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 LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO (SEE "RE: ADHS ADHS/DBHS OGA Docket #H090611S0009), AND RELATES TO AN 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.

         I never received a response from the the court (Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, aka "OAH") with respect for the motion to have Joel Rudd removed as counsel for The Arizona State Hospital (ASH)/Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) that I submitted to them on the 14th of this month. I believe that a response from the court is standard in terms of civil procedure as I know it, but apparently, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings doesn't operate in consistency with criminal, and or civilly managed court proceedings, and I have been expecting a response. I did, however,  receive the following document from Joel "the mortician" Rudd himself earlier today. Herein, a graphic display not only of the radically disproportionate power dynamic at play when it comes to this process (wherein a named party to the wrongdoing at issue, Joel "the mortician" Rudd, is also the representative attorney for ASH, and has more formative authority in this matter than the court does), but also of the circularity of the process (wherein my original plea for support in the face of the related wrongdoing in this case reappears precisely where it started, in the hands of one of the perpetrators).

        Think about this for a moment. A person is unlawfully and harmfully affected by an attorney's actions, and the person files a complaint with the applicable court, only to find that the same attorney is going to represent the defense in terms of challenging the person's claim. Sort of backwards, it would seem to me at this time, so I am compelled to consider expediting my case to a federal venue, and filing my complaint against the Arizona Attorney General in this matter as it stands at this time. It is an awkward position to be in, quite frankly. I never intended to take any individual or ASH itself to court in a context akin a civil suit, or to file a criminal complaint. And yet, here I am, on the verge of following the best advice I have been given in recent months, which basically amounts to using every resource available in terms of directly holding every individual I am able to name at this time, in order to further a federal court filing that will, to some level or another (depending on the individual in question), hold each of these people fully accountable. As onerous as this is, the patients at ASH, their families, and the citizens of Arizona deserve better than what this system offers at this time.
       It is glaringly apparent now, following my dedicated adherence to every suggested avenue for resolution available within and throughout the entirety of the system (ASH, ADHS, etc.), that the grievance process is inoperable from the bottom on up. It is a farce, through and through, and no client-patient of ASH or the whole of the health care system in Arizona is validly provided with a sound course for redress when their given rights are abused or otherwise abridged. I was very definitely wronged when the basis for this grievance arose, and in good faith, I did everything I was supposed to do in terms of allowing for the appointed authority figures to do their respective jobs; yet, despite the veracity of the unlawful sequence of events underlying this matter, I am left with little to no hope for meaningful redress. Not through the state system, anyway. This is something I have long suspected, of course, but I bent over backwards, in spite of the very real harm dome to me and the relevant detriment to my treatment while at ASH, and gave the various agency officials every chance to do the right thing.
         This is what the face of mental health care in Arizona looks like today:     

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF ARIZONA

In the matter of:                                 No. 2012c-BHS-0338-DHS

P.P.

           Appellant                                 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT  

                                                            OF HEALTH SERVICE'S

                                                            RESPONSE TO           

                                                           APPELLANT'S MOTION 

                                        (Assigned to Honorable K.A.)

The Arizona Department of Health Services ("ADHS"), by and through undersigned counsel, responds in opposition to Appellant's motion "to have Joel Rudd and the Arizona Attorney General's (sic) removed as representative counsel for the appellee on the basis of very clear conflict of interest issues" apparently filed electronically on or about June 14, 2012. ADHS requests that the tribunal deny appellant's motion for the reasons that (1) the Tribunal is without authority to remove a party's counsel, (2) on the facts presented by appellee, there is no conflict, and (3) even if the conflict alleged by Appellant existed, it is not for the Appellant to raise and seek redress from the tribunal but is strictly a matter between ADHS and its counsel.  

For these reasons, the Tribunal should deny Appellant's motion. 

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2012. 


                                         Thomas C. Horne
                                         Attorney General
                                                                                 
                                         Joel Rudd
                                         Assistant Attorney General    
                                         Attorney for Arizona                                 
                                         Department of Health    
                                         Services. 
   
                                                                                                                                                                   
(END)

       As reflected in my motion to have Joel "the mortician" Rudd and/or the Attorney Generals office removed as counsel for the appellee in this case (SEE BELOW), I kept my request as simple and forthright as I could, and made my legitimate concerns about the this issue very clear. It is not as though I am the one trying to get away with anything, and with the concept of fair and impartial jurisprudence in mind, why the hell is Joel "the mortician"  Rudd so opposed to allowing for this matter to be considered in as reasonably equitable a fashion as possible? Who and or what is he trying to protect?
       

OAH Electronic Motion Submission (Steps 1-9)

1. Your Name:  ------  (aka PJ reed)

2. Your E-Mail Address: -----------

3. To: Administrative Law Judge K.A.

4. Docket Number: 2012c-BHS-0338-DHS 

5. Pending Hearing Date: July 16, 2012 

6. You may submit your motion by entering the motion and grounds on this form (see 6a), or you may submit an existing document as an attachment (see 6b). You may also do both if necessary.

    6a. Motion and grounds (enter text or attach document): 

I am the appellant in the above proceeding (case #2012c-bhs-0338-dhs). I am submitting my motion to the tribunal to have Joel Rudd and the Arizona Attorney General's removed as representative counsel for the appellee in this case on the basis of very clear conflict of interest issues. The original grievance document in this matter, which was researched, drafted, and submitted to ADHS on my behalf by a former staff person from ADHS Office of Human Rights, clearly identifies Mr. Rudd, and at least one employee who works under his direct authority in the legal office at AzSH, which is an AHDS entity/facility, as parties to the central allegations upon with this case is founded. This conflict of interest is a gross abridgment of my rights to due process and related access to fair and impartial court proceeding(s). I am attaching one page of the original gr. doc, mentioned above, that clearly identities by name an AzSH/AZ AG legal secretary named Cindy Froelich who works under the direct authority of Mr. Rudd, and who willfully engaged in unlawful conduct specific to this case; at a later date, I will also be submitting the full original gr doc as evidence in support of my allegations. If there are any problems with this submittal, please advise me accordingly at the soonest possible time. Thank you. Patrick Pickens.       

                       

       IN CLOSING: This is not to say that we are throwing in sort of towel at this point. At least one other party in this matter has stepped forward and offered their direct participation in the upcoming July 16 hearing, wherein this matter is to be reviewed under the authority of OAH. In the meantime, case prep will continue, and all elements of the process as they play out become part of the record. Bottom line.

       This is the state of affairs as it stands today, it is as reprehensible as its always been, and that is all I can say about it. Please contact me if you care to be of any assistance to this cause. Patient abuse at The Arizona State Hospital (or anywhere else) is fundamentally criminal, inhumane, and 100% beyond the commonly accepted standards of our times and of our nation.  Write simple letters or make phone calls if you can to your elected representatives, or contact the US Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights. Be creative, be proactive. I need your help.  The patients at The Arizona State Hospital are being subjected to ongoing abuse and grossly substandard medical-mental health care and practice, and the doctors and administrators at ASH and at the state are getting away with it.  

paoloreed@gmail.com