OF CONFLICT #FOUR RE: OAH Case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS The Evolution Of A Grievance: Wherein, following over one full year of systematic suppression of my right to due process in relation to a criminally imposed sequence of administrative abuse of authority at The Arizona State Hospital, I prepare to go to hearing.

THIS IS AN ONGOING ARTICLE THAT BEGAN ON JUNE 16, 2012 (SEE "RE: ADHS ADHS/DBHS OGA Docket #H090611S0009), AND RELATES TO AN EARLIER APRIL 09, 2012, ARTICLE ("FACTS OF LIFE #1-4"), AND EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEGINNING ON MAY 25, 2011, AND EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDING ON MAY 29, 2011.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST #FOUR

As the last three "OF CONFLICT" articles (#ONE 7/4/12, #TWO 7/5/12, #THREE 7/6/12)) have discussed, I  as the appellant submitted a motion to the court to have a conflict of interest issue resolved in a fair and impartial manner, which was followed with a response in opposition by a central party to the conflict at issue (this is almost always the case- patent denial or refusal to agree- where someone with too much power is questioned in the context of conflict of interest issues), to which the presiding administrative law judge assigned to the case, Kay Abramsohn heartily agreed with little to no consideration of the central merits and significance of my concerns, after which I sent her a direct plea for reconsideration that was never responded to, thus leaving us were we are today. 

THE ISSUE 

                   WHEREIN I- AS THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE AND AS A CITIZEN OF ARIZONA- CONTEND THAT JOEL RUDD OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL IS A CO-APPELLEE IN THIS CASE, AND AS SUCH, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLEE AS A WHOLE BECAUSE OF CLEAR AND OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS MATTER.

       Given the judge's flat refusal to accept my statement to the effect that I was being treated unfairly in terms of this particular legal process as it stands, I felt I could at least try to find out more information about the matter, so I contacted a former associate in the Arizona legal community about it (who is now a district appellate judge), and she advised me that the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings was required to provide non-attorney citizens representing themselves in that venue with basic information about general inquiries, including something as general as the following inquiry: If the presiding judge in this case does not have the authority to remove Joel "the mortician" Rudd from the case, than who in the heck does have that authority? My goal, obviously, was to proactively participate in this process by doing whatever I needed to- in good faith as always-  in order to address my concerns via whatever authority did apply in this context.  So I went ahead and submitted the following general inquiry as to the matter in the document shown below:

Inquiry RE case 2012c-bhs-0338-dhs

Patrick Pickens
to oah

Hi. THIS IS A GENERAL QUESTION,

AND NOT A COMMUNICATION DIRECTLY TO THE ALJ IN THIS CASE.

      I am the appellant in the above case. Judge Abramsohn has advised me that 

she hasn't the authority to consider a good faith motion that I submitted in relation

to the appellee's counsel, specific to the fact that said counsel in is fact a component

of the appellee as a party in the case. If the tribunal does not have the authority in

this matter, I am requesting information s to who does have that authority? Who

specifically do I direct such motion to? 

I am not an attorney, and I have been advised that OAH is required to advise me

in this matter, limited to the context of the inquiry as a general matter. Please

advise as soon as possible.  

Thank you, ------------- aka PJ Reed July 02, 2012   

(END OF DOCUMENT)

       Sadly, but not surprisingly enough, I received one last evasive measure from the agency director where Kay Abramsohn currently works as an administrative law judge and is assigned to preside over this matter, which I have attached below. Note how this person chooses to characterize the language of my general inquiry as "phrasing" before he then recharacterizes it as legal advice that I am requesting "in light of a judge's ruling." It's a ridiculously circular way to shut down nothing more mysterious than an answer to something I was legitimately curious about, at most, and relates to general information that might be useful to any person entering into this specific arena of legal review; but for whatever reason, this dude has to turn into a freaking treaty negotiation, as follows below: 

(END OF DOCUMENT)

I find the above document a bit disconcerting given that my inquiry would apparently have been a general one had the judge not issued a denial of my request, but due to the fact that she did on the basis of her not having the authority in the matter, the inquiry now becomes something quite different. I am, in fact, considering the question of whether it was even appropriate for Judge Kay Abramsohn to characterize (in her own right) her lack of authority in the matter as A RULING. It certainly wouldn't be the first time an administrative judge has erred in relation to a case that I bought before that court. Indeed, I do find this to be a bit of a gambit, distracting if not evasive, for by asking to be advised not about a specific course of legal action to take, but rather for information about the proper legal authority to merely consider a legal issue that I have, I was not seeking or soliciting legal advice, in fact. This seems as clear as anything to myself, and to the attorneys who have by now reviewed this communication as a favor to me. 

38-510. Penalties 

A. A person who:

1. Intentionally or knowingly violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-          

    505 is guilty of a class 6 felony.

2. Recklessly or negligently violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 

    38-505 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor 

B. A person found guilty of an offense described in subsection A of this section shall       

    forfeit his public office or employment if any.

C. It is no defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 

     that the public officer or employee to whom a benefit is offered, conferred or agreed  

     to be conferred was not qualified or authorized to act in the desired way.

 D. It is a defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505   

     that the interest charged to be substantial was a remote interest.

      

IN CLOSING: One cannot help but love the clarity of penalties in situation such as this one. And wouldn't you know it, following yesterdays article, wherein I included the above penalties that I am willing to at least reckon Joel "the mortician" Rudd might be facing at this point in time, there were over 100 hits to my blog today, for the first time in a good five days or so. I have to wonder if these freaky people don't look each other in the eye once in awhile and ask the question "Why hasn't this man filed a lawsuit yet?" Well, it sure doesn't take an attorney to know that one of the best ways for wrongdoers to avoid meaningful oversight and full accountability comes through civil litigation and settlement negotiations, and in this case, I can only think to say:

             "You rat bastards aren't getting off the hook that easily."

Please take it upon yourself to join this cause in whoever manner you deem most fit. Patient abuse at the Arizona State Hospital is cruel, inhumane, and 100% outside of the law. Write your elected Arizona represent- ative(s), visit my April 30, 2012 "Resource Ideas" article, or go right ahead and call ASH in person (602)244-1331 and tell chief executive officer Cory "crazycorycorner" Nelson that you have been following my writing and that you know about the ongoing abuses of patients at ASH and the related substandard mental-medical health care/practices in effect there and that: "By God, I am not willing to put up with it!" 

paoloreed@gmail.com