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…..
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.
To be continued……