Sunday, May 25, 2014

Current Insider (staff) Updates As They Emerge: As to irrefutable testimony from within the walls and fence lines of The Arizona State Hospital.


As stated in my most recent article, I will continue to offer new updates as they occur, be it via the media or other like sources, as they may arise. It is clear to me, and others who are seeking to bring the persons responsible for fostering the grossly substandard medical-mental health care practices at The Arizona State Hospital to full accountability under the letter of law, that none of the most recent developments that may have improved this matter have made much difference. There is, in fact, at least some information to the effect that ASH administrators have responded to these potential developments in a very negative manner, rather than actually taking action to see that the issues at stake be meaningfully resolved. Said potential, which I contend has been thwarted by the debased lack of moral character of all responsible parties, includes the highly publicized federal intervention that occurred earlier this year, wherein an assigned investigative team determined that the overall operation at ASH was being mismanaged in violation of state and federal law. Findings included clear violation of patient rights, graphic ineptitude of executive staff, and grossly negligent failure(s) to meet well established standards of law and policy in a context of fundamental hospital facility management; and at that point, the federal government did threaten to impart immediate sanctions of the ASH operation in general if these issues were not resolved. But the one's running ASH- in company with associated state officials in ADHS/BHS- scurried about like rats in a cage, not in order to align the practices at ASH with current standards of care and practice, but rather to defer the findings of that investigation, which again only further highlights the ocean deep disconnect between the operation of ASH and the applicable standards as they apply. 

In this context, I can almost hear persons such as ASH CEO Donna "You are sooo busted!" Noriega and former ASH CEO/current Deputy Director of ADHS/BHS Cory "meathead" Nelson:


"Don't worry about anything beyond getting the fed off our backs!" 

The fact is, the health care practices at ASH, and the willful attempt of ASH administrators to misrepresent the realities at ASH in this sense, are ongoing at this time, and the following communique' from ASH staff to this blog proves it. This is summarization of data that I only received in the last 24-36 hour. 

Again, the following is a summary of information provided to me in the last 36 hours:

REPORT ONE (paraphrased in order protect the identity of this source).

"The conditions at ASH have only gotten worse as time has elapsed over the last 12 months.... Patterns of highly illegal methods of restraint are being justified under the premise of such methods being therapeutic... ASH administrators continue to carry on with abusing their granted authority with no oversight or accountability... Patients are being denied visitors, largely because family members and other like visitors are increasingly expressing concern about the mistreatment of their loved ones, as reported in media and your blog... And staff members who refuse to engage in physical and psychological abuse of some ASH patients are being relieved of their duties- unpaid- for weeks at a time; while internal methods of rewarding staff who inform administration of these well intentioned staff has actually increased."

REPORT TWO (paraphrased in order protect the identity of this source).

"As shocking as I know this will sound to you, very obvious violations of patient rights are continuing unabated. How this can be, given the recent federal investigations, I will never understand.... One of my staff peers was recently laid off with no notice for an indeterminate time, with no pay, because (they) were not willing to take part in the assault of a patient. I witnessed this.... And I think you know this, but Cory Nelson is now the one assigned the responsibility of regulating all this shit, in his new position as ADHS/BHS Deputy Director... Finally, all units on the civil side were recently instructed by ASH executives to uniformly restrict all patients from leaving their assigned units, which denied all of them access to campus wide therapy and other group activities. No library, no group art therapy, nothing. This place is being run more and more like a prison than ever, and the persons in administration are acting like monsters. I am telling you, PJ, things here are far worse now than they were when you were here..."

I have said it before: I COULDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP IF A HAD TO! But I don't have to, because some minority of ASH staff are willing and able to testify to the atrocious conditions at ASH, as they stand today. 

As stated, this body of information came to me over the lost 36 hours via the good faith information sharing of those ASH staff who are willing to risk their livelihoods in order to do the right thing. Which is to say, persons of good conscience and sound character who are not willing or able to turn a blind eye to issues that are causing grave harm to ASH patient community, despite the overt attempt(s) of ASH administrators to unlawfully use threats of retaliation, and acts of retaliation in fact, should any reasonably well intentioned staff members subvert the dominant status quo at ASH. I fully believe that the most powerful manner in which to crack this ongoing scandal wide open and expose the full breadth of the corruption at ASH wide open like a coconut dropped 75 feet onto a rock will come through insider reports such as this; on-site and first person testimony which are very close to the value of my own accounting of the horrors that I witnessed and experienced first hand in 2011-12. Not that things have changed since then. In fact, the substandard mental health care and practices at ASH seem have deteriorated over the last two years, as indicated in the above communique'.

AND AS WITH ALL OTHER DATA IN MY RECORDS, THIS BODY OF INFORMATION SHARING IS DOCUMENTED, INCLUDING AS TO ITS ORIGIN (WHICH WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL, FOR NOW). I MENTION THIS BECAUSE I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT THE ONES RUNNING ASH WILL ATTEMPT TO DECLARE THIS REPORT AS FALSE.

Quite frankly, I am not at all surprised by the details provided to me in these most recent staff communications, because this is just how it was when I was an ASH patient. Patently illegal violations of my own rights and that of many of my peers, imparted by virtually all senior staff at ASH, and well up into the administrative offices there at the Hospital, and beyond into the shadowy realm of ADHS/BHS, were as common as Arizona's blue skies during the whole of my time there, Jan. 2011-Feb. 2012. I sincerely hope that the persons's who have chosen to fight the atrociously inhumane treatment of ASH patients remain safe, but I also deeply worry that Rat Bastard's running ASH are engaged in a virtual witch hunt, seeking the aid of sickeningly unethical lower ranking staff in order to peg exactly who is behind these exposures. For I know all too well frm my own very real experiences as an ASH patient just how far ASH clinicians and administrators will go in order to stifle any/all flow of information about the substandard health care at ASH. The fact remains, as in the record, that I was overtly retaliated against for merely exercising my civic responsibility and my associated right to openly report staff wrongdoing as it arose via my 13 long months as an ASH patient. This retaliation was systematic and imparted upon me by my primary care physicians (ASH psychiatrists, who have more direct authority over each individual patient than anyone else at ASH has) with the support of ASH administrators such as former Chief Medical Officer Dr. Steven Dingle (who has since been promoted in the ADHS/BHS network [2012] ) as well as former ASH CEO Cory Nelson (who was also promoted in graphic defiance of his clearly exhibited ineptitude and associated lack of scruples [2013] ), and did as a matter of equally documented fact expose me to very  serious forms of grave harm that literally exasperated by struggles with serious mental illness. Again, this occurred while I was hospitalized at ASH. The conditions there are so bad in Arizona's only long term public mental hospital that rather then heal, I as an ASH patient went into a virtual tailspin in terms of my specific diagnosis as a direct consequence of the misconduct of some ASH nurses, some ASH behavioral health technicians, and literally all ASH psychiatrists and administrative level ASH supervisors. I mean, think about it: It's pretty goddamn depressing to learn that persons who are entrusted by the greater public to care for the needs of highly at-risk adults are, in fact, capable of engaging in deeply unlawful misbehavior that occurs in utter contradiction to established health care standards and ethics, with little to no regard for how harmful this misbehavior is to their client-consumers. This, in no uncertain terms, aggravated my struggle to regain my own sense of self worth, because these people treat ASH patients as though they are less than human. 

I feel the need to say, as well, that it would be 100% counterintuitive to deem my experiences as an ASH patient as unique or exclusive, for as all elements of the record prove today, some majority of ASH staff willfully engage in flaunting all aspects of applicable law and policy with no regard whatsoever for the rights and care needs of ASH patients , and they do so with little to no fear of oversight, and literally no accountability. Ergo, these patterns of abject discrimination against the rights of ASH patients are applied uniformly throughout the entirety of the ASH patient community. And as clearly indicated in the above data (as well as countless other staff reports posted during 2011-14 on the "crazycorycorner.weebly.com" website), any/all ASH staff who seek to contribute to improving the conditions at ASH are also uniformly subject to grossly unlawful forms of abusive administrative authority and associated forms of grossly depraved hospital management techniques.

As I also pointed out at the onset of this article, the recent findings of a federally mandated internal investigation at ASH were quite disturbing, indeed, but the consequent response of ADHS/BHS officials, including ADHS Director Will Humble and his number one puppet Cory "meathead" Nelson (current Deputy Director of AHDS/BHS) was rife with inaccuracies and outright deceptions of the associated facts. Through this utterly depraved means of willful deception, ASH officials were successful in skirting the accountability process, which should be of no surprise to anyone with a modicum of familiarity with the bureaucratic clumsiness of the federal government. And the only actual result is represented by escalations of the defensive posture that ASH administrators have always taken. Anything, that is,other than a good faith acknowledgement of the need to address these issues once and for all; for to do so would require an admission that the majority of executive officials at ASH and in ADHS/BHS, in company with ASH's senior clinicians (psychiatric staff and nursing staff alike), have been willfully engaging in furthering these issues in graphic defiance of established standards of medical care.

This, all of this, is ongoing. And if persons like Cory Nelson-Donna Noriega-Steven Dingle  (and on the list goes) think they are out the hot water, they would do well to think again. But I most certainly do not expect this to occur, for none of these people have to date exhibited the moral fiber or fundamental intelligence in this context. They are bottom feeding nincompoops who actively seek out employment in places like ASH/ADHS/BHS  because they are well aware of how substandard the overall operational features of these public entities are; these features , in paradoxical coincidence, are 100% on par with the character "features" (or lack thereof) of each and every involved party. It is that bad.

paoloreed@gmail.com

Saturday, May 24, 2014

As to the Publishing Process

There may be a lull in new or even updated material for the time being. This is due to the fact that I am now engaging in a formal and intensive editing of data that is to be included my forthcoming manuscript, aka book. But as per the direction of my actual editor, we will continue to fortify the breadth of legitimacy to what I have to date shared with the public, in this blog and beyond with specific regard for the grossly substandard health care practices at The Arizona State Hospital. This is not the first time we have come to this point, although in the past, it was all somewhat preliminary, while now the first body of publication is imminent. Accrued articles in this blog (and associated data) now numbers close to 400; while dedicated visits to this blog currently exceed 33,000, in just over two full years of publication, and this is ongoing day to day.

IN CLOSING: I will once again encourage any person who has intimate knowledge about the wrongdoing at The Arizona State Hospital to step forward while you still can, even if anonymously, in the context of doing the right thing. Any such contributions to addressing and resolving these issues will be acknowledged by me and my associates. This is, in effect, an assurance that your possible role(s) in the historically depraved clinical and administrative misconduct at ASH may well be omitted in all forthcoming textural material (although, this may be difficult if we don't know who you are- but that's not our problem, it's yours). Likewise, for those ASH staff who believe that their identity is protected by state or federal law, think again. For you are all public employees, and if you and your given identity are part of my records with specific respect for on-the-clock misconduct while working at ASH, then you are fair game in terms of any citizens right to call you out. And I intend to take no prisoners. 

Do you hear that, Peggy Jorgensen? Peggy Jorgensen. Peggy Jorgensen.  

paoloreed@gmail.com

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Food For Thought. RE: The role of "the court" in failing to meaningfully respond to undeniable violations of state law, as applicable to the right of all Arizona citizens to be granted equal protection and due process as per the letter of said law and policy.

Fact: The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) functions as though it is an genuine court of authority obligated to serve the legal interests of Arizona's citizens. But it is not. OAH is a for-profit entity that operates entirely outside of Arizona's actual court system. The "judges" are hired via the internal interests of the state's executive authority (the governor's office, in effect), rather than appointed, elected, or otherwise granted authority via the public interest, with no formal association with the state bar, the wishes of the greater public, or any other reasonably democratic process. I contend that OAH operates as an arguably private interest entity that has no actual obligation to abide by the provisions of state or federal law. And yet, in Arizona at this point in modern history, this is an accepted practice. Mind blowing, even sickening to anyone of conscientious.

In this context, at one point of my seeking redress from this arguably nefarious body of so called judicial rule, I was advised that  Joel Rudd -who just so happens to be the long standing formal legal representative of my adversary in this specific matter (Arizona State Hospital)- has more authority than the "court" itself. And not only that, as per the evidence I submitted to ADHS/BHS's Office of Grievances and Appeals, Joel Rudd and his staff at ASH were also identified as being responsible for the issues at stake. As I saw it then, and still do today (2014), as per his status in this sense and the provisions of common law (state and federal), Rudd was required to be identified as one of the named defendants in this matter, with no right to act as an authority over the assigned "court", given the evidential data at stake. I further contend that no legitimate court in the nation would have allowed for this man to exercise any such authority if, in fact, that granted privilege would have the potential to inequitably influence the required terms of due process and associated civil procedure as it applies in such matters.

But my concerns in this context were flatly rejected by the administrative staff at OAH (in writing, and I do have all copies of this specific data); and Rudd was therein allowed to act as the representing attorney in direct association to his own possible misconduct, as per the facts included in the original complaint in this case. This rejection of due process and equal protection occurred in graphic defiance of Rudd being a clearly identified party to my allegations as they stood at that time. The fact is- and I have all associated documentation- rather than acknowledging the basic merits of my concerns, OAH formally advised me in an e-mail that the officers of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings have no jurisdictional authority over Rudd's status as an Assistant Attorney General.

As a consequence of this standard (or lack there of), Rudd was allowed to reject and/or otherwise challenge the presentations of my overall allegations in this case, including my own sincere testimony, despite the bare-bones fact that he himself was centrally involved in my well founded and good faith allegations at that time. I will remind my readers that the evidence underlying my allegations also included the testimony of a highly reputable human rights advocate, employed in fact by the state of Arizona, named John Gallagher. Rudd's willingness to participate in this grossly inequitable process is representative of what I contend to be just one more example of the unlawful abuses of power by ASH's senior clinicians, in complicity with the Hospital's executive staff, as well as Rudd's personal staff members (and, it only follows, Rudd in his own right). All of these people work on-site on the actual grounds of the ASH facility itself, meet at least once a day in order to coordinate their formal actions, and in doing so, obviously engage- as such- in irrefutable patterns of abject unlawfulness that due to the walls and fence lines at ASH, are rarely if ever exposed to the greater public. This issue extends into the legal office of ADHS/BHS itself, where there is a whole other body of legal staff, including at least one "rules expert."  

Specifically, I did submit a formal motion (protest) to both the court at OAH, as well as the ADHS/BHS "rules expert", with the lawful intent to have Rudd removed as ASH's legal counsel on the basis of an undeniable conflict of interest, in direct association to the documented fact that the full breadth of my allegations most definitely included the misconduct of these so-called legal professionals (all affiliated names and titles were included in my original grievance document); misconduct that I was aware- were my allegations found to be valid- this Rat Bastard (and his staff) would be exposed of in the context of the specific issues at stake in this case. I contend that had this case been presented to an actual court of law, the issue of conflict of interest and the role of Rudd and his associate staff in this matter would have been acknowledged, and all elements of my testimonial evidence would have been allowed to be included in the record. But due to the graphic disconnect between Arizona's Office of Administrative Hearings- which again, is not in itself a valid court of judicial authority- and the established state and federal laws that do apply in this context, all elements of my civil rights in this matter were patently denied in all senses. That's 1) due process as per the letter of law; 2) equal protection as per the letter of law; and 3) state and federal civil procedure as per the letter of law.    

Where in so disproportionate a structure of administrative "justice" (authority) can any aggrieved client of ADHS/BHS/ASH find any possibility of true jurisprudence? To have the named defendant (again, in my original grievance I very clearly identified Rudd, and at least one member of his staff, as being centrally involved in issues at stake) exercising more authority than the given court itself is nothing short of an abomination of the legal process in all senses. But this is precisely the unlawful standard in effect at this time, which I attest to be of grave harm to the ASH patient community, patients' families and other such loved ones, as well as the greater public, as may apply (as illustrated by the death of April Mott, in late August, 2011). This crap is ongoing, day in day out; and it's considered standard practice by the one's entrusted by the taxpaying citizens of Arizona to oversee the rights and care needs of the ASH patient community. This is simple fact,  and any person interested in looking more into this perverted form of so called "jurisprudence" in the state of Arizona can do so by reviewing the applicable state rules, all available on-line at no cost to the public.

I, in turn, will be including all such data in my ongoing work, specific to future articles in this blog, and in my upcoming book.

paoloreed@gmail.com


Friday, May 9, 2014

RE: The role of "the court" in failing to meaningfully respond to undeniable violations of state law, as applicable to the right of all Arizona citizens to be granted equal protection and due process as per the letter of said law and policy.


The applicable time lines associated with the following communique', as per The Arizona Administrative Code (law, "AAC"), had long since passed before I took action in terms of asking the assigned court to address the issue. My report to that court (The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings) was as much a demand for immediate redress in the context of holding ADHS/BHS officials who were 100% responsible for violating the dictate of AAC in the context of time line requirements, as it was a mindful request to that effect. Ergo, the following correspondence's significance in terms of identifying the gross disconnect between highly entrusted officers of the court and the rights of the public.

FROM: Office of Administrative Hearings 
Webmaster OAH.Webmaster@azoah.com

  
Mr. P------,

I have confirmed with DBHS/Office of Grievance and Appeals at the Department of Health Services that the three cases that you are referencing are still pending matters and they have not yet been sent to our office, The Office of Administrative Hearings, to be scheduled for a hearing date and time. Once the requests are made to our office by the Department of Health Services then they will be promptly scheduled in the normal course of business. Again, these matters are still pending at the Department of Health Services and have not yet been filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thank you
-Webmaster

Point in fact: "Still pending matters...", is as vague a reference to what was going on at this time as anyone might ever encounter. Why did the officers at OAH flatly ignore the directly applicable AAC standards, in spite of my having clarified my concerns as they stood, as per my awareness of said standards?  What actual "matters" were being pended, and on what basis? As per the edict of state law (see: AAC-9-21, HEALTH SERVICES. ARTICLE 4. APPEALS, GRIEVANCES, AND REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION FOR PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL  ILLNESS.) this aspect of my experiences 100% confirm the grossly unlawful- and quite frankly, inhumane- patterns of patent discrimination against the patient community at ASH, which do extend into the offices of Arizona's puppet court, aka The Office of Administrative Hearings. As per the letter of AAC law and associated policy, please the following: 


      1) Did the staff of the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals formally request an extension of the required  timelines?

No. 

     2) Did the respective state officials (e.g., "Deputy Director", or "Director", et al.) grant permission for the involved state department of health employees to "pend" or otherwise delay the legal process specific to these issues? 

No. 


And all of my accrued records specific to this one particular episode prove the allegations well beyond doubt; I and have always been fully willing to share my records with anyone who asked to review them, always freely, and with no demands. I keep good records, and I went well out of my way as a person deserving reasonable mental health care from the staff at Arizona's sole long term public mental health facility, only to see that my experiences at ASH were documented, as per all applicable laws, on behalf the patient community, including patients' family, etc. As I have painstakingly sought to point out, there is no justification whatsoever for the grievance submittals that I filed while hospitalized at to be delayed outside of a period of 120 days. But the fact remains, as per the record, all three of the above mentioned "cases" were filed via the formal ADHS/BHS grievance process at least 8-12 months prior to this point in time. And as per my overall experiences, I have every reason to believe that I not taken action to direct the court's attention to this issue, these cases would never even have been scheduled. This detail is representative of highly illicit wrongdoing that I know has and is continuing to gravely harm/affect ASH patients, patients' families, and the greater public, as may apply. And as I have reported in past articles, well over a dozen other like grievance reports about staff misconduct and the associated substandard conditions at The Arizona State Hospital, which I had reported as per protocol, literally vanished in the months following my discharge from ASH. I contend that this pattern of abject negligence occurs as a matter of standard practice at ASH, and that the vast majority of patient expressed concerns at ASH go unnoticed as a direct consequence of this particular issue, no matter how serious the allegations might happen to be. There is really no telling how many grossly unlawful events have occurred at ASH over the years (and occur today, even as I write), with little to no oversight or accountability. But I do believe that a rigorous audit in the context can establish some modicum of understanding. It would not be the first time that a state mental hospital has been exposed as engaging in these forms of criminal misconduct, and I doubt will be the last.

Clearly, and as importantly, various state employed officials in the ADHS Office of Grievances and Appeals are complicit in allowing this to occur, no matter how critical the related evidence is, or the degree of alleged criminality at stake. All involved parties (at ASH, and in ADHS/BHS, etc.) are employed by the state of Arizona via the public trust, which further signifies the fact that this wrongdoing is  occurring at the expense of Arizona taxpayers, to the direct detriment of ASH's seriously mentally ill and disabled patients. This plain fact has been indicated in recent months not only by my work (in this blog, etc.), but also by the Hospital's Human Rights Committee, which was only established after I had similarly asked/demanded that ADHS Director Will Humble order ASH's administration to assemble this committee, as per the law. Likewise, the various investigative reports conducted by David Biscobing and the staff at Phoenix area ABC Ch. 15, which have been published over the past 12 months, also support the factual legitimacy of my work over the last 24-30 months (which did begin well before I discharged from ASH in late February, 2012). I encourage any interested person to take a look at that channel's on-line data to this effect.

Bottom line. It is that bad, and it is ongoing. Substandard medical-mental health care practices- and they the Rat Bastards (you each know exactly who you are) are getting away with it.

paoloreed@gmail.com

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

As to the violation of bright line codes of law that has historically shrouded the grossly substandard medical practices and associated administrative corruption at The Arizona State Hospital.

INTRODUCTION


It's been ongoing since I first literally arrived at The Arizona State Hospital on January 11, 2011, and a full bottle of highly regulated medication was stolen from my belongings while still in the hands of security and nursing staff who handled my admission. Ongoing since the May, 2011, cover-up of the violent escape of a patient named Jesus Rincon Murrieta, a coverup that included the participation of virtually all senior ranking ASH staff, most markedly ASH administrators, including ASH's long time on-site legal counsel, Joel Rudd, with no concern whatsoever for the safety of the patient of that of the public; and as the record came to reflect 90 days after that cover-up, it extended into the lives of at least one family, as they were impacted by the death of a young Phoenix woman named April Mott. It was highlighted again in early September, 2011, when I was unlawfully retaliated against by primary care physician, Dr. Perviaz Akhter, in complicity with the then Chief Medical Officer at ASH, Dr. Steven Dingle , for exercising my right to report staff misconduct to fullest of my ability, as my first 7 months of mistreatment at ASH had transpired. And it continued- intensified, in fact- throughout the remainder of my time as an ASH patient. But these specific and vividly loud examples of what I witnessed and experienced in those 13 long months of counter therapeutic mistreatment at ASH barely scratch the surface in terms of the full breadth of my observations as my time there passed; and more importantly, I was only one of close to 300 other seriously mentally ill and disabled patients at ASH, which immediately begs the question: "What else might have occurred in that time, in the case of other patients?"

AND IT IS ONGOING. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE RESULTS OF SEVERAL PHOENIX AREA MEDIA RESOURCES OVER THE LAST 10 MONTHS (please see ABC Ch. 15 [Phoenix] for more information). AS WELL AS BY THE VERY RECENT TESTIMONY OF THE ASH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, WHICH IN ITS FIRST YEAR OF FUNCTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY ORDERED TO IGNORE CLEAR EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ABUSE OF ASH PATIENTS IS RAMPANT AT ASH.

The "IT", of course, relates to the substandard medical-mental health care practices at ASH, and the role of ASH administrators in furthering these issues no matter how irrefutable the data is. The "IT" goes further up the money tree, too, extending well into the executive offices of ADHS/BHS, wherein highly entrusted state employees willfully abuse their positions in order to condone this situation. It is that bad, and yes, it is ongoing. 

ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
TITLE 9, CHAPTER 21; Article 4 
GRIEVANCES, AND REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION FOR PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS

In recent weeks, the lawfully established Human Rights Committee (HRC) at The Arizona State Hospital (ASH) reported the fact that the executive staff at ASH have engaged in denying HRC's ability to exercise due diligence in terms of responding to evidence about staff misconduct and associated violations of patient rights. These reports are no surprise to me whatsoever. As I have outlined in several RERUN articles over the last few days, I was subjected to similarly unlawful patterns of abject denials in the same context, with respect for my having formally submitted dozens of reasonably documented, good faith grievance reports in relation to my experiences as an ASH patient, circa 2011-12. Not only were a number of those grievance submittals- all of which I submitted as per applicable protocol- patently ignored or otherwise not managed as per Hospital rules and regulations (they did, in effect, vanish), at least  five that made their way into the ADHS Office of Grievances and Appeals (OGA) were grossly mismanaged in clear violation of the Arizona Administrative Code (state law), most specifically in terms of procedural requirements, including but not limited to time line requirements. These specific requirements are designed to ensure reasonably prompt oversight of any possible evidence to the effect of patient abuse, or any other like violations of law that has been established in order to preserve and protect the rights and care needs of any individual due to be provided with services that ADHS/BHS is required to provide (this extends to the operation of ASH as a public entity operating under the authority of ADHS/BHS). 


I will point out, as well, that no area of law and policy is arguably more complicated than administrative law, including what in legal parlance is defined as civil procedure, and I contend that the officials in OGA, as well as in the superseding legal office in ADHS, willfully rely upon these dynamics in order to defy the intention of such law as it stands, in gross violation of their obligations under the public trust. The fact is- and this extends into the administrative offices of ASH (including that of assistant attorney general Joel Rudd)- these people take for granted that no patient at ASH has the capacity to recognize such violations, much less to dig into and interpret the maze of Arizona administrative law as it applies to the operation of ASH; and they exercise this presumption because they deem persons affected by serious mental illness and associated disability to be inherently incompetent in all senses of the word. This sort of behavior is patently discriminative, and occurs in graphic violation of most fundamental provisions of The Americans With Disabilities Act See 42 U.S.C [1992], and Public Law 110-325, ADAAA [2009] ).  I can state in good faith that my status as an ASH patient stands as only one example of how ignorant this form of discrimination is, for I- as a person affected by serious illness and disability- am not only able to recognize when my rights are being violated; I can, in fact, also identify triggers that are capable of aggravating my state of mind and emotion when they occur. And I can read and interpret law, including the mind numbing elements of administrative law. No aspect of major depressive disorder as it is understood in medicine today has direct relation to any so affected person's cognitive or intellectual strengths, and this applies to certain other forms of serious mental illness, too. And yet at ASH, where hundreds of persons affected by the full gamut of recognized mental illness are seeking reasonably optimum mental health care, the patients as a whole are uniformly branded as less than human, with little to no capacity for reasoning, moral character, or self determination.

THE FOLLOWING IS A FRAGMENT OF THE FAR BROADER BODY OF LAW THAT APPLIES IN THE CONTEXT OF ARIZONA'S PUBLIC BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AGENCY. IT DIRECTLY RELATES TO TIME LINE REQUIREMENTS, AND THE PROTOCOL THAT APPLIES IF/WHEN THESE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET. WHILE THERE ARE AVENUES BY WHICH OGA CAN REQUEST TIME LINE EXTENSIONS, I ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT NO ASPECT OF AY SUCH ALTERNATIVES WERE FOLLOWED AS PER THE APPLICABLE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. VIOLATIONS OF SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE DEFINED BELOW AS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES.

ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
TITLE 9, CHAPTER 21; Article 4 

ARTICLE 410

B. Request for extension of time.
    -2. The investigator or any other official of an inpatient facility acting according to this Article may secure an extension of any time limit provided in this Article with the permission of the deputy director of the Division.
     -3. The investigator or any other official of the office of the deputy director of the Division acting according to this Article may secure an extension of any time limit provided in this Article with the permission of the director of the Department.
     -4. An extension of time may only be granted upon a showing of necessity and a showing that the delay will not pose a threat to the safety or security of the client.

C. Procedural irregularities.
     -1. Any party may protest the failure or refusal of any official with responsibility to take action in accord with the procedural requirements of this Article, including the time limits, by filing with the deputy director of the Division a written protest. A protest concerning the failure or refusal to take action by the deputy director of the Division or designee should be filed with the director of the Department.
     -2. Within 10 days of the filing of such a protest, the official with whom it is filed shall take appropriate action to ensure that if there is or was a violation of a procedure or timeline, it is promptly corrected, including, if appropriate, disciplinary action against the official responsible for the violation or by removal of an investigator or hearing officer and the appointment of a substitute.

NOTE: A FULL VERSION OF TITLE 9, CH. 21, ARTICLE 410 "A" THROUGH "C" IS PROVIDED AT THE END OF THIS POST). 


I will say again,  that with respect for my experiences as an aggrieved member of the patient community at The Arizona State Hospital, in relation to my good faith attempts to seek meaningful redress via the applicable protocol, ASH administrators and members of ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals willfully failed to meet the virtually all of the terms of the above outlined time line requirements, and numerous other like dictates of the law(s) of civil procedure. As to time lines, I attest to the fact that on no less than four documented occasions, the required dead lines were flatly ignored, with no notice to me or in consistency with protocol; likewise, the OGA staff responsible for these matters never presented any showing of necessity in spite of the fact that my safety and security were critically compromised not only by the issues at stake in several of these grievances, but also by the willful dereliction of duty by officers of OHA which did greatly exasperate these threats to me at that time. (see above: B. Request for extension of time, 2-4). Furthermore, as illustrated in my last two articles in this blog, my attempts to protest the failure or refusal of any official with responsibility to take action in accord with the procedural requirements were subsequently ignored. I did as a matter of plain fact submit repeated requests for the violations of these standards to be addressed as per the law to each and every senior ranking official, beginning with OGA, followed by the executive officers in BHS and the legal office of ADHS; until ultimately, I directly appealed to ADHS Director Will Humble himself. (see above C. Procedural irregularities, 1-2) None of these good faith requests and associated protests attained any response, and to date, this is still the case.

Time and time again this happened, as spelled out above. And I have full documentation to the effect, much of which I have shared with a range of associated investigative resources, media and senate members alike. I am convinced that senior ranking ADHS/BHS officials willfully attempt to wear out the energy of aggrieved ASH patients via this  outrageous and overt dereliction of duty (in the hope that any possible threats to the status quo in this context will dissolve and go unaddressed). I am also of the firm opinion that the sole reason the above patterns of gross rejection of Arizona's own laws occur (with respect for The Arizona State Hospital) lies in the associated fact that all ASH patients are- in fact- disabled by the affects of mental illness. And as I have clarified above and in numerous other articles, the ones behind these violations are willfully engaging in unabashed discrimination against the ASH patient community on the basis of disability. I experienced this first hand, via shockingly depraved misbehavior exhibited by my primary care psychiatrists (Dr. Pervaiz Akhter, e.g.,) senior ranking nurses, and more than a few lower ranking staff technicians and security guards. This misbehavior is shocking to the conscience, contributed to aggravation of my own specific state of mind and emotion as an ASH patient seeking reasonable care in the context of my diagnosis (major depressive disorder), and is criminal in nature. That said, it is the role of the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights to intervene, and that is something I intend to bring about. 

Further, given the presence today of a Human Rights Committee at ASH- of which at least one member has proven to be decent character in relation to my work as it stands (I am sure she is not alone, but she just so happens to be the only member I communicate with)- and the escalating concerns that the HRC has in recent weeks expressed (including in the presence of an emergency AZ senate hearing), I am willing to believe that my original aims in terms of bringing stalwart oversight and due accountability to the substandard care practices at ASH are continuing to advance. This oversight shall include the role that ASH's administrative executives have played in furthering those conditions, as well as any/all state level officials in ADHS/BHS who have been complicit in these issues as they have occurred for time immemorial. 

There is some new blood, too, at the helm of ASH, in the form of an attorney named Jennifer Alewelt, who is now the Chief Operating Officer there; and who I know for a fact has already attempted to intimidate HRC members seeking to exercise due diligence in relation to the function of HRC. She too may well be due some immediate attention, as I see it. But this is sad, for myself, because I came to know Alewelt when she was employed in her previous position as a staff attorney with the Arizona Disability Law Clinic, and I somewhat believed her to be of good character. But our interactions were brief, and I really don't know her at all. With this in mind, I will offer her the same encouragement I have offered all other ASH executives over the last 3+ years (including while an ASH patient), as follows: 


It is never to late to do the right thing. 
For now, that is. 
Act now or pay later. 

And oh yes, as to federal oversight- there's also Joel Rudd.

Rat Bastards Beware.

ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
TITLE 9, CHAPTER 21
ARTICLE 410

R9-21-410. Miscellaneous
A. Disqualification of official. The agency director, deputy director of the Division, investigator, or any other official with authority to act on a grievance or request for investigation shall disqualify themselves from acting, if such official cannot act on the matter impartially and objectively, in fact or in appearance. In the event of such disqualification, the official shall forthwith prepare and forward a written, dated memorandum explaining the reasons for the decision to the deputy director of the Division or designee or director of the Department or designee, as appropriate, who shall, within 10 days of receipt of the memorandum, take such steps as are necessary to resolve the grievance in an impartial, objective manner.
B. Request for extension of time.
1. The investigator or any other official of a mental health agency acting according to this Article may secure an extension of any time limit provided in this Article with the permission of the director of the regional authority.
2. The investigator or any other official of an inpatient facility acting according to this Article may secure an extension of any time limit provided in this Article with the permission of the deputy director of the Division.
3. The investigator or any other official of the office of the deputy director of the Division acting according to this Article may secure an extension of any time limit provided in this Article with the permission of the director of the Department.
4. An extension of time may only be granted upon a showing of necessity and a showing that the delay will not pose a threat to the safety or security of the client.
5. A request for extension shall be in writing, with copies to all parties. The request shall explain why an extension is needed and propose a new time limit which does not unreasonably postpone a final resolution of the matter.
6. Such request shall be submitted to and acted upon by the director of the regional authority, deputy director of the Division, or director of the Department, as appropriate, prior to the expiration of the original time limit. Failure of the relevant official to act within the time allowed shall constitute a denial of the request for an extension.
C. Procedural irregularities.
1. Any party may protest the failure or refusal of any official with responsibility to take action in accord with the procedural requirements of this Article, including the time limits, by filing with the deputy director of the Division a written protest. A protest concerning the failure or refusal to take action by the deputy director of the Division or designee should be filed with the director of the Department.
2. Within 10 days of the filing of such a protest, the official with whom it is filed shall take appropriate action to ensure that if there is or was a violation of a procedure or timeline, it is promptly corrected, including, if appropriate, disciplinary action against the official responsible for the violation or by removal of an investigator or hearing officer and the appointment of a substitute.
D. Deputy director's or director's investigation.
1. The deputy director of the Division or director of the Department may at any time order that a special investigator review and report directly to the director or deputy director as to the facts of a grievance or condition requiring investigation, including a death or other matter.
2. The special investigator, deputy director and director shall comply with the time limits and other procedures for an investigation set forth in this Article.
3. Any final decision issued by the deputy director of the Division or the director of the Department based on such an investigation under this rule is appealable as provided in R9-21-408.
4. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the Department or the Division from conducting an investigation independent of these rules.

TO VIEW THE ENTIRE CONTENT OF ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 9, CHAPTER 21 HEALTH SERVICES (AAC-9-21, HEALTH SERVICES) SEE: 

www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_09/9-21.htm

OF PARTICULAR INTEREST, PLEASE SEE: AAC-9-21, HEALTH SERVICES
     ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 
                   -(Article 1-105 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEES)
    ARTICLE 2. RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS
    ARTICLE 4. APPEALS, GRIEVANCES, AND REQUESTS FOR 
                          INVESTIGATION FOR PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL    
                          ILLNESS

paoloreed@gmail.com



Monday, May 5, 2014

RERUN May 2014. This article was originally published two years ago. This is the second time it has been republished.


Yesterday, I shared another RERUN from May, 2012, that illustrated the failure of state level officials in the Arizona Office of Grievances and Appeals (OGA) to abide by the letter of state law in the context of providing clients of ADHS/BHS services designed to address allegations of staff misconduct. There are clear rules of procedure in association with these services, including but not limited to timeline requirements, wherein formal grievance submittals alleging staff misconduct at The Arizona State Hospital (and beyond) in a reasonably timely manner, highlighted in the AZ Administrative Code (state law). The following data is offered in order to clarify precisely how I- as an ASH patient- came to realize the fact patient abuse and clinical ineptitude in Arizona's sole long term mental health facility are virtually condoned as a direct consequence of OGA's failure to abide by the requirements of this body of law, to the direct detriment of the ASH patient community as a whole.   

TIMELINE MAY 2012.


Identifying Key Factors #One: Wherein research concerning critical problems in the system lends itself to understanding the need for serious and deep reform in Arizona's behavioral health care system and its affiliated agencies.


The following article was originally published in this blog in May, 2012, approximately four months after my discharge from The Arizona State Hospital. The content is designed to illustrate the fact that administrative staff at ASH, as well as well up into the supervisory offices of ADHS/BHS, are willfully engaged in failing to abide by very specific laws that apply to any Arizona citizens right to due process, as per state and federal law and policy. More specifically, I can attest to the fact that the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals willfully ignored clearly stated time-line requirements that apply to civil procedure, as dictated in the Arizona Administrative Code, and other like edicts of law and policy. I contend that each and every state employee identified in the following material were complicit in allowing for this area of unlawful misconduct to occur, and further, that this data as it applied to my experiences in the context are far from unique. For I know for a fact that there are a number of ASH patients who at this time (2014) are being subject to the same issues illustrated herein. Substandard practices across the board, and they are all getting away with it.    


I am in the process of trying to get the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Grievances and Appeals (ADHS OGA) to comply with various Arizona statutes, as well as applicable provisions of the Arizona Administrative Code, specific to the long overdue scheduling of three (3) of my current grievance reports for hearing in the AZ Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix. As noted already, I just presented one body of allegations about clinical and administrative abuse at The Arizona State Hospital in my first hearing in this context last Thursday, May 17, 2012; but these other three (3) matters are of equal importance to the current substandard conditions at ASH, and the willingness of ADHS OGA to stall the legal process in this manner is 100% consistent with my concerns about deeply ingrained misconduct in the entire structure of the Arizona behavioral health care system, including but not limited to the substandard medical-mental care practices at ASH.


BELOW IS MY MAY 25, 2012 MOTION (AND THE RELATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT) TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, WHEREIN I REQUEST A PROMPT SCHEDULING OF ALL THREE OF THESE OVERDUE GRIEVANCE REPORTS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THAT OFFICE. I ALSO FORWARDED A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE MANAGER OF THE LEGAL OFFICE IN THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES IN THE HOPE THAT THEY RESPOND IN KIND AND GET THESE MATTERS SCHEDULED AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO. I CANNOT BE SURE THAT THIS MOTION WILL DO THE TRICK, BUT AS ALWAYS, I AM WILLING TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH COMMUNICATION WITH THESE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AS MATTER OF TRYING TO GET THEM ALL TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES AND MEET THIEU RELATED OBLIGATIONS TO ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF ARIZONA'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE CLIENTELE COLLECTIVELY SPEAKING.

OAH Electronic Motion Submission System oahmotion@azoah.com


to me

This is a message from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings to inform you that a motion has been submitted for Pending scheduling. The details are as follows:
Docket number: Pending scheduling
Hearing date: Pending
Filed by: (PJ Reed paoloreed@gmail.com)
Filed on: 5/25/2012
Sent to: Director
Copies e-mailed to: Thomas Salow, ADHS Managing Counsel salowt@azadhs.gov
Filing party will also notify:
(none specified)
--------------------------
Hi. I am writing you to inquire about the scheduling of three (3) OAH hearings, each one relating to unlawful staff conduct as The Arizona State Hospital and related ADHS/OGA grievance reports that occurred up to one full year ago. I received formal word from ADHS many months ago confirming that each of these three matters would be scheduled for hearing/OAH judicial review, but have not to date heard anything more. The absence of timeliness in the context of each of these separate is in violation of AAC provisions, and flies on the face of federal standards relating to due process and equal protection, and I am requesting your assistance in seeing that three (3) hearings be promptly scheduled, to whatever extent your office can help me, of course. These are the docket numbers for the oldest two (2) of the pending cases:
1) ADHS/OGA #H090611S0009 (regarding a sequence of incidents that occurred beginning on May 25, 2011)
2) ADHS/OGA #H120511S0012 (regarding a sequence of events that occurred beginning Sept. 06, 2011)

I do not have the docket number for the third of these grievance reports, but the related sequence of incidents began on September 30, 2011, when a patient named Melissa A. attacked and injured me with a metal chair while AzSH staff looked on.

Any information that you can provide me with concerning the status of these yet to be scheduled OAH hearings will be greatly appreciated.
--------------------------
The following file was submitted with the motion: NONE.
If a file was submitted with the motion, it should be attached to this e-mail. In the event that a file seems to be missing, please contact the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thank you for using the OAH Electronic Motion Submission System.       END


       IN CLOSING: As per this most recent court proceeding (May 17, 2012), I will be presenting my allegations in each of these yet to be scheduled hearings (presuming they are ever scheduled, in fact) in contest with the Arizona Attorney Generals Office (most likely the same hollow cheeked man, Joel Rudd, who represented The Arizona State Hospital last Thursday). As such, the grossly disproportionate power dynamo ic is already in effect, this in the sense that the state is delaying the scheduling of these hearings depute that being in violation of their own rules, and there is little that I alone can do about it at this time. My resources are very, very, limited, and I have next to no experience in these sorts of affairs.

PLEASE HELP ME WITH MY CAUSE: It is never too late for somebody else to get involved in this ongoing effort to defend the rights of Arizona's mentally ill adults, with particular respect for the patients at the Arizona State Hospital. Please see my Resource Ideas article from April 08, 2012, and do what you can to demand meaningful oversight and investigation of all of my feel founded and good faith allegations about patient abuse at ASH and behind in the state behavioral health care system. I strongly desire getting the United States Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights involved in this specific context (investigations), for example, and simple 2-3 paragraph letters to them about these matters can make a huge difference.  

UPDATE May 2014: It is critical to state that in the 13 full months I was hospitalized at ASH, I did formally file 25 grievance reports as per protocol about the substandard practices and associated staff misconduct as applicable to my own experiences during that time. Less than half of those submitted grievance reports were acknowledged, in spite of that fact I provided clear evidence in support of my allegations, 100% as per the associated form work, and so on. This fact in itself represents gross violations of both state and federal law in the context of due process and equal protection. The fact is, the only reason these issues arise at ASH has everything to do with the status of the ASH patients, all of whom are seriously mentally ill and disabled- and this is patent discrimination on the basis of disability, as it stands at ASH. 

Also: As I stated above, I am aware via direct contact with several Arizona State Hospital patients, patient' family members, Arizona based citizen advocates, and other like sources of hard data, that there is an insidious presence today of grossly unlawful violations specific to well established civil procedural law, as it applies at state and federal levels of  crucially enacted law and policy. One such person recently identified ASH's legal counsel Joel "the mortician" Rudd as a "prince of darkness", this as per their interactions with this particular Rat Bastard, and  as per such persons asking me to further the process to the best of my ability, I will say again: Rat Bastards Beware. You know who you are, and that that the walls are closing in. Why not do the right thing now, before it is too late in terms of career and reputation? I will immediately support any one you willing to help turn the tide once and for all, but do realize that I intend to take no prisoners, either, in terms of bringing full accountability upon each and every Rat Bastard responsible for furthering the underlying details of this issue- Arizona's dirtiest secret- The Arizona State Hospital, which has been operating in utter defiance of established health care law and policy as a matter of standard practice.

paoloreed@gmail.com