OF CONFLICT #THREE.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 #THREE

As the last two "OF CONFLICT" articles (#ONE 7/4/12, #TWO 7/5/12) 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), thus leaving us were we are today. Below is material relating to the presiding (assigned) administrative law judge's handing of the matter as it stands, as follows:

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.

       Upon receiving Joel "the mortician" Rudd's response in opposition to my request that he be removed as representative counsel for the appellee (himself, in part) due to very obvious conflict of interest issues, administrative law judge Kay Abramsohn immediately issued the following June 26, 2012, ruling (flatly denying my request on its face), which has the appearance of a Pavlovian reaction to the fact that Joel "the mortician" Rudd has undue influence over this proceeding due to his status as a public employee who works for "the largest law office in the state of Arizona" (Wickepedia 2010 ed.), the Arizona Office of the Attorney General, which is a public agency. The following is a copy of the judge's ruling:  

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 

PRIVATE In the Matter of: P.P., Appellant.		No. 2012C-BHS-0338-DHS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMOVE ADHS REPRESENTATIVE, CHANGING STARTING TIME OF HEARING

The administrative hearing in this matter is noticed for formal administrative hearing to convene on July 16, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. pursuant to the ADHS Notice of Hearing issued on June 4, 2012.  The issue for hearing is as follows: 

Appellant’s disagreement with the Department’s October 7, 2011 decision that Appellant’s five allegations that the Arizona State Hospital had violated his SMI rights were unsubstantiated.

On June 14, 2012, Appellant filed a motion to remove Assistant Attorney General Joel Rudd as the ADHS representative, arguing that there was a conflict of interest and asserting that Mr. Rudd and another person, a person who allegedly worked under Mr. Rudd’s direct supervision at the legal office at Arizona State Hospital (“ASH”), were “parties to the central allegations of my rights to due process and related access to fair and impartial court proceeding(s).”  Appellant indicated that this is demonstrated through his grievance in this matter, which was originally submitted to ADHS by a staff person at the ADHS Office of Human Rights.  Appellant included one page from his grievance.  Appellant cited no statutory or regulatory authority applicable to, or in support of, his motion.  

On June 22, 2012, ADHS, through Assistant Attorney General Rudd, filed its response to the motion.   ADHS argued that there is no conflict and that the Tribunal has no authority to remove a party’s legal representative.    

On consideration of the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Appellant’s motion to remove Mr. Rudd for the reason that there is no statutory authority, in these matters, for the Tribunal to remove the ADHS legal representative or to interfere with the legal relationship between ADHS and its legal representatives.   

ORDERED this day: June 26, 2012. 

_________________________________

Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

(END OF DOCUMENT)

        I was disappointed, to say the last, by Judge Kay Abramsohn's unwillingness to more meaningfully consider my motion/request that Joel "the mortician" Rudd be removed as counsel for the appellee (himself, in part), so I immediately tried once again to reason with the court on the basis that the whole affair and proceeding is increasingly looking/feeling very fishy to me, the appellant, as a citizen and as a human being, and on the basis, as well, of the fact that Rudd submitted no authoritative rule of law or policy in support of his opposition to my motion. It looks, in short, as though public employees who work for the Arizona attorney General can do whatever they want, including state any given opinion they have in relation to a court proceeding with relative certainty that the judge will respond in kind.

       In any case, below is a copy of my second request that the judge in this proceeding consider the fact that I the appellant- a disabled citizen of Arizona and the United States and client of the state of Arizona's Department of Health Services behavioral health services system, have rights, too. I also made note of the fact that neither Joel "the mortician" Rudd nor the judge herself had provided or cited any authoritative rule of law in opposing and denying my request, that it is my opinion that I am protected against such mischief by provisions of the United States Constitution, and that Joel "the mortician" Rudd knows perfectly well about the convict issue in question, as follows:

to oah, Joel.Rudd  from -------- aka PJ Reed I AM INDIGENT, SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL AND DISABLED, I HAVE NO FAX MACHINE  OR OTHER LIKE RESOURCES AT MY DISPOSAL, AND I CANNOT AFFORD TO SEND FAXES  THROUGH COMMERCIAL VENDOR. BUT THE OAH ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS RESOURCE  IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO SUBMIT MATERIALS, THUS, I AM SENDING THIS EMAIL.

This communication is my formal response to Judge Abramsohn's finding, as issued to me by email earlier today (June 26, 2012), in relation to my motion to have Joel Rudd removed as representative counsel for the appellee in this case (#2012c-bhs-0338-dhs): The Tribunal has denied my good faith and reasonable motion on the basis of me not citing any applicable authoritative rules, etc., but I must note that Joel Rudd (nor the Tribunal) did not cite any like form of authoritative rules in the context of his opinion on the matter, either. Where is the fairness in all of this? Mr. Rudd did willfully engage in unlawful actions specific to this grievance, this is clear from the record as it has stood from day one in this situation and as it will be presented at hearing on July 16, 2012, and I am not able to accept the Tribunal's willingness to allow a person/agency representative who grossly violated my fundamental human and constitutional rights actively challenge my allegations as representative counsel for the appellee in this hearing. The authoritative laws in relation to this matter flow from my constitutional right to equal protection and due process under the law of the land, and to even consider this insults my basic sense of jurisprudence, and flies in the face of civil procedure as I understand it. The conflict issue is undeniable, and Mr. Rudd knows it. If necessary, I will file a related complaint with the district office of the US Attorney General rather than risk seeing the merits of my grievance be trashed by this process if this matter is not more fairly resolved and allowed to precede in so disproportionately unfair a manner. I have rights, too, in direct relation to this proceeding, and I demand that my rights to play a role in the proceedings to the same degree that Joel Rudd/ADHS rights are. PLEASE ADVISE ASAP. Thank you. ------- aka PJ Reed

(END OF DOCUMENT)

       Needless to say, I never heard back form the court in response to the above second request. The most troubling thing about the judge's parochial disregard for the basic merits of my request is that she refused to even address the issue in terms of taking into consideration the fact that, while she may not have the express authority to remove Joel "the mortician" Rudd from the case, as the presiding judicial authority in this proceeding, she certainly could have expressed consideration of the ethical implications. It is so blatantly unfair to me as the appellant that I see this entire process as nothing more than a waste of time and other related resources. The issues underlying these sorts of cases, wherein a person such as myself does all he can to express nothing more than heartfelt dissent over clear patterns of substandard mental-medical health care and practice, are far, far too critical for such a shortsighted system of legal redress, this is glaringly clear to me. But I am willing to "waste" my time, as it were, because the only I am going to be able to expose these problems is by going through this process. I carry on with my participation in this insulting, demeaning and dehumanizing process with little concern for my own mental and emotional stability because it has to be done, but I highly doubt that Judge Kay Abramsohn is up to the task of wrapping her mind around the implications of my concerns. 

      Ergo, at this point and so far as this specific CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE stands, I am willing to allow this proceeding continue as it is. This case has had conflict of interest issues written all over ever since Dr. Steven Dingle, another one of the parties to my central allegations, investigated himself in response to my original grievance and then issued the first patent denial of my claims. 
       If the judge in this case wants to to risk violating any number of of sanctions that apply directly to her obligations as an officer of the court, than so be it, yet again. And if Joel "the mortician" Rudd is comfortable with the matter as it stands today, than I am for that, too. He deserves everything coming to him, he is after all, a public employee working for the biggest law firm in Arizona.                                 
                                                    

38-510. Penalties                          "Go ahead counselor. I dare ya'."

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: What a royal pain in the ass these people are (where in the hell do they find these sorts of people???). I will just say for now, that I highly doubt that the information I am posting in relation to my concerns will have any effect on the situation at this time. The disproportionate power dynamic between the client-patients and the people running their lives is and has been so grossly out of control for such a long time the I am willing to bet people like Joel "the mortician"Rudd have become complacent in the exercise of their duties. Complacency of this sort is endemic in places like the Arizona State Hospital, and the fact that the public office assigned the responsibility of watching over the administrative and legal affairs of ASH is so willing to snub the findings and intent of fundamental precepts of law and policy only highlights my illustration of these problems. Mentally ill persons in the Arizona behavioral health system are constantly forced to accept ongoing violations of well established codes of conduct as a direct consequence of the nature of their given illnesses and disorders. They are voiceless in every aspect of the word, and this is particularly true at The Arizona State Hospital. 

      Please do whatever you can to support this cause. Visit my "Resource Ideas" (4/30/12) and elect the best course for you to become involved. The abuse on seriously mentally ill patients at ASH is an affront to the integrity of their families and the history of the state and nation. There is a criminal element of administrative misconduct very much at play in the Arizona behavioral health care system, and ASH is where the issues play out on a day to day basis, at the direct expense of the patients. It is substandard mental-medical health care and practice, and the administrators at ASH are getting away with it. 

paoloreed@gmail.com