Julie Fellmeth’s methods of dark politics and media manipulation

The Diversion Program of California was hijacked by David Thornton, former Director of the California Medical Board. David Thornton appointed stealth Trial Lawyer Lobbyist Julie Fellmeth of CPIL as Diversion Monitor. Her 20 years of animosity towards Physicians and Diversion was legitimized and memorialized in her November 2004 biased audit. That is equivalent to hiring David Duke to audit the NAACP. Julie Fellmeth is a Lobbist for the Trial Lawyers, hiding behind the title of Consumer Advocate Lawyer. Fellmeth has a collaborator named Tina Minasian, who in turn has a victim posse she trots out to Hearings . Tina had a lower body lift. She was given written and verbal instructions not to resume smoking or put on weight. She did, then blamed and sued the MD for malpractice. It was as if she took her best pants in for alteration, put on enough weight to rip the seems, then wanted to hang the tailor. She lost the case. Her complaint to the Medical Board was investigated and thrown out. She set up a complaint soliciting web site regarding Target Physician, and would pressure and harangue callers to make false complaints to the California Medical Board, assuring them that filing false complaints carried no risk at all. The former Executive Director of the California Medical Board appointed Fellmeth as Enforcement Monitor. What Mrs Julie Fellmeth claims was the result of an “open and competitive” process was in fact done in secret w/out the knowledge of other more capable people. Please see the following websites which explains much of what has happened:

www.mbcconspiracy.blogspot.com Information on what happened to the California Diversion Program

www.standingup4truth.blogspot.com Information on the “Target Physician”

www.mbccorruption.blogspot.com Information about David Thornton, the former Director of the California Medical Board

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL harms children!

As cited on the MBC website under minutes: …stated that part of the mission of the Medical Board is the objective enforcement of the Medical Practice Act. She stated that when disciplinary action is taken because of choreographed hoax victims teamed with special interest lobbyists and media ambush teams, there is no justice and no objective enforcement. When a revocation is pre determined due to personal animus, the mission becomes a sham. Patient protection is harmed when the process is co-opted. She stated that she and her family were harmed because of vindictive enforcement taken by the Board. She introduced her children and stated that she and her children had been harmed for seven years due to actions of the Board.

Julie Fellmeth and friend Liz Figueroa both have a problem with the truth

In 2003, then Senator Figueroa, with the assistance of Ed Howard, passed legislation that was the beginning of the end for the Physician Diversion Program and the creation of the Medical Board Enforcement Monitor position for Mrs.Fellmeth. The EF qualifications were designed so only Mrs.Fellmeth would be eligible. Today, she trumpets the EF position was awarded as a result of “open, competitive bidding”. She never mentions that Ed Howard is a CPIL Lobbyist and member of the CPIL satff. Ms.Figueroa is a member of the Board of Public Citizen, chaired by Robert Fellmeth.

Apparently, Ms.Figueroa has a truth issue in other areas, too.

http:www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/liz-figueroa-lies-about-her-residence/Content?oid=1854300

Recent tabloid articles by ProPublica, usually a respected Public Interest Journalism source, on these issues appears more like a CPIL conduit. It seems timed to support the budget request by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for $30,000,000+ to add enforcement positions and make the process of enforcement less encumbered by Due Process or Equal Protection for Healing Arts practitioners. The financial gain for Mrs.Fellmeth and CPIL should be out in the open (eg. What’s her involvement in the DCA “Enforcement Academy” and what is she being paid?).

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL – Trying to hide the Truth by joining several social networking sites!

Did Julie Fellmeth and Robert Fellmeth of CPIL hire Reputation Defender? Google Julie Fellmeth. Look at ALL the social networks Julie has recently joined. Why hide Julie? What is it that you are affraid of? The truth?

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL is the Abramoff of California Politics

Here is more commentary about the corrupt DCA and company:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/24/2911778/former-speaker-bass-retains-drivers.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1544188#Comments_Container

Karen Bass, Rosario Marin, Carrie Lopez, and Liz Figueroa are all proven to be corrupt government officials. Look at their connections and to whom they are beholden. The California Department of Consumer Affairs and Julie Fellmeth is the common thread between these criminals. Julie is the Abramoff of California politics. Where is Gerry Brown? Oh, right; he is defending them and running for governor. Where is the Federal Judiciary? Oh, right; they are unprosecuting Shirley Sherrod.

Mission Hijacked by Lobbyist

Mission Hijacked by Lobbyist

“The mission of the Medical Board is to protect health care consumers through the proper licensing and regulation of physicians and surgeons and certain allied health care professions and through the vigorous, objective enforcement of the Medical Practice Act, and to promote access to quality medical care through the Board’s licensing and regulatory functions.”

Most of the key elements in this mission statement of the Medical Board of California (MBC) have been unwittingly ceded to the lobbyist for The Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL). The hijacked components include, “…protect health care consumers,” “objective enforcement” and the promotion of “access to quality medical care.”

Public Protection
Demonizing doctors recovering from alcohol or drug problems is dated but very easy. Merely offering untruthful scenarios of patient harm grabs the attention of the salacious media. The story of any recovering doctor possibly doing something wrong is fascinating. The story of a thousand recovering doctors doing everything right isn’t worth a side bar on page eight. Untrue allegations of one doctor supposedly doing something bad warrants page one. Mobilizing professional victims and paranoid litigators and chauffeuring them into Medical Board meetings is colorful and scintillating. CPIL’s lobbyist has attended every Board meeting and repeated these themes. The result is that the Board is unduly influenced and like the repeating scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, has been taken over, implanted with falsehoods and aggrandized dramas.
The truth is that the very nature of the Physician Health and Diversion programs is prevention of physician impairment and possible patient harm. Early intervention prior to the risk of harm is the focus of these programs nationwide. The real risk of patient harm results from delayed intervention. Physicians with potentially impairing illness, at an early stage, typically function at a high level for a decade or more before impairment is evidenced. The existence of illness does not mean impairment is present. Taking away early intervention through the likelihood of adverse disciplinary action tends toward delayed diagnosis and increased risk. The Medical Board’s Mission to protect the public, therefore, is best served by a system that encourages early diagnosis and treatment. . The Medical Boards idea of a ‘proactive’ approach – combining “just say no” with educating medical students about Licensing consequences – while well intended, is minimally helpful. Unfortunately for the consumer, the Board has expressed a belief these miniscule steps will eliminate the problem.

OBJECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT
When CPIL works with other parties to, 1) solicit false Complaints, 2) divert Board resources away from legitimate Investigation and Enforcement activities, and 3) effectively pressure the Board to discipline ill doctors simply to avoid bad press, this results in a very dangerous, destructive and unjust process. As a nation, we suffer collectively when we discover such things as abuse of prisoners, justification for torture and the stripping of Civil Rights. Likewise do we suffer when we learn of doctors being harmed in this way by the Board? The case of the CPIL targeted physician is not an example of a bad doctor being disciplined, but an innocent man and his family persecuted and harmed by those who claim to protect the Public. The Target is the most investigated doctor in the entire history of the Medical Board. CPIL’s lobbyist continuously hounds the Board to Revoke his License. Dozens upon dozens of contrived Complaints have been filed and costly investigations conducted. The Deputy Attorney General (the Board’s own Prosecutor) even told the Board there wasn’t a single valid Complaint of patient harm by the Target. In spite of that, the Board was pressured into demanding a lengthy show trial and informed the Administrative Law Judge they wanted a License Revocation. The Board got a very harsh and questionable Decision; but since it wasn’t harsh enough, they simply Non-Adopted the Decision. The patient harm issue? One patient, prior to the Target’s entry into the Diversion recovery process had a breast reconstruction and got matched “c” cups versus the “d” cups she expected (six years after her surgery she filed a Complaint, and in 2001 she sued and her suit was dismissed with prejudice for no evidence of malpractice). That is it; as far from Objective Enforcement as can be imagined. Ultimately, after the Non-Adoption all for show Hearing, the Medical Board did revoke the license of the Target. While an expensive Appeal is available, the Board has communicated its intention to file additional Accusations and reject any favorable legal outcome by the Court. In February 2009, for example, the Board refused to accept the Target’s monthly payments for required Probation monitoring fees. Why on earth would they do that? Simply put, the Board planned to file another Accusation for failure to pay the required fees, a violation of Probation.
There is an old saying, “the victors write the history books”. All the public Enforcement documents on the Target will remain for all to view. CPIL will quote the most salacious and libelous of those to support their position that doctors in Diversion harmed patients. Those who read them and believe them will conclude he was a bad guy. There will be no rebuttal, and no factual “other side “presented. This public use of hyperbolic prosecutorial writing represents both an early victory for CPIL, and a continuing effort to demonize doctors through the publication of solely adversarial documents. CPIL now demands ALL complaints be published on the Medical Board web site and posted in the doctor’s place of employment. As usual, no rebuttal or other side allowed. The real potential for malicious abuse is obvious.

When the Board had a Diversion Program, there were doctors who faced Discipline for things like DUI’s, diverting drugs for personal use, and unauthorized use of scheduled substances. These cases were thoroughly and professionally investigated by the Board. If there was no patient harm and the doctor was cooperative, the doctor was directed away from Discipline into the Diversion program so they could get the help they needed and the process monitored. The doctor’s participation in Diversion was confidential, even though the full situation was known to the Board. Some parties had concerns over this level of confidentiality. Most States have a confidential tract for those who enter voluntarily in the absence of patient harm, and most states have Boards that refer without formal disciplinary action. In California, referrals from disciplinary action have always been public. CPIL and its media Lobbyist, KSR Strategy Group, incite Populist outrage over this topic. Manipulating the press and exciting the lynch mob is easy. The modern day version of the “off with their heads” approach can resonate with an uninformed or misinformed public. However, prior to the creation of Physician Health and Diversion programs, that was the rule. It was a counter productive approach that placed patients at risk.
When the only option for a doctor with a potentially impairing illness such as substance use disorder, psychiatric illness, etc. is discipline, the doctor is driven underground and afraid to acknowledge a problem. Those close to the doctor – friends, family, medical partners, and others – are reluctant to report since they don’t want to cause the doctor more problems. When a program exists that allows the doctor to receive help without fear of professional sanction or loss of livelihood, doctors are intervened on well before their illness reaches a state of being a potential risk to patients. In this more enlightened and accepted scenario, an otherwise excellent physician is salvaged and the public is protected. There are examples in other states that saw their referrals increase over 400% when they made a transition from a punitive to a supportive system.
This writer’s personal experience is a case in point. Working in a Los Angeles County hospital Alcoholism unit in the early 70’s, the patient population represented “the cream of skid row”. They were advanced in their illness, yet had a real potential for rehabilitation. There were former doctors among them. The stunning similarity of their stories is quite illustrative:
1. They all had the skid row nickname of “doc”.
2. They all had been highly skilled and respected doctors for many years.
3. Because the Board would revoke their License if it was known they had a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, they were all professionally hidden.
4. Eventually, their illness progressed to the point that even those hesitant to report could no longer keep the secret.
5. They all lost everything – family, career, social and legal standing. They were all consumed with guilt and shame, and subsequently deteriorated to a skid row existence.

6.Most rehabilitated and once again became productive members of society. Others died.

If CPIL gets their way, this scenario will be the norm. Along the way, CPIL will keep their hands in California’s wallet, while trumpeting their virtuousness, and pointing their vicious rhetoric at doctors in recovery. CPIL seeks, without understanding, to destroy what has been carefully developed and proven successful around the country. Their vision would set California back 30 years.

Finally, the Board has a responsibility to PROMOTE ACCESS TO QUALITY MEDICAL CARE in California. By withdrawing support for any kind of Physician Health or Diversion program, they limit this important objective. Currently, there are no Addictionologists or Addiction Psychiatrists among the Board Members, with a resultant lack of knowledge about the illnesses of Alcohol or Drug Dependency. Outside these groups, few doctors were trained to recognize, intervene and treat addictive illness. The Board’s lack of understanding in this arena of health care is problematic.
We must not mismanage and marginalize physicians with addictive illness. Through their personal treatment and recovery, they become experts in identifying and managing addictive illness. They provide superior care to their patients with these disorders. Through their acquired knowledge, they recognize the illness earlier than their untrained peers, and are able to intervene. The Nation’s health care costs are adversely impacted by undiagnosed and untreated addictions. Patients are damaged when doctors are reluctant to diagnose and treat the core problem that causes illness accident and organ damage. Family members also are adversely impacted when their addict isn’t diagnosed and treated.
Addictive illness affects about 10% of the American population. Our nation spends about $375 Billion dollars per year on these illnesses but, unfortunately, 99% of those monies go to failed policies on interdiction, incarceration, and cleaning up the mess. Our nation spends less than 1% of the money on education, prevention and treatment combined, although a study by Kaiser Permanente demonstrated that for every dollar we spend on education, prevention and treatment, we save $7 in services down the road. Who will lead America out of this abyss if not those who have recovered from the illness themselves?
Again, the author draws on decades of professional experience to illustrate the point. Running chemical dependency units in large and respected Medical Centers required the training of the Attending Staff Physicians. One particular training technique was very

useful: many patients who were treated on the unit had been long term patients of the Attending Staff and had multiple previous hospitalizations. We would bring a medical chart, comprising a 3 volume or more pile of documents, and review the obvious. Repeated notes of alcohol related damage and nothing related to alcoholism itself. Yet all the major medical problems were consequences of untreated alcoholism. The doctors were reluctant to bring up the issue, either due to having the 1) moral defect notion of alcoholism, or 2) believing an alcoholic not living on skid row wasn’t an alcoholic.

The British Medical Journal published a report of the efficacy of state physician health programs in its 11/08 issue. Sixteen states PHPs studied demonstrated a 78% total abstinence at an average of 7.2 years of monitoring. With further treatment for their illness for those who did relapse, the success rate exceeded 90% at five years. Of the 904 recovering doctors studied, there was one (1) incident of patient harm – over prescribing. What other chronic illness management offers that level of success?
Any system that takes a reflexively prejudicial stance and punitive approach to doctors in need of help diminishes the value and access of these practitioners to patients who need them. It is of paramount importance that California has a vibrant, healthy Physician Health Program. Such programs are an invaluable resource for the ill physician, the medical community and, most important, the patients we all serve.

FELLMETH FRAUD EXPOSED, AGAIN!!

“April 13, 2009

Patricia Harris, Acting Executive Director

Department of Consumer Affairs

1625 North Market Blvd Suite N112

Sacramento, CA 95834

RE: California Senate Bill 1441

Dear Ms. Harris:

I have watched with interest the situation with the Physicians Health Program in ill physicians as well as the communities they serve.

I am disturbed to hear that Registered Lobbyists for CPIL have offered what, on its surface, has the appearance of deliberately misleading and unfounded opinions.

I have served as Medical Director of the Mississippi Professionals Health Program (MPHP) since 1998. Prior to this Program’s modernization, Mississippi took a very punitive/disciplinary approach to any physician identified as having either addictive illness or psychiatric illness. Pre-1998, our Program received about 18 referrals per year, all of whom had been subjected to the board disciplinary process. There existed in our state an atmosphere of fear and silence. Potentially impaired physicians remained hidden with those in the best position to assist them were hesitant to do so.

Once the Mississippi Professionals Health Program came into effect and afforded physicians an avenue by which they could receive assistance without threat of adverse disciplinary action and public embarrassment, our Program saw referrals increase over 480%. In my 10 years experience with this Program, I am pleased to say that there have been no instances of patient harm by a monitored physician in our Program. This is in line with the data reported in the Domino Study a few years ago and more recently in the 11/08 British Medical Journal’s report of 16 state physical health programs. This recent study followed 904 monitored physicians an average of 7.2 years. It saw 78% of these physicians complete the monitoring without relapse. There was one (1) report of patient harm (over prescribing).

The public is best protected with a viable, healthy professionals health program is in existence to assist physicians with potentially impairing conditions. Illness and impairment exists on a continuum. The presence of illness does not in and of itself imply impairment. In fact, illness may precede overt impairment by decades.

For more information on the Federation of State Physician Health Program’s Public Policy regarding this matter, please refer to the Federation’s website.

Unfortunately, the public’s perception of recovering physicians, fueled by groups such as Citizens Advocacy Committee and the CPIL, create an atmosphere of public fear that is not supported by the data. It is my understanding that CPIL’s poster child, Brian West, M.D. did not, in fact, actually harm anyone while in the CA Diversion Program. I do not know the facts of this case but assuming that it is true, it is noteworthy.

I trust that cooler heads in California will prevail and re-establish a professional health programs to bring it back in line with what is occurring nationally and internationally. The citizens of California will be better served if this is accomplished.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Sincerely,

 

Gary D. Carr, M.D., FAAFP

Diplomate ABAM

Medical Director, MPHP”

Click here to see letter

Non-Adoption: When the Punishment For No Crime Is Not Severe Enough

Non-Adoption: When the Punishment For No Crime Is Not Severe Enough

Most people will read the negative Press on the Target Physician, Non-Adoption, and will assume he got a fair trial. They will infer he had all the Civil Rights due an American citizen, and was allowed a full defense. After all, that is what the majority believe about the American Judicial system. However, they’d be wrong.

When someone earns an MD License in California, they get double jeopardy, or in the case of the Target Physician, triple jeopardy.

The Decision in the case of the Target Physician was Non-Adopted by the Medical Board of California (MBC). He was found to have committed gross negligence in the care of one patient. “Gross Negligence” – that sounds awful. Did he remove the wrong limb or organ? Did the patient die or become permanently disabled? NO!! She doesn’t like the size and shape of her breasts! After dozens of false accusations and Complaints of killing and maiming patients, that’s it!

The Target Physician has been the target of a disgruntled former patient, the D’Angelo Fellmeth family business (CPIL), and a questionable reporter for CBS/Sacramento. They have worked together to damage him in every way possible. D’Angelo Fellmeth used him to destroy the Physician Diversion Program . The reporter got awards. The former patient, who works for the reporter, lost her lawsuits and Appeals. All she gets is the opportunity to appear on TV with Mrs. Fellmeth and at Medical Board meetings with her lynch mob. Mrs. Julie Fellmeth used the good name and official publications of the University of San Diego to claim the Target Physician, while in the Diversion Program, harmed patients. However, this particular case occurred prior to his entry into Diversion. All of the other solicited false Complaints were investigated and thrown out for no merit.

How does double jeopardy apply here? The undisputed facts are : The Target Physician got two DUIs. Period. For MDs and non-MDs, that means having to deal with criminal Prosecution, defense and legal consequences. His DUI’s did not result in harm to others. He paid the price for his mistakes. This is where the double jeopardy arrives. With two DUI’s , an MD gets in trouble with the Medical Board. The Board has access to this information, and investigates whether there was harm to the public, or if this affected patient care. Defending against an Accusation by the Board is a very expensive, prolonged and painful process. It is also judicially lob-sided. The defenses afforded a criminal defendant are denied to MD’s. For example, the Target Physician was not allowed to bring up 1) the patient continued to see him after her breast surgery to consider additional unrelated procedures, and 2) the fact that the patient was connected to the disgruntled former patient who solicited false complaints. This hurt the Target Physician in two ways. First, these fact do not appear anywhere in the record. Second, by suppressing this information, the opposing Attorney was able to impune the Target Physician’s documentation of satisfaction expressed by the patient with his care.

Now there is triple jeopardy for the Target Physician. D’Angelo Fellmeth and company have made a mockery of Public Interest and Consumer Protection here. They routinely attack all Regulatory Boards, but the Medical Board has been a particularly profitable target for the Fellmeths. Mrs. Fellmeth appears regularly at Board meetings to chastise the Board, while simultaneously seeking lucrative Enforcement Monitor appointments. She is tireless in her efforts to reduce or eliminate the Civil Rights of Doctors. With her media Lobbyist, she plants insightful stories to pressure the Board to seize as many Licenses as possible. Using the old Ralph Nader techniques (Robert Fellmeth was a protégé of Ralph Nader in the 60’s), of creating voluminous, soporific reports combined with “purple prose rhetoric,” they have been effective in creating a false sense of risk and danger. Or as Mrs. Fellmeth likes to put it, “All doctors are dangerous!”

So now, the Target Physician faces triple jeopardy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gave the Target Physician a one year extension of Probation, a 30 day Suspension and a requirement to take the PACE program at UC San Diego. The PACE Program evaluates the competence of doctors. This Decision, in perspective, is a harsh but not devastating outcome. However, the Board, by it’s positing of Non-Adoption, wants to Revoke the Target Physician’s License to protect itself from further criticism. Often, Non-Adoption is used simply to financially break a doctor and force them to give up the fight. Appeals can cost millions and take years, while the doctor is deprived of their livelihood.

Young MD’s have no idea how a minor misdemeanor or even a family law issue can jeopardize their License. This dark factoid is not mentioned in Medical School. In the case of the Target Physician, the Consumer Protection Movement is severely damaged by such untruthful attacks and dark politics. Taking away the Licenses of decent, capable doctors is in no way in the Public Interest.

Robert Fellmeth – Public Interest Law – NOT! or (Get Real Mr. Fellmeth)

Itzel Berrio
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Response to Comments of the Center for Public Interest Law on Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure Regarding the Alternative Discipline Program on March 17, 2008

Dear Ms. Berrio :

Robert Fellmeth’s critique of the ADP has an all too familiar tone and agenda. He offers up his usual unchallenged attack, full of questionable and soporific detail, combined with an a priori position against the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP). This bait and switch approach of questioning ADP is merely a platform to attack LAP. This is typical Fellmeth/D’Angelo family business, protected under CPIL’s banner of public interest.

The methods used by CPIL to first demean, then demolish the Medical Board of California (MBC) Physician Diversion Program are now focused on LAP. The first and foremost tool is the repeated Big Lie. Fellmeth states their “audit “ revealed physicians in Diversion “harmed patients”. This is a cornerstone or Pillar of CPIL’s “Judicious Jihad”. After 25+ years of failed attempts to find a single instance of harm to a patient by a physician in Diversion, CPIL made one up. Using a disgruntled former patient whose lawsuits were thrown out of Court numerous times, CPIL established a Target Physician as emblematic of the Program’s failure to protect the public. The former patient combined her efforts with a CBS/Sacramento reporter to create and finance a false Complaint soliciting web site. With the help of CPIL’s media lobbyist, they developed inciteful stories which they gave to lazy, uncritical press organizations, stating a doctor who killed and harmed patients was allowed to continue to practice . These fed articles were then re-cycled by CPIL to create pressure on the MBC to end the Program.

In October of 2008, the Administrative Hearing of the Target Physician (the target physician of the 2004 Report ) ended. Highlights in the Hearing included prosecution witnesses testifying 1)they were pleased with the care and outcome of the Target Physician’s work , 2) they called the Complaint soliciting web site out of curiosity and were contacted by the disgruntled former patient, and 3) the former patient came to their homes, wrote out a false Complaint which she had them sign. The former patient told them to file a Complaint on behalf of those who were harmed, and that there was no risk in filing a false Complaint. At the Hearing, the Deputy Attorney General informed the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ,) that they were aware the Complaints were “contrived”.

So when Fellmeth writes about “abuses that have resulted at the hands of Physician participants in that program” we must look at the actual facts. Neither Robert nor Mrs. Julie d’angelo Fellmeth has EVER produced a single, legitimate victim.

However, CPIL was able to successfully promote and promulgate the notions of “zero tolerance” and “enforceable standards” along with their rigged “audit” in the attack on Diversion. Their “audit” of 2004 was in no way a valid audit. The lucrative appointment of Mrs. Julie Fellmeth as Enforcement Monitor was the result of a shady back door process. Shady and back door, due to the fact that the application process was hidden from more qualified parties until after Mrs. Fellmeth was appointed. An audit, to be valid, uses established benchmarks and the auditor is objective. The 2004 Report met neither of these criteria. A “zero tolerance” approach allowed CPIL to condemn the drug testing component altogether after finding a lone graduate who acknowledged “gaming” it (in fact, he eventually was detected, an appropriate intervention was made, and no patient harm occurred). CPIL’s application of “zero tolerance” could be effectively used to shut down any human endeavor.

CPIL attempted to equate any positive test result with a Relapse and condemn the program for not ejecting participants. As anyone with even the most basic substance abuse education knows, a detected positive isn’t a relapse, but rather a warning sign, which is the basis for an early intervention and relapse prevention. Extensive data from legitimate, long-term studies indicate these doctors are actually much safer than doctors in general. Recovering doctors are exceptionally and uniquely valuable to their patients and community. Senator Mark Ridley Thomas described the ones he met as “stellar individuals”. What a stunning contrast to CPIL’s demonizations and legalistic fictions!

CPIL has used its lobbying (Mrs. Julianne d’angelo Fellmeth is a Registered Lobbyist, and CPIL is the client of two additional lobbying firms) to gain other lucrative Enforcement Monitoring appointments and write Legislation. Currently, CPIL is the recipient of a large California Endowment Grant. Their stated purpose is to bring “diversity” to Regulatory Boards. But CPIL uses common terms to misdirect potential scrutiny. “Diversity” in their case means removing all Licensees from Licensing Boards. Instead, Joe-the-Plumber types, trained by CPIL, would evaluate Complaints and make decisions. CPIL would then have a field day with its overheated and unchallenged Prosecutorial rhetoric and be able to erode and eliminate as many legal protections as possible for Licensees. For example, Mrs. Fellmeth wants all Complaints to be published. That way, by the time the Joe-the- Plumber Board Members hear the Complaints, there would be built in added prejudice for reactionary and unjust decisions. Mrs. Fellmeth was rebuked by Senator Mark Ridley Thomas in the March, 2008 Meeting of the Senate Business and Professions Committee, for her utter disregard for the lives and well-being of physicians.. CPIL has been greatly enriched by attacking Licensing Boards. Around 1997, after a meeting of the MBC Liason Committee in San Diego, Mrs. Julianne Fellmeth remarked to a small group, “when CPIL started, all the good consumer issues were taken, so we decided to attack the Medical Board”. They have further enriched themselves by getting other lucrative Enforcement Monitor appointments, using their so-called “independent monitor” status. For the Fellmeths, the term independent monitor is synonymous with CPIL. They were paid insiders in the 2007 audit of MBC Diversion by the Bureau of State Audits (BSA), using their power to influence the conclusions of the Audit .

CPIL has worked for decades to place itself as the sole voice of public protection with respect to Regulatory Boards. They have made public protection a wedge issue. Either one is for public protection and must never question CPIL, or is against public protection. They have exploited the worst negative stereotypes as opposed to providing actual, relevant information. As such, CPIL has done tremendous damage, reducing the very credibility of Public Interest Law, and putting their affiliate organizations at risk.

The Bar needs to take CPIL’s Comments and rhetoric with a large grain of salt when deciding how to modify the ADP. Further, the value and future of LAP should never be left in the self serving hands of CPIL.

Respectfully Submitted

Public Interest Law – NOT! or (Get Real Mrs. Fellmeth)

Dear Mrs. Fellmeth:

For the past fifteen-plus years you have expounded on and on about openness vs secrecy. You have urged passage of laws that would make physician’s private medical records open to public scrutiny if they were receiving treatment for addictions or mental health issues, or participating in the soon to end Diversion Program. So, in the spirit of openness, how about being open about the fact that you are a Registered Lobbyist? Or that Ed Howard, too, is a Registered Lobbyist and you are his client? Please tell us about the work that KSR Advocates (another Registered Lobbying Group) has done to assist you in manipulating the media.

Why don’t you open up about how CPIL receives substantial donations from Trial Lawyers who sue MD’s, Healthcare Organizations and HMO’s? Your work against Doctors surely will benefit them tremendously.

The work you do to deny or limit MD’s constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure gives these lawyers – these cronies of yours – major advantages in Plaintiff law suits.

Please tell us about your secret and underhanded appointment in 2003 as Enforcement Monitor for Diversion. Other, more qualified, interested candidates were told to apply, then told they couldn’t, then told they were too late and the position had been filled by you. Clue us in about how this was aided by David Thornton. Tell us how you could be considered an Independent Monitor when your conclusions were foregone. Mrs. Fellmeth, Mrs. Fellmeth, the deeper one digs, the more Kafkaesque this becomes.

Your self assumed identity as a patient advocate is preposterous. Your collaborator, Tina Minasian, is a prime example. While claiming she’d been injured by a Doctor in the Diversion Program, she never mentions how she gained excessive weight and resumed smoking after major lower body surgery, in direct disregard of written and verbal orders. Outside of your fantasy world, evidence trumps accusations and media manipulations. After Minasian’s complaint to the Medical Board was thoroughly and professionally investigated, why was it rejected? Why was her Medical Malpractice case rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court of California and Minaisan ordered to pay court costs? Minasian’s self-proclaimed “Victim Posse” is equally merit-less, as are the multitudinous false complaints to the Medical Board she has solicited through her lynch mob mentality, incendiary web sites. Please tell us who pays for all this? We know you know.

The repeated lynchings in the press and other media against the Target Physician has been going on so long and is so egregious that the Medical Board’s own attorney appeared before the Board. In this unprecedented appearance, the Board’s Attorney (the Prosecutor) informed the Board that there was not a single valid complaint of Patient Harm. The Board’s own Attorney recommended the Board not take the case to trial, as it would be lost.

Mrs. Fellmeth, you like to emphasize “Zero Tolerance.” Should that be applied to you? Since benefiting plaintiff Trial Lawyers does not always equate with Public Protection, shouldn’t you have to be accountable? Let’s apply the same standard to you and Tina Minasian and demand that you disclose how your efforts benefit lawyers who sue doctors.

Conspiracy (Julie Fellmeth, Robert Fellmeth, CPIL, Kurtis Ming, David Thornton, Medical Board of California, Tina Minasian, Daffodil J. Altan of OC Weekly, etc…)

1.  Julie d’Angelo Fellmethwas appointed Enforcement Monitor of the Medical Board of California (MBC) on August 25, 2003 by Kathleen Hamilton, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) (1, p 10).  Ms. Fellmeth, Administrative Director of the Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL) at the University of San Diego(USD), was paid $237,466 for her two year appointment (2, p 2).  Immediately prior to this assignment, Ms. Fellmeth served as Enforcement Monitor of the Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB) from April 5, 2001 to April 1, 2003 (3, p 21).  Coincidentally, Kathleen Hamilton of DCA was also the appointing authority.  The CSLB enforcement position was a direct extension of the 1999-2000 sunset review process Chaired by the Honorable Liz Figueroa (4, p 1).  On July 26, 2000, Ms. Fellmeth submitted a list of recommendations to Ms Figueroa’s committee including the need for an enforcement monitor (4, pp 3, 12).  Six months later, January 1, 2001, Ms. Figueroa’s SB 2029 became effective incorporating the enforcement monitor position, to which Ms. Fellmeth was immediately appointed (3, pp 20-21).  In May 2002, an MBC sunset review, remarkably similar to the CSLB review three years earlier, was published by another of Ms. Figueroa’s committees, again recommending an enforcement monitor (5, pp 1, 15). Ms. Figueroa carried SB 1950 creating the MBC enforcement monitor position in August of 2002, to which Ms. Fellmeth was, again, ultimately appointed (6, p 1).  A constant presence throughout this process was attorney Ed Howard, Special Counsel to Ms Figueroa (5, p1; 7, g iii; 8, p 198; 9, p 1; 10, p 12, 11, p 1).

 

 

            Julianne d’Angelo Fellmeth is a registered lobbyist with the State of California and has been since April 1, 2001 (12, p 1).  Her official registration date came four days before her initial enforcement monitor appointment of CSLB (3, p 21).  Throughout her tenures as monitor for both the CSLB and MBC, she has remained a registered lobbyist (12, pp 1-4).  Ms. Fellmeth is Administrative Director of CPIL and in such capacity employs herself as CPIL lobbyist (13, pp 1-4).  Ms. Fellmeth received her law degree from USD in 1983, progressing to supervising attorney of CPIL and eventually its Administrative Director in 1995 (14, p 1).  Ms. Fellmeth and CPIL have been antagonistic critics of the MBC and its Diversion program for decades (2, p 1; 14, p 1; 15, pp 1-4; 16, p 1). 

 

            Governor Schwarzenegger, I request you seriously investigate the circumstances of Ms. Fellmeth’s multiple richly rewarded State appointments as enforcement monitor of the CSLB and MBC (over $500,000 for four years work).  Her status as a lobbyist registered with the State of California would appear to disqualify her from either appointment.  Her claim of registering as a lobbyist “out of an abundance of caution,” (15, p 3) is difficult to believe.  With her profession as an attorney and being based at a respected law school, Ms. Fellmeth has ample opportunity to explore her legal and ethical obligations of State employment.  Additionally, given her avowed opposition to the MBC, her sun setting of the Diversion program was an obvious foregone conclusion (16, p 1).  There appears little “independence” in her monitoring.  California taxpayers deserve more transparency and accountability for their money spent, both in who is being paid and for what is being delivered.  Of all the California Boards which have had an enforcement monitor in the past 20 years, only one has not had Ms. Fellmeth or her husband Robert as said monitor (6, p 1).  Subsequent to Ms. Figueroa being termed out of office (17, pp 1-4), and you appropriately replacing Ms. Hamilton (18, pp 1-4), this urgent need for perpetual Fellmeth Board enforcement monitoring has apparently waned.  I urge you investigate if there ever was such a regulatory abyss.  It begs credulity that it was mere coincidence the same players were repeatedly involved with their cloned sunset reviews, senate bills and enforcement appointments in each and every case.      

 

2.  Today, Julianne Fellmeth remains at her positions with CPIL, lobbyist and director (13, p 4).  Ed Howard has returned to being a lobbyist with the State of California, having started Howard Advocacy, Inc (HAI) in 2005 (19, pp 1-5).  Examination of the most recent lobbyist disclosure forms reveals an interesting circle where CPIL contracts with only two firms HAI and KSR (13, p 4); KSR contracts with only CPIL and HAI (20, p 1); and HAI contracts with CPIL (19, p 5).  Again, this incredibly tight and narrow follow-on relationship appears suspect.  KSR is a public relations firm (21, p 1).  The loss of “enforcement monitor” employment has severely impacted CPIL’s income.  According to USD Honor Roll Reports, CPIL income declined from $700,740 in 2005-2006 (22, p 1) to $160,250 in 2006-2007 (22, p 2).  On USD IRS filing for 2005-2006, under schedule A, Part III and Part VIB, the cost of Ms. Fellmeth’s lobbying activity is expensed at $201,106 (23).  Statement 46 states, “FACULTY WITH THE UNIVERSITY’S SCHOOL OF LAW IN THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW AND CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE OFFERED THEIR RESEARCH DATA AND LEGAL EXPERTISE IN AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE PENDING LEGISLATION CONCERNING CONSUMERS RIGHTS AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.”  (Emphasis theirs).  I would most strongly encourage you to investigate this large disparity between Ms. Fellmeth’s declaration of cautionary lobbyist registration (15, p. 3) versus the independent tax report of USD (23).  Her veracity appears suspect.  Lying on official documents for personal and professional gain is illegal and inexcusable. She needs to be held accountable, and in her capacity, “zero tolerance” for errors of commission and omission.

 

Ms. Fellmeth’s non-lobbying lobbying has continued.  On June 11, 2007 she spoke before the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development in an attempt to influence MBC legislation (16, pp 1-6).  She also appeared before the MBC Diversion Summit January 24, 2008 (24, pp 1-3) with a personal follow-up letter of 10 pages to Honorable Mark Ridley-Thomas, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development (25, pp 1-10).  Unfortunately, Ms. Fellmeth’s integrity continues to be found lacking.  Speaking before the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development March 10, 2008, she stated, “On November 1, 2004, I published an extensive critique of the Program-WHICH NOBODY CHALLENGED OR REFUTED (26, p 1).” (Emphasis mine).  In contradiction to her pronouncement, response to Ms. Fellmeth’s report was swift, deep, wide and strongly oppositional.  The California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM) published an extensive and detailed rebuttal on January 21, 2005 (27, pp 1-16).  CSAM commented on Ms. Fellmeth and her collaborators, “Careful study of the report reveals that the writers had little knowledge or understanding of addiction, monitoring, or acceptable public standards… The lack of understanding of statistical analysis contributes to the misinformed opinions throughout.  In light of these facts, it is understandable that the report would be somewhat confused and biased.  However, there is no excuse for the sarcasm, latent hostility and venom that repeatedly colors the writer’s discourse. (27, p 8).”  Not only is Ms. Fellmeth’s ability to state the facts honestly in question, but also her deep seated character flaws are revealed that contribute to her integrity deficit.  The damage Ms. Fellmeth’s deceits have amassed is not only to the California Taxpayers, the Legislature and innumerable State Boards, but to the Target Physician and his family directly.  Due to this harm, a thorough investigation into the conduct, actions and statements, both verbally and in writing, of Julie d’Angelo Fellmeth is warranted and required.  Her disregard for the laws of California, the standards of moral conduct of a State contractor and the ethics of a State Bar certified attorney appear bottomless.    

3.  According to her November 2004 Monitor’s report, Ms. Fellmeth was given unfettered access to the confidential Diversion file of the Target Physician (1, pp 9-10).  Information she gained during her review was subsequently used by her to make fraudulent accusations against the Target Physician.  She made the Target Physician the “Fellmeth poster child” of Diversion’s problems (2, p 2):  Ms. Fellmeth states, “The case of Target Physician is, to me, a grim illustration of the failings of the diversion program (28, p 3); She also publicly opines, “This is really a horrible case, and it illustrates the shortcomings of the Diversion Program (29, p 1).”   Just as her claims of “unchallenged reports” have been refuted, so have her claims of “botched surgeries” by Diversion participants. Every patient she has paraded before the media and government committees has had her a) complaint dismissed by the MBC, b) lawsuit dismissed with prejudice by the Courts, or c) case lost at trial and on appeal.  Minasian, Mikulecky, et al have all been dismissed for lack of evidence of wrong doing or medical malpractice.  As Ms. Fellmeth’s story of MBC incompetence and dangerous physicians crumbled throughout 2007, she and media firm KSR (21, p 1) increased the pressure on the California Legislature by getting her “victim posse” and discredited monitor’s report on CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX and other outlets (30, pp 1-15). But even Anderson Cooper and his acolyte Randi Kaye mused on air March 31, 2008, “…he’s never been found guilty of anything.  The State and the Courts have never actually connected his drinking to any of the problems that his patients are now seeing (31, p 12).”  Their summary is succinct and insightful.  There was no malpractice, no negligence, no impaired physician in any of these, or any other, cases.  As you read through these news stories, please remember, Governor Schwarzenegger, that in twenty years, Julie Fellmeth had been unable to find a single patient actually harmed by a Diversion physician.  So she made one up.  She has spent the last four years making the Target Physician the “straw man” for her political agenda, professional over reach and personal financial gain.  Ms. Fellmeth’s latest attempt to salvage her reputation and destroy the Target Physician was her sponsored article in the Spring 2008 USD journal “Advocate (32, pp 31-37),” ghost written by Sarah Severson.  Ms. Fellmeth is a talented and clever attorney.  She has had unprecedented access to the Target Physician’s history and files, yet she begins her article with another Fellmeth lie: “November 1987: Target Physician convicted of misdemeanor drunken driving…(32, p 34).”  There was NO 1987 DUI.  There was no moving violation or any other crime by the Target Physician in the decade surrounding 1987.  Ms. Fellmeth can only salvage her failing Diversion attack with the revocation of the Target Physician’s medical license, hence her chronic need to embellish and outright lie.  The rest of the article is just as twisted and untruthful as the opening line.  Again, I implore you to end this travesty of justice, this lynching of the Target Physician, a good man, skilled and honest physician.  Authorize an investigation into the chronic lapses of honesty and truth from which Ms. Fellmeth suffers.  The attempted destruction of the Target Physician and his family is criminal and immoral.  Ms. Fellmeth should never be allowed to assault society and any member ever again.  She must be exposed and stopped. 

  

4.  Julie d’Angelo Fellmeth’s appointment as enforcement monitor in 2003 was not met with dismay by the MBC.  In fact, Executive Director, David Thornton was quite enthusiastic with the development, “…we are especially thankful to Executive Director David Thornton…(7, p iii).”  As a 30 year employee from the Enforcement Division of the MBC, Thornton was thrilled to have an ally in the attempted dismantling of the Diversion program…..

 

5.  In November 2005, the MBC (Medical Board of California) Executive Director David Thornton demanded that Deputy Attorney General Maura Faust be interviewed on camera by Kurtis Ming (Channel 13/CBS) to discuss the Target Physician for the report called “Plastic Disaster(35, p 1).”  Ms. Faust stated she refused to do the interview as it was unethical and improper during the ongoing year long OAH proceedings.  Her objections were over ruled by David Thornton.  He ordered her to participate, albeit against her objections and under protest (private communication between Mara Faust and the Target Physician’s attorney).  Mara Faust’s true feelings and perspective of the political witch hunt against the Target Physician’s were revealed in a conversation she had with the Target Physician’s Spouse  (and a witness who was with the Target Physician’s wife) in the parking garage of the OAH building in May 2005 which lasted well over an hour.  The conversation was contemporaneously memorialized in a letter sent to the Target Physician’s attorneys:   “…Target Physician, unfortunately, was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”  “…she [Mara Faust] would have settled long ago but her boss [David Thornton] and enforcement won’t do it (36, p 1).”  Having failed to revoke Target Physician’s medical license on their first attempt, David Thornton himself went the Sacramento KVOR 13 Kurtis Ming Show in 2006 (37, p 1), to disparage the Target Physician: Ming “… his patients ended up getting injured…” Thornton“…I think the record supports what you just said and I don’t argue with that (37, p 3).”  Again, the record then and now supports that there was no malpractice, no negligence, no physician impairment.  Thornton and Fellmeth needed to have Target Physician lose his medical license to support their claims of patient harm by a Diversion physician.  With their evidence crumbling, they set about to create new evidence.

6.  The Diversion Program illegally released a copy of Target Physician’s confidential and Federal law protected USAF separation document DD 214. The document was aired by Consumer Reporter Kurtis Ming on KVOR/CBS Channel 13 of Sacramento on November 9, 2006 (38, p 1). State of California career employee Wally George of Diversion demanded a copy of the DD 214 for the Target Physician’s NEW 2005 Diversion file and threatened punishment for failure to comply.  Under protest, the Target Physician delivered the demanded document.  A copy of the Target Physician’s Honorable Discharge would not satisfy Mr. George, David Thornton nor Diversion that the Target Physician was a veteran with an Honorable Discharge (38, pp 2-5).  Demanding a copy of the DD 214 was illegal and a subterfuge to conspire with the media to publicly abuse the Target Physician.  Frank Valine, Diversion Director, when confronted with the illegal demand and release stated it was the County of _____ that released the DD 214.  The Officials of _____ County, specifically ______ of ____ County Records, flatly deny Mr. Valine’s assertion.  Again, it is the Medical Board and Diversion which shamelessly flaunt California law at the Target Physician’s and California citizens’ expense.  It is unconscionable that Diversion, the MBC and David Thornton would conspire together to commit such blatantly illegal acts.  David Thornton, has publicly stated he will do everything in his power to take the Target Physician’s medical license and destroy him.  Personal animus has no place in the administration of California law.  This is no longer about medicine, if it ever was.  This is the exercise of raw politics with the Target Physician as meat for the grinder.  David Thornton and former Diversion Administrators need to be investigated and disciplined for their abusive conduct, their conspiracy against the Target Physician, and their violation of State and Federal laws in misusing protected Federal and State documents.   

7.  The current investigation by the MBC against the Target Physician began almost two years ago. For these twenty four months, the MBC and others have actively solicited complaints against the Target Physician (39, p 1). Initiating, principle complainant, and former patient, Tina Minasian, lost her medical malpractice suit against the Target Physician, lost her two appeals, and finally lost her appeal to the California Supreme Court (40, pp 1-2). The MBC decided in July 2008 to FINALLY throw out Ms. Minasian’s six complaints against the Target Physician. David Thornton, now former executive director of the MBC, with the help of Tina Minasian, Kurtis Ming (Consumer Reporter for CBS/13 in Sacramento), and Julie Fellmeth of CPIL have all participated in the solicitation of complaints against the Target Physician through the media, print, mailings and internet (28; 29; 35; 37; 38; 39, pp 1-4; 41, pp 1-7).  Their conspiracy is immoral and illegal; it needs to be investigated, exposed and crushed.  In 2007, Dr. Richard Fantozzi, Medical Director of the MBC, said “victims of botched surgeries performed by diversion program participants urged abolition” of the program. Fantozzi stated that the board considered the testimony of “patients injured by the diversion program participants while being denied a possibility of protecting themselves” from the impaired doctors who were “shielded” by the confidentiality of the program (42, p 2).  Each and every alleged “botched surgery” complaint has been dismissed after investigation by the Medical Board.  Each and every alleged “botched surgery” malpractice suit has been dismissed with prejudice or found in the defendant’s favor.  There were no “botched surgeries.”  Dr. Fantozzi’s comments were irresponsible, inaccurate and intentionally disparaging of the Target Physician to deflect criticism of the MBC, David Thornton and Diversion.  In further remarks, Dr. Richard Fantozzi stated on January 24^th, 2008 at the Diversion Program Summit Meeting, “the existing program has failed to protect some patients (43, p 191).”  The only patients who spoke at the Summit were those of the Target Physician (43, pp 196-198).  Again, Minasain, Milkulesky, McDonald and Starr have all had their complaints and/or law suits dismissed.   Patients in support of the Target Physician also testified at the Summit. Their comments were critical of the Fellmeth/Minasian/Thornton slander of the Target Physician. They also complained of the harassment they experienced with strange individuals making unrequested contact in an attempt to coerce them into joining the juggernaut assaulting the Target Physician. They asked why the MBC failed to act on their numerous complaints and stop Tina Minsasian and her posse from haranguing and intimidating satisfied, innocent private patients (43, p 194). I believe Tina Minasian is a stalker with the consent and encouragement of the MBC. When will the lies by the MBC end?  Not soon enough, apparently.  As Chief Executive of the State of California, I implore you to explore the events surrounding the demonization of the Target Physicain by MBC President Richard Fantozzi, KOVR/Sacramento employees Minasian and Ming, and the “victim posse.”  Complaints filed with the medical board are confidential.  However, complaints filed disingenuously and with the intent to commit fraud are crimes. Libel and slander are State and Federal crimes when the U.S. Postal Service is used and telecommunications cross lines.    

 

9.  The lies of the MBC and the State of California have still not ended.  In March 2008, Sarah Huchel of the California Senate Office of Research published a Background Paper on Physician Health Programs (F, pp 1-21).  She continues the “Fellmeth feed” and MBC falsehoods of “…highlighted the potential threat to public safety.  For example, (the Target Physician), a plastic surgeon, had a history of alcohol problems DATING BACK TO 1987 (F, p 4).”  (Emphasis mine).  The Target Physician never had a DUI in 1987.  There was no “20 year history” of alcohol problems.  She goes on to fabricate “performing a surgery on a woman that resulted in dead stomach tissue and exposed intestines (F, p 5).  No such thing ever happened.  The Target Physician never went near BA’s stomach muscle, (he was never in the abdominal cavity), and the “hernia” to which she alarmingly refers was created by another surgeon.  BA was closed with an intact abdominal wall when she electively left the Target Physician’s care.  Her complications after surgery were secondary to her continued smoking and other recreational activities against doctor’s orders.  BA’s case was investigated twice by the MBC, each time returning “No Evidence of Patient Harm.”  BA’s complaint to the MBC was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Lew in November 2007.  But again, lying is okay if it is about the Target Physicain.  The sources cited by Ms. Huchel are “press reports (F, p 4), and the “OC Weekly (F, pg 5),” both paragons of journalism and research.  There appears to be a lack of integrity amongst the employees of the State of California, as well as, contractor Julie d’Angelo Fellmeth.  Further evidence of this cess pool called the Medical Board of California, is the law suit filed by Elizabeth Schlie, MBC investigator, and her significant other T. Tobin against the MBC, DCA, David Thornton, et al (G, pp 1-35) for harassment, discrimination, retaliation and witness tampering.  An additional example of the character of those in the MBC is Paul Booth, former Diversion Case Manager Supervisor for Southern California and the Target Physician’s Diversion case manager in 2005.  In an April 3, 2008 OAH decision (D1-1998-87486) involving a different doctor, the Judge declared “…Booth’s testimony concerning Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the reports is viewed with distrust (H, p 15)”  In other words, Paul Booth committed perjury.  But there is no penalty for an MBC staffer to lie.  In fact, Mr. Booth was promoted to his supervisorial position after his fabrication in Court. Governor Schwarzenegger, it is time to “clean house” at the MBC, DCA and DHCS.  “Sunlight is an antiseptic.”  There appear to me many cockroaches infesting too many areas of California State government. The Target Physician has for too long been battling them alone.  Please join the fight to save the California State government.  Prosecute those who besmirch the good name all of California employees by lying, cheating, stealing and abusing their positions of authority and respect.   

 

10.  The horror the Target Physician and his family must endure at the hands of the MBC (California Medical Board) never ends.  According to _______, MBC probation officer, documents have repeatedly disappeared from the Target Physician’s current Probation file (I, p 1). They have been replaced, but the mystery and consequences of the derelict documents is unsettling. No investigation has been done into the file manipulation and attempt to manufacture a technical violation of the Target Physician’s probation.  Required documents began disappearing in December 2007 and continue to disappear through to the present time.  From 11/2005 through 12/2007 during the tenures of MBC officers Craig Leader and ________, all documents were present, current and file up to date.  The file deficiencies began at the same time the MBC accusations began to be dismissed by the OAH Judges. Officer ________ was so unnerved by the disappearing documents, he/she maintains a ghost file for back up. Additionally, in early 2008 a submitted fluid specimen was requisitely destroyed after it was discovered to have been tampered with at the Cerritos, California offices of MBC Enforcement.  The conspirators at the MBC, in their attempt to vilify the Target Physician, are adopting ever more desperate measures.  A thorough investigation into the actions of the Probation and Enforcement arms of the MBC is sorely needed. They illegally released the Target Physician’s original Diversion File. They have illegally released confidential and privileged documents from the Target Physician’s current Diversion file. Today, they are simply stealing the documents from his Probation file to manufacture a technical probation violation.    

 11. In February 2008, Assistant Attorney General Mara Faust offered to settle the current accusations against the Target Physician, DISMISSING ALL charges with NO ADMISSIONS by Target Physician, subject to approval by the Medical Board of California (J, p 1-10). On April 24^th, 2008 Deputy Attorney General Mara Faust stood before the Board arguing on the Target Physician’s behalf to accept the stipulated agreement.  She repeatedly stated the Board had “no real case.” For publicly stated political reasons, the Board declined to accept the agreement (K, pp 1-3). For fear of media pressure surrounding this case, the MBC did not want to come across as “soft on doctors;” justice and fairness be damned. The political careers of the Board members trumped the safety and financial responsibility due the citizens of the people of California.  The Target Physician does not deserve to be a political football, again. The citizens of California deserve better, more honest and dedicated public servants. The subpoena power of the Department of Justice of the State of California should be able to uncover the conspiracy and deceit of the MBC’s members, past and present.

 

 

  14.  To show an example of this witch-hunt lead by the Medical Board of California, please see the attached solicited complaint from T.M. complaining of her surgery by the Target Physician (M, pp 1-2). The Target Physician was neither her surgeon nor treating physician!  Without investigating who was the actual surgeon, MBC Enforcement demanded of the Target Physician a copy of Ms. M’s chart, then accused the Target Physician of falsifying records when he could not produce the operative note for a surgery he DID NOT perform.  Apparently, it was MBC’s hope the Target Physician would be unable to produce the chart of a patient with which he merely consulted.  Thus, the MBC could charge him with poor record keeping.  This witch hunt is shameless.  It should be stopped.  You have the power and authority to end this lynching.

   

To be continued……