Food For Thought:  Wherein, an after the fact review of my last hearing in front of Honorable Judge Kay Abramsohn lays a template for the future. 


AFTER THE FACT
Food For Thought, (in regards to the last hearing, May 17, 2012, OAH case #2012c-BHS-0263-DHS): 

In the previous hearing convened on "my behalf" (or maybe this is not the reality with these cases that go before administrative law judges under the authority of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, maybe they are principally designed, in fact, to serve some or another party/entity than the citizen of the state of Arizona who takes these issues into that forum), Honorable Judge Kay Abramsohn FAILED TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FOLLOWING FACTS, ALL OF WHICH WAS SUBMITTED AND ESTABLISHED AT THE MAY 17, 2012 HEARING, AS FOLLOWS:

    (A) My being denied access to evidence (see * below) presented by the appellant (ASH' Chief Operating Officer Donna "You are so busted!" Noriega), despite my having made numerous requests, including to the tribunal (Kay Abramsohn), that I be fully provided with all relevant evidentiary materials specific to this matter, including investigators notes, video and/or photo evidence, and interdepartmental and interoffice communications (including but not limited to e-mail and facsimile).

     (B) Staff at The Arizona State Hospital denying me access to making a phone report to the Phoenix police department until seven full hours after I had been viciously assaulted, verbally and physically, by an ASH technician named Elaine Traylor.

     (C) By the time I was allowed access to the Phoenix police department in order to file a report concerning this matter, ASH staff had met with and briefed the responding police officers, who would only discuss the facts of the incident in accordance with what they had already heard from ASH staff.

     (D) Video technology* upon which ASH administrators based their entire denial of this event was not empirically sound in terms of being admissible evidence, for it was not free flowing, and skipped at various random points of time during its transmission for periods of up to several seconds or more.

     (E) The ASH investigator (Vicky Fox) who interviewed me and who administered 4-5 photos* of the injuries I incurred in this incident was fired from her job many months before this matter was brought before the judge in this case, and the records of that interview* as presented at hearing by the appellant (ASH' Chief Operating Officer Donna "You are so busted!" Noreiga) were scarce and inconsistent with my notes and memory of the interview, as was summary discussion of my injuries.

     (F) The initial investigation, which was conducted by an ASH/ADHS investigator (Vicky Fox) failed to meet statutorily required time lines, which I reported at the time to ADHS (my reports were ignored).

NOTE: Again, the above issues were clearly presented by me to Judge Kay Abramsohn on May 17, 2012, and I submitted a large body of directly related evidence (approximately 35 pages of textural data) in support of the merits to these issues, but the judge did not/would not/refused-failed to take these issues under consideration when she issued her findings. I did, in essence, lose the above case, as it stood on that day, May 17, 2012. But it is far from over (see ** below).


IN CLOSING: The above record, as it stands today, clearly illustrates the graphic shortcomings case proceedings that go before administrative law judges (such as Kay Abramsohn) under the authority of  the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. We have decided to let the judge in the above case off the hook in terms of her mishandling of the proceedings, because I am far more interested in exposing the constitutionally egregious actions of ASH staff in terms of denying me access to the Phoenix police (as such, a clear violation of my right to equal protection) and their interference with the police investigation (a clear violation of my right to equal protection as well as due process), as well as the Phoenix police departments direct involvement in these practices, which I feel constitutes complicity and willful denial of my rights in these same ways.

       We let the judge in the above case off the hook because these issues arise under federal law and jurisdiction**, and that belies why the federal authorities have already been contacted (see article June 26, 2012 "RE: OAH Case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS"). But we also gave her every chance under the sky to do the right thing (all things in their own time).

I sometimes get pretty angry just by going through the process of reviewing these matters every time I draft an article such as this one. Patient abuse is atrociously wrong, it is inhumane, it is criminal, and it societally perverted. The administrators at The Arizona State Hospital conduct their operation as a public health care facility in radical contradiction to well established standards of law and policy, and commonly acknowledged codes of basic decency; it is substandard mental-medical health care and practice through and through, and they get away with it each and every day. Meanwhile, the various agencies and branches of state government assigned and granted the task of maintaining these sorts of affairs willfully blind the facts underlying matters directly related to these issues and thereby condone and foster the ongoing substandard and criminal practices at ASH in as direct a fashion as I might have ever imagined possible, proper to becoming so deeply involved in this process. Please, please, please, come to my aid and to the aid of the patients at ASH today. 
       

We all deserve to live in a world not corrupted by these forms of egregiously irresponsible shortcomings, and the patients at ASH deserve to be treated like the human beings that they are. 

paoloreed@gmail.com