IN THE MATTER OF DR. MARK IBSEN, MD VS. MONTANA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS BEFORE THE MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY: ‘PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF TO VACATE BOME SUSPENSION’/. COMES NOW AND DO HEREBY STATE;

“..WE ARE NOT POWERLESS, AND THROUGH OUR audios and 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, 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

the civil death warrant:

MEET DOCTOR MARK IBSEN

introduction

This legal document outlines a petition for judicial review filed by Dr. Mark Ibsen against the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners after his medical license was summarily suspended without prior notice or an opportunity to defend himself.

The petition argues that the emergency suspension violates Dr. Ibsen’s constitutional due process rights and forces vulnerable chronic pain patients into dangerous abandonment without access to necessary care.

The accompanying affidavit and exhibits further detail a broader regulatory hostility toward pain management, criticizing government agencies and medical boards for ignoring scientific evidence on patient dependence and for unfairly targeting compassionate physicians.

The filing urges the court to vacate the unconstitutional suspension and provide immediate relief before irreparable harm to the petitioner’s career and his patients.

THE CORE ARGUMENT

Dr. Ibsen’s petition for judicial review lays out several core arguments against the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners (BOME):

• Violation of Constitutional Due Process and Notice Rights: The summary suspension of Dr. Ibsen’s medical license was ordered without prior notice, disclosure of specific factual allegations, or an opportunity to be heard in opposition. This fails to satisfy Montana statutory notice requirements under MCA § 2-4-631 as well as constitutional due process guarantees under the Montana and U.S. Constitutions.
• Vague, “Technical” Claims Without Allegations of Patient Harm: The suspension relies on vague claims concerning three unnamed telemedicine patients located in Alabama, California, and Oklahoma. The petition highlights that BOME does not allege or cite a single improper prescription or instance of improper care regarding any chronic pain patient.

• Justification for Immediate Judicial Review (MCA § 2-4-701): Preliminary judicial review is authorized under MCA § 2-4-701 when waiting for a final agency decision would afford an inadequate remedy. The petition characterizes waiting for a final decision as a “civil death warrant” for Dr. Ibsen’s practice and reputation while immediately abandoning chronic pain patients who are forced to seek care in emergency rooms.

• Agency Bias, Retaliation, and Historical Misconduct: The petition asserts that BOME is driven by an underlying bias against opioid-based chronic pain treatment and is retaliating against Dr. Ibsen for his outspoken advocacy and public criticism. It cites a history of unproven complaints since 2013, including a 2018 court decision where BOME was found to have violated Dr. Ibsen’s due process rights.

• Infringement on Constitutional Dignity and Open Access to Courts: BOME’s summary suspension is framed as an direct attack on Dr. Ibsen’s dignity, property, and character, violating Montana Constitution provisions protecting human dignity (Art. II, § 4), citizen participation (Art. II, § 8), and open access to courts for speedy remedies (Art. II, § 16).
• Interplay with DEA Criminal Investigation: The petition notes that BOME is cooperating with an active DEA investigation, arguing that the civil administrative proceeding should be stayed or suspended while parallel law enforcement investigations are pending.

• Futility of Administrative Remedies: Dr. Ibsen’s counsel requested that BOME staff counsel agree to vacate the summary suspension or hold a separate hearing on the matter. Receiving no response renders seeking further administrative relief directly from the agency futile.

“… Because the legal language—due process, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, compelled testimony, derivative evidence—can sound distant from the examination room.”

DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BOTH U.S. AND MONTANA CONSTITUTION

The legal filings center around several key arguments regarding due process rights under both the U.S. and Montana Constitutions:

• Lack of Statutory Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: Under Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 2-4-631, no license suspension is lawful unless the state agency provides prior notice by mail detailing the specific facts and conduct that justify the action. The petition stresses that the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners (BOME) issued the summary suspension on October 14, 2026, without giving Dr. Ibsen prior notice, disclosing the specific factual allegations beforehand, or offering him an opportunity to present a defense in opposition before shutting down his entire practice.

• Definition as “Fundamental Fairness”: The petition asserts that at its core, due process equates to “fundamental fairness”. The summary suspension relies on vague, “technical” assertions concerning three unnamed telemedicine patients in Alabama, California, and Oklahoma, without providing full disclosure or citing a single improper prescription regarding a chronic pain patient.

• Specific Constitutional Violations: The petition cites multiple constitutional provisions protecting Dr. Ibsen’s rights:
  • U.S. Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments) and Montana Constitution (Art. II, § 17): Guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
  • Montana Constitution (Art. II, § 4): Declares that human dignity is inviolable.
  • Montana Constitution (Art. II, § 8): Guarantees reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in agency operations before final decisions are rendered.
  • Montana Constitution (Art. II, § 16): Guarantees open courts and speedy remedies for injuries to person, property, or character.

• Futility and Denial of Administrative Hearing: Dr. Ibsen’s counsel, John Flannery, directly requested that BOME staff counsel (Taylor Dugan) either agree to vacate the summary suspension or grant a separate administrative hearing on vacating it. BOME’s lack of response leaves Dr. Ibsen with no administrative remedy, forcing him to seek immediate judicial intervention from the District Court under MCA § 2-4-701.

• Historical Pattern of BOME Misconduct: In his affidavit, Dr. Ibsen notes that this is not the first time BOME has infringed on his rights. In 2018, a Montana court officially ruled that BOME had violated his constitutional due process rights during prior disciplinary proceedings after the Board disregarded favorable findings from a hearing examiner and relied on ex parte communications.
• Impact on Patient Rights: Beyond Dr. Ibsen’s professional license, the filings argue that abruptly stripping away medical care restrains patients’ freedom and infringes upon chronic pain patients’ own constitutional due process rights and fundamental fairness.

The DEA Investigation Defense 

The DEA Investigation Defense outlines several critical points regarding the federal agency’s role and Dr. Ibsen’s legal strategy:

• Stay of Civil Administrative Proceedings: The petition notes that the DEA was involved in a grand jury investigation and, following the denial of a discovery request via administrative subpoena, confirmed it was cooperating directly with BOME. Because civil licensing proceedings overlap with an active criminal law enforcement investigation, the defense argues that BOME’s civil proceedings should be stayed or suspendeduntil the DEA concludes its criminal inquiry.
• DEA as the Official Complainant: Exhibit 3 demonstrates that the formal administrative complaint against Dr. Ibsen was submitted directly by the “Drug Enforcement Administration – Diversion Invest” office in Billings, Montana, listing Special Agent Anne Frankenberger as a witness.

• Allegations of Out-of-State Registration Non-Compliance: The suspension order relies on technical claims that Dr. Ibsen prescribed Schedule II controlled substances to telemedicine patients in Alabama, California, and Oklahoma without maintaining separate, state-specific DEA registration numbers in each of those states, citing 21 U.S.C. § 822(e)(1) and 21 C.F.R. § 1301.12.
• Criticism of “Gotcha” Enforcement Tactics: In his affidavit, Dr. Ibsen characterizes the DEA’s methods as a “gotcha” pattern of enforcement. He contends that agents refuse to clearly define what is legally permitted or prohibited, taking the pose that “we are not doctors,” while aggressively targeting doctors whenever prescription volumes appear high.

THE FINAL REQUEST

“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