerced Waivers and Derivative Evidence
- Barring the “Hobson’s Choice” (Lefkowitz v. Turley): Under Lefkowitz v. Turley, state authorities are barred from using administrative penalties or the threat of license revocation to coerce a witness into waiving their silence. Forcing a practitioner to choose between defending their career and protecting themselves against criminal prosecution constitutes an unconstitutional coerced waiver.
- Shielding Derivative Evidence (Kastigar v. United States): Under Kastigar v. United States, Fifth Amendment protection extends beyond direct admissions to cover derivative evidence. This prevents regulatory boards and federal prosecutors from exploiting administrative disclosures to uncover leads, identify sources, or construct a criminal chain of proof.
4. Fourth Amendment Exclusion of Warrantless Seizures
- Evidentiary Bar: The Fourth Amendment secures individuals, their papers, and their medical records against unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures. Documents or patient files seized by federal agents without a search warrant are unconstitutionally obtained and strictly inadmissible.
- Suppression of Derived Inquiries: Due process bars administrative licensing boards from introducing unlawfully seized evidence or asking deposition questions derived from warrantless searches.
5. Safeguarding Clinical Judgment and Patient Care
- Preserving Individualized Medicine: Protecting a physician’s constitutional rights ensures that regulatory accountability does not bypass fundamental procedural fairness. When due process safeguards are breached, fear becomes the invisible hand guiding medical practice, causing doctors to abandon individualized clinical judgment out of self-preservation.
Sample of a motion to stay proceedings and cease and desist
(not issued by his office, this is only a sample)
Physician Constitutional Safeguards & Precedent Matrix
Here is the Constitutional Protection & Legal Precedent Matrix synthesizing the core legal pillars, Supreme Court precedents, key holdings, and direct applications to Dr. Ibsen’s defense:
| Constitutional Pillar / Supreme Court Case | Core Legal Holding | Practical Application to Administrative & Licensing Proceedings | Impact on Dr. Ibsen’s BOME & DEA Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5th & 14th Amendments: Property Interest in License | A professional medical license is a legally recognized cognizable property interest that cannot be revoked without strict procedural due process. | State regulatory boards cannot penalize or revoke a practitioner’s license without ensuring fundamental fairness, full notice of charges, and adequate opportunity to defend. | Bars the Board of Medical Examiners (BOME) from conducting rushed, pre-ordained screening panels or concealing hidden filings. |
| ***McCarthy v. Arndstein*(266 U.S. 34) | The Fifth Amendment privilege “protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant”. | Extends self-incrimination protections to civil discovery and administrative depositions, overriding standard civil discovery compulsion rules. | Guarantees Dr. Ibsen the right to assert silence during BOME depositions; requires particularized objections to each specific question. |
| ***Kastigar v. United States*(406 U.S. 441) | The Fifth Amendment applies in any civil or criminal proceeding and shields against both direct admissions and derivative evidence. | Prevents administrative bodies from compelling testimony that could furnish investigative leads, uncover evidence sources, or build a criminal chain of proof. | Blocks the DEA and BOME from using licensing inquiries to gather criminal investigative leads or bypass criminal evidentiary standards. |
| ***Lefkowitz v. Turley*(414 U.S. 70) | The government cannot use administrative penalties or official coercion to force a witness to waive their constitutional right to remain silent. | Prohibits state agencies from threatening professional license forfeiture to compel testimony during an active criminal inquiry. | Eliminates the unconstitutional “Hobson’s Choice”—forcing Dr. Ibsen to choose between forfeiting his career or risking self-incrimination. |
| 4th Amendment: Exclusionary Rule & Suppression | Unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures of “persons, papers, and effects” violate the Constitution and render seized materials inadmissible. | Administrative boards are strictly barred from receiving unlawfully seized evidence or posing deposition inquiries derived from warrantless searches. | Suppresses all warrantless DEA seizures and bars BOME from introducing seized records or asking questions based on ill-gotten items. |
Key Takeaways for Defense Strategy
- Integrated Shield: Together, McCarthy, Kastigar, and Lefkowitz form a unified trilogy—McCarthy establishes witness standing, Kastigar blocks derivative leads, and Lefkowitz prevents state licensing penalties from coercing a waiver.
- Procedural Execution: To maintain these protections during depositions, counsel must assert particularized, question-by-question objections showing how each inquiry relies on suppressed Fourth Amendment evidence or creates Fifth Amendment incrimination risks.
“drug dealers in white coats” for what may actually be good-faith medical disagreements or errors..”
…from Ruan vs. United States Case 21-1014
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMs
REFERENCES:
The California Pain Patient’s Bill of Rights, established in 1997, ensures that patients suffering from severe chronic pain have the right to request or reject treatments, including the use of opiate medications, without being subjected to invasive procedures. It emphasizes the patient’s autonomy in pain management and mandates that physicians inform patients about available treatment options.
https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/reference-materials/bill-of-rights
Legalized extortion Angela Greene
