CONFLICT #ONE

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 #ONE

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY TO ALL OF THE APPLICABLY DESERVING STAFF AT THE ARIZONA STATE HOSPITAL. 
(YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.)





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.

BACKGROUND, DETAILS
       On May 25, 10211, clinical administrators at The Arizona State Hospital ("ASH") and representatives of ASH legal office (Note: The "legal office" at ASH is managed under the authority of the Arizona Attorney General, of whom Joel Rudd is and employee) produced (created, drafted, and submitted) a legal document known as a "petition for court order," which was imposed on me following my refusal to sign a document that no patient is legally required to sign until I has been counseled on the matter by my court appointed attorney (which I contend was part of of a coercive, intimidating, and unlawful sequence of events that I presented in my original grievance as the underlying the basis of the original grievance document in this case).
        At the time that the events underlying this grievance occurred (May 25-27, 20122), this legal document (the petition for court order) centrally illustrated the appellee's willingness to unlawfully impose unlawful intimidation, coercion, and administrative abuse(s) of authority on me; and the role of the Arizona Attorney General (specifically, Joel Rudd, but essentially extending to the whole of the Office of the Arizona Attorney General) in producing (creating, drafting, and submitting) this legal document clearly illustrates the undeniable fact that Joel Rudd, as a known employee of a directly involved public agency (namely, the Office of the Arizona Attorney General), in correlation to Joel Rudd's role as representative counsel for the appellee in this hearing, was centrally involved and complicit to the primary allegations at issue in this matter.
       As stated, I have contended in my original complaint ("since day one") that this legal document was an attempt by the administrators of ASH to grant the state of Arizona the authority to impose a court order that would subject me to at least six months  of involuntary treatment within the confines of ASH in spite of the fact that no comprehensive (legally required) process of clinical assessment specific to my state of mind has occurred, and in spite of the fact that I was already subject to the terms of a separate court order, instituted by the judicial authority of a Pima County, AZ, that I had cooperatively participated in prior to my admission to ASH, which was still in effect at the time that ASH legal staff imposed this demand upon me.
      As such, the Joel Rudd's (and the Arizona AG) presence as the appointed counsel for the appellee in this proceeding constitutes clear conflict of interest that abridges my right to affair and impartial hearing, as per me constitutionally protected right(s) to due process under the law of the land.  

June 16, 2012

          I submit a motion to the assigned administrative law judge (Kay Abramsohn) in the above scheduled hearing requesting that the Office of Arizona Attorney General not be granted the role of representing ASH and ADHS in relation to this matter due to clear conflict of interest issues, and I provide the court with one page of the original grievance document which clearly identifies at least one staff member of that office as having played a central role in the abridgements of my rights at issue in the case.

OAH Electronic Motion Submission (Steps 1-9)

1. Your Name:  ------  (aka PJ reed)

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

3. To: Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn

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. (JULY 16, 2012)      

                       

There are a number of applicable provisions of law and policy specific to the topic of identifiable and unpermitted conflicts of interest. In upcoming articles I will offer an overview of some these things (see below), and I will share more about my express disagreement with allowing Joel Rudd to play any sort of authoritative role in these proceedings.

1) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

2) ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE                              

Title 38 - Public Officers and Employees Search Title 38

38-503. Conflict of interest; exemptions; employment prohibition

38-504. Prohibited acts

IN CLOSING: THIS CASE HAS BEEN A CROCK OF COCKROACH DUNG THROUGH AND THROUGH. THE ACTIONS OF ASH' HIGHEST RANKING CLINICAL STAFF AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES BY WHICH THIS MATTER AROSE IS CRIMINAL TO THE FIRST DEGREE, AND THE "HANDLING" OF THIS CASE BY ASH AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS BEEN PISSED ON FROM DAY ONE. 

       The abuse of seriously mentally disabled patients at ASH is inhumane, criminal, and entirely out of keeping with well established codes of law and policy specific to the rights and needs of America's most marginalized population. This particular case, and the other hearings in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings that I am seeing through at this time (there are five total, July 16 is #3 of the five), are not nearly so crucial as the basic willingness of the public to express their lawful dissent and defy The Arizona State Hospital's willingness to continue operating at a substandard level of medical-mental health care and practice.  Please see my April 30, 2012 "Resource Ideas" article and determine how you can best go about contributing to stopping patient abuse at ASH cold in its bloody tracks. Feel free to contact me via email, too, as I more than welcome open support from anybody who has what it takes and knows as I do that patient abuse at ASH is wrong.

paoloreed@gmail.com