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.

     As described in previous articles specific to this case- (wherein administrative and clinical staff at the Arizona State Hospital (ASH), including  Dr. Steven Dingle "berry",  Dr. Pervaiz Akhter and Dr. Lynn Lydon, in complicity with the Hospital's representative counsel, Joel "the mortician" Rudd of the Office of Arizona Attorney General,  attempted to unlawfully coerce or otherwise strong arm me into taking part in a legal process that I was not comfortable with taking part in and one which I was not legally required to take part in)- I represented myself at a July 16, 2012, court proceeding in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings whereby Judge Kay Abramsohn was assigned to review the merits of my grievance complaint in this matter in accordance with the Arizona Administrative Code (state law). Following this hearing, Judge Abramsohn formally directed me, the appellant, as well as ASH, the appellee, to provide her with critical evidential materials that she deemed crucial to her determination of the matter; she set a deadline of today, August 17, 2012,  by which I and the Hospital's representative counsel ("the mortician") were to have provided these materials to her in full. I met that requirement in precise accordance with Judge Abramsohn's directive on August 10, 2012; I, in fact, welcomed the judge's desire to take into account all/any such evidential materials that she deemed fit in issuing a fair and unbiased determination of this case, and I did so with pleasure. 
     However, at about 1 p.m. Arizona time today, only hours before the absolute deadline for submittal of these documents, Joel "the mortician" Rudd tried to get away with a last minute end around move that was clearly designed to suppress this evidence, by submitting a five page challenge to Judge Abramsohn's directive and request of these materials. Classic abuse of administrative authority and blatant failure to meet his obligations to the citizens at Arizona, in my opinion, in the context of the public trust, in direct violation of my protections against such abuse, and all at the common Arizona tax payer's expense. I would post the full five pages of this crap right away if I felt safe in terms of compromising my obligations to the procedural law in this matter, at this time, but I can't. 
    I can, however, share my protest of "the mortician's" motion, as follows: 

     Below is a copy of my protest of "the mortician's" challenge, which I wrote and sent to the court at 4:30 p.m. Louisiana time. 

ATTENTION: Honorable Kay Abramsohn. August 17, 2012. 
         I, the appellant in the above case, formally protest the appellee's last minute challenge to the tribunal's dutiful request for all/any relevant evidential material in this matter. The documents thus far provided by me, including those specifically requested by the tribunal following the July 16, 2012 hearing in this matter, have everything to do with the overall theme of my original grievance as well in the context of ADHS office of Grievances and Appeals mishandling of this case after ASH had erroneously conducted an internal investigation of this matter. I, the appellant, have willingly provided all/any thus far submitted documents in good faith, and I will be more than happy to provide all/any other related documents that do in fact reflect my continued attempts to seek meaningful redress of this matter as per the provisions of the AAC following the period of time thus far reflected in submitted documents (document submittals that I made [or made on my behalf] to ADHS/OGA in during the months of Nov. 2011-Feb. 2012). I sincerely find the appellee's unwillingness to cooperate and participate in this proceeding as per the direction of the tribunal to be reflective of the very real fact that ASH and its representative counsel, in complicity with ADHS/OGA, willingly ignore fundamental provisions of well established law and policy that are designed to comprehensively protect the rights of disabled-vulnerable clients of ADHS and the patients at ASH (such as myself) as a matter of standard practice. Thus, I protest the appellee's challenge to the tribunal at this time, and request that the proceedings continue in a manner consistent with Judge Abramsohn's discretion. 
    In addition to my protest of appellee's challenge to the authority of the tribunal, I want to make clear that the documents requested by the tribunal, which I have provided in strict accordance with the tribunal's directive in good faith, reflect and support very clear testimony that has already been provided at the July 16, 2012, hearing in this matter. If the appellee wanted to challenge the veracity or standing/merit of this testimony and/or the supporting data contained in the requested documents, than the appellee should have raised that challenge at hearing on July 16, 2012, and not today (August 17, 2012), less that eight hours before the final deadline of this proceeding. 
    Thank you. ------- PJ Reed. 
                                             (end of document)

IN CLOSING: This hopefully concludes my involvement with this particular case as it has stood to date. I will now await the findings of Judge Abramsohn, and can only hope that the proceedings in this case occur in accordance with her authority and discretion. My faith in this is timid, at best, however, for I know from experience that the procedural system by which clients of the Arizona Department of Health/Behavioral Health Services (ADHS/BHS) are supposed to be provided with meaningful protections against abuse and misconduct is potentially as flawed as the actual ASH system of so called care and treatment. In any case, this may be the conclusion of this matter as it has stood to date, but it is far from over in terms of my anticipation of federal oversight of these matters when the time comes.

In light of the ongoing violence in our world, far too much of it imparted by men and women who clearly suffer from mental instability and illness and should have effectively been protected as matter of public safety, I believe it very reasonable to expect that a public entity such as the Arizona State Hospital and its representative parent agency and counsel, etc., live up to its clearly established codes of practice. There is absolutely no excuse for the depths of staff shortcomings and directly related patient abuse that I witnessed and was subjected to first hand while hospitalized at ASH. And yet, as I have thus far tried to show in my writings and related sharing of critical documents, etc., ASH operates at a level of dismally substandard medical-mental health care and practice as a matter of standard practice. And as the proceedings in this matter show, to date, where- in order to ensure that the abuse imparted on me in this case (and as with the abuses that all patients at ASH suffer on a nearly ongoing basis) effectively be condoned- the Office of the Arizona Attorney General has conducted itself in graphic violation of very specific laws designed to protect my right to fair due process, and the clinical and administrative criminality present within the walls and fences of ASH clearly extends somewhat to the Arizona legal system in terms of mentally disabled persons such as I. This has to stop. Please do all you can to contribute whatever you can to this cause. The abuse of seriously mentally disabled patients at ASH is inhumane and highly illegal. Please see my April 30, 2012, "Resource Ideas" article and determine how you can take part; or do so on your own, for  I am far from the absolute authority in terms of knowing how you can most fully contribute, and I encourage to do whatever you can and deem most useful in defending the rights of ASH' patients today.

paoloreed@gmail.com