‘Low in My Vein’
…..Can you feel it moving slow? Something leaving, let it go….There was a weight I couldn’t hold; every silence in my soul. Now it fades into the air, nothing left to carry there…
..Can you feel it start to change …like a tide beneath the vein. Every breath begins to show what we needed to let go. Low in my veins, low in my vein, I can feel it moving through me again. low in my veins, low in my veins, nothing left to hide, nothing to explain… in the silence something moves… pulling me into the truth, no more running from the lie, something hiding deep inside. …
LETTER TO PRESIDING JUDGE CHRISTOPHER ABBOTT
“..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, 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
When Due Process Is Denied, Patients Pay the Price:
The suspension of Dr. Mark Ibsen, the questions Montana must answer, and the human cost of regulatory overreach. At some point, we must stop asking whether the system is working as intended and start asking who, exactly, it’s serving.
Dr. Mark Ibsen’s medical license has been suspended. His patients are facing uncertainty about their care. His attorney, John P. Flannery II, who has represented him throughout this fight, is facing a challenge to his ability to practice law in Montana. And the questions surrounding this case are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
At what point does professional regulation become an exercise of power that demands independent scrutiny?
What happens when a physician is denied a meaningful opportunity to defend himself?
No matter what you are the Best Doctor in the WORLD .  I don’t trust no one but you either.
God be with you.
I won’t give up.”
And who speaks for the patients left to bear the consequences?
I wrote previously about why due process matters because, as a chronic pain patient and advocate, I understand that these proceedings are not confined to legal documents and administrative offices. They reach into examination rooms, homes, and lives already made difficult by chronic illness.
Now that Dr. Ibsen’s license is suspended, those concerns are no longer hypothetical. This is about more than one physician. It is about constitutional protections, the accountability of regulatory institutions, and the people whose medical care depends on decisions those institutions make.
What happened to Dr. Ibsen demands answers?
In a letter addressed to Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and Judge Christopher D. Abbott, pharmacist and advocate Norman J. Clement calls for the suspension to be stayed and for Dr. Ibsen to receive a fair hearing. The account describes a series of events that raise serious questions about the handling of complaints against Dr. Ibsen, the timing of the proceedings, and the fairness of the screening-panel process.
According to the information provided, a DEA agent in Billings filed a complaint with the Colorado Board of Medicine in June 2026. Dr. Ibsen has reported that Montana authorities subsequently revived four older complaints that had reportedly been dormant for approximately two and a half years. He has also described the August 14 screening-panel proceeding as fundamentally unfair, stating that he was not permitted to speak and that no evidence of patient harm was presented.
These are not concerns that should be brushed aside as a physician simply objecting to an unfavorable outcome. Witness accounts supporting concerns about the proceedings make the question of procedural fairness especially important. The Board’s subsequent decision to suspend Dr. Ibsen’s license raises profound questions about the fairness of the process and the evidence on which that decision rested.
A physician’s livelihood, professional reputation, and ability to care for patients should never be taken away through proceedings that fail to provide the fundamental fairness required by law. The Board must be held accountable for its actions. Dr. Ibsen deserves a meaningful opportunity to challenge the suspension, defend his professional integrity, and have the evidence examined through a fair and transparent process. If the proceedings were fair, the record should demonstrate that. If they were not, meaningful remedies must remain available.
The public deserves answers about what evidence was considered, what procedures were followed, what findings were made, and whether Dr. Ibsen was afforded a genuine opportunity to respond.
… every moment drawing near, washing out the weight of fear. We were holding out too long; now it’s gone, now it’s gone..
HOW THE D.E.A. USED THE MONTANA MEDICAL BOARD TO SIDE-STEPS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
THE PROSECUTORIAL LONG HOLY TRINITY PAIN DECEPTION AND MANIPULATION
THE ABC OF THE PHARMACOLOGICAL HOLY TRINITY
!!!Due process is not optional!!!
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The precise protections applicable to a particular licensing proceeding depend on the circumstances and governing law. A medical license is more than just paper. It represents a person’s livelihood, professional identity, years of training, and ability to continue caring for patients.
When that license is suspended, the consequences can be devastating. Medical boards have a responsibility to protect the public. But that responsibility does not place them above constitutional scrutiny. The power to regulate a profession must be exercised within the law. Authority is not proof of justice. A government decision does not become fair simply because a government institution made it.
Dr. Ibsen’s case raises questions that deserve independent examination. When a physician contests a proceeding’s fairness and witness accounts support concerns about how it was conducted, those concerns must be taken seriously. Due process can’t depend on whether the person invoking it is popular, politically convenient, or practicing in a field surrounded by controversy. Constitutional protections matter most when the person asserting them stands up to a powerful institution.
Why does the timing matter?
The reported sequence of events also deserves attention.
According to Dr. Ibsen’s account, a DEA agent filed a complaint with Colorado in June 2026, after which Montana reportedly revived four older complaints. That sequence raises legitimate questions about how the complaints were handled, why they were revisited when they were, and what evidence supported the subsequent proceedings.
Dr. Ibsen and his supporters have raised concerns that regulatory action may be connected to his public advocacy for chronic pain patients. Those concerns should be examined through the documentary record, witness accounts, and the stated reasons for the Board’s actions. The timing alone cannot establish retaliatory intent.
But neither should concerns about potential retaliation be dismissed without investigation. If the proceedings were initiated or accelerated for legitimate regulatory reasons, the Board should be able to explain those reasons. If protected advocacy played an improper role, that would raise an entirely different set of concerns. Public institutions must justify their actions with evidence and lawful procedures, not merely rely on the authority of their offices.
What about John Flannery?
Another troubling development is the reported challenge to John Flannery’s ability to practice law in Montana. Flannery has represented Dr. Ibsen throughout this dispute. The challenge raises questions about the applicable legal requirements, the basis for the action, and its potential implications for Dr. Ibsen’s defense.
The public deserves clarity about those questions. An attorney must comply with the rules governing legal practice, but any dispute over that authority should be resolved through proper procedures. When a physician is fighting to preserve his professional livelihood, effective legal representation matters enormously. The ability to challenge government action is an essential part of meaningful due process.
We should know precisely what legal authority supports the challenge to Flannery’s ability to practice in Montana and how the matter affects his representation of Dr. Ibsen. If the challenge is justified under the applicable rules, those rules should be made clear. If it threatens to impede a client’s ability to defend himself, that concern deserves serious examination.
The integrity of the legal process depends on transparency and fairness, particularly when the opposing parties possess substantial institutional power.
The DEA, prescribing policy, and the consequences of fear, Dr. Ibsen’s supporters have also raised concerns about the influence of federal drug-enforcement priorities on medical licensing and pain treatment. It’s important to distinguish the documented actions in this case from the broader allegation that the Montana Board is acting at the direction of, or is controlled by, the DEA. That specific relationship would require evidence.
But the wider concern is real and deserves attention: what happens when the pressure of drug enforcement becomes so influential that physicians are afraid to exercise legitimate clinical judgment?
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Ruan v. United States addressed the mental-state requirement for certain federal criminal prosecutions involving physicians’ controlled-substance prescribing. It reinforced the importance of examining what a physician knowingly or intentionally did, rather than treating the mere fact of a prescription as sufficient proof of criminal wrongdoing.
That decision does not automatically determine the outcome of a state licensing case. Nevertheless, it is relevant to the broader discussion of how legitimate medical practice is distinguished from unlawful prescribing. When physicians fear losing their licenses or facing criminal scrutiny for treating complex pain, the consequences extend far beyond the physicians themselves.
Some may stop prescribing altogether. Others may refuse patients whose medical histories are complicated or whose conditions require individualized judgment. Still others may feel pressured to choose the treatment that creates the least professional risk rather than the treatment most appropriate for a particular patient. And the patient is left standing in the middle.
Patients are paying the price
This is the part of the story I cannot separate from my own experience. I have a pain-management physician. I have followed treatment agreements, submitted to testing, tried other treatments, and done what has been asked of me. I know what it means to depend on medical care while living with conditions that can’t be reduced to a simple diagnosis or a standardized treatment plan. I know how exhausting it is to repeatedly demonstrate that your needs are legitimate, that you are following the rules, and that you deserve to be treated as a whole human being.
Now consider the patients who have depended on Dr. Ibsen. They are not abstractions in a regulatory dispute. They are people with medical histories, treatment needs, and lives that continue regardless of what happens in a hearing room. If patients are in withdrawal because Dr. Ibsen can no longer treat them, or because they fear what will happen to their treatment, that deserves urgent attention.
Who will take over their care?
Will they be able to find another physician who understands their medical histories?
Will they be required to start over, repeat treatments that have already failed, or endure further delays while trying to establish care?
For some, continuity of care is not a convenience. It is essential to maintaining function, stability, and safety. A patient’s pain does not stop because a physician’s license has been suspended. Their medical conditions do not wait for legal proceedings to conclude. Their need for treatment does not disappear when a regulatory decision is issued.
We can’t claim to protect patients while ignoring the harm that may result when established care is disrupted.
We can’t measure public safety only by what a policy prevents while refusing to count the harm caused by withholding appropriate treatment.
We also cannot treat patients as acceptable collateral damage in a regulatory system that claims to exist for their protection.
“..I carry too much for too many nights; I thought the silence was keeping me safe…but the body remembers what the heart tries to bury …and when the rhythm comes it takes what words cannot..”
Muhamad Aly Rifai is a nationally recognized psychiatrist, internist, and addiction medicine specialist based in the Greater Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.
The larger crisis in chronic pain carE
The concerns surrounding Dr. Ibsen reflect a much broader problem in American medicine. Opioid prescribing guidelines were intended to inform clinical judgment, not to function as inflexible rules for every patient. Yet many patients and clinicians have described situations in which recommendations became rigid limits in practice.
The result is a system in which individual circumstances can disappear behind policies, institutional risk assessments, and fear of regulatory consequences. Some patients have exhausted physical therapy, injections, procedures, non-opioid medications, and other approaches. Some live with complex neurological conditions, connective-tissue disorders, severe injuries, or other illnesses that cannot simply be corrected.
There is no single treatment that works for everyone. Nor should the use of a particular medication automatically determine how a patient is viewed. Physical dependence is not synonymous with opioid use disorder. A patient who takes medication as prescribed may develop physical dependence without having an addiction. These distinctions matter because they affect treatment decisions, clinical relationships, and the dignity with which patients are treated.
The same principle applies to alternative medications. Buprenorphine-based treatments, including Suboxone in appropriate circumstances, have legitimate medical uses, including treatment for opioid use disorder and certain pain-management applications. But no medication is a universal replacement for every other treatment.
Patients deserve individualized assessments, informed consent, and meaningful choices based on their clinical needs.
Again, I don’t want reckless prescribing. I want physicians who know their patients, understand the risks, monitor treatment appropriately, and make decisions based on the whole person. As I’ve always stated, I want safeguards. I want accountability. I want evidence-based medicine. But I also want physicians to be able to recognize that one patient’s circumstances may be fundamentally different from another’s.
That is not a threat to patient safety. It’s the foundation of individualized care.
Who holds the regulators accountable?
This is the question at the center of the entire dispute
Medical boards must be accountable for the procedures they follow. Federal agencies must act within their legal authority. Courts must be able to examine constitutional challenges. And patients must have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about the consequences of policies that affect their care. No institution should be exempt from scrutiny simply because it has been entrusted with an important mission.
If the Board acted lawfully, its actions should withstand independent examination. If the process was unfair, the appropriate remedies should be available. If Dr. Ibsen’s constitutional rights were violated, the court should make a serious legal determination based on the record. If patients are being put at risk by losing established medical care, we must acknowledge and address that harm. These aren’t mutually exclusive concerns.
We can support public safety and demand due process. We can insist on responsible prescribing while recognizing the dangers of undertreated pain. We can hold physicians accountable for actual misconduct without assuming that every controversial prescribing decision is evidence of wrongdoing. What we can’t do is treat institutional authority as a substitute for accountability.
This is bigger than one physician
Today, it is Dr. Mark Ibsen. Tomorrow, it could be another physician. Another clinician might be afraid to make an individualized decision. Another patient could discover that the physician who understands their condition is no longer willing or able to treat them. Another person living with chronic pain could be left wondering whether their needs will ever matter more than the fear surrounding their medication.
That’s why this case deserves public attention. Not because we should accept every allegation without examination, but because the allegations, witness accounts, legal questions, and consequences for patients are too significant to ignore.
I stand with Dr. Ibsen in calling for a fair process, meaningful scrutiny of the Board’s actions, and the opportunity to challenge the suspension through the appropriate legal channels.
I stand for the right of John Flannery to have the legal issues surrounding his representation resolved fairly under the applicable rules.
And I stand with the patients who are now facing uncertainty about their futures.
I am not asking anyone to abandon accountability. I am asking that accountability apply in every direction. I’m asking that the evidence be examined, the procedures be scrutinized, and the constitutional rights of those involved be respected.
DUE PROCESS IS A CLINICAL SAFEGUARD
Most importantly, I am asking that patients not disappear from this conversation. Because the ultimate measure of a medical system isn’t simply how many rules it enforces or how many prescriptions it prevents. It’s whether the system can protect people without abandoning those who are sick. Whether it can demand accountability without sacrificing fairness, and whether it can recognize that withholding appropriate treatment can cause real harm.
Injustice doesn’t become justice because it arrives in an official order. A patient’s suffering doesn’t become acceptable because it is an unintended consequence. Constitutional protections don’t become optional because an institution believes its mission is important. The question is no longer simply what happens to Dr. Ibsen. It’s what happens to every patient watching this unfold and wondering whether any physician will risk treating them.
If fear replaces clinical judgment, if due process becomes an obstacle rather than a safeguard, and if institutional authority goes unquestioned, we will not have made medicine safer. We’ll have made care harder to obtain, physicians more afraid to provide it, and patients more vulnerable to the consequences. That’s not a future we should accept without challenge.
Justice requires more than the power to make decisions. It requires the willingness to justify them, the discipline to follow the law, and the humanity to recognize who will live with the consequences. And in this case, those consequences are being felt by real people in pain.
…So I agree I let it move. I let it lead. I let it go oooooooh oooooooh low in my veins, low in my veins, I can feel it moving through me again.. Low in my veins, low in my veins, nothing left to hide, nothing to explain… Just breathe, let it go, disappear..
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.
REFERENCES
