OAH Case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS (RERUN FROM SUMMER 2012): Wherein, the convoluted reality by which any patient at The Arizona State Hospital is denied due process when/of they seek legal redress within the construct of Arizona's administrative state system.

RECAP: In May, 2011, the administrators of ASH did engage in abusing my rightful access to due process and equal protection as per the letter of law, unlawfully utilizing mechanisms of legal and clinical procedure in order to deny me access to equitable relief via the directly applicable grievance process. This is one of several articles originally published in this blog in summer, 2012, with respect for this issue as it arose in May, 2011. As 2014 unfolds, the underlying discrimination against ASH patients as it arises whenever one seeks relief from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings will be featured as this blog evolves, including, as in this case, data specific to undeniable conflict of interest(s) that leaves such patients in a gray zone (at best) in defiance of common legal logic and any/all senses of equity under common law. 

See you in 2014, Rat Bastards.      

(from summer 2012)

OF CONFLICT #TWO 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 PERSONIFIED

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.

         As described in my July 04, 2012, article ("Conflict RE: case# 2012c-BHS-0338-DHS"), as the appellant in this case, I see clear and convincing conflict of interest in having Joel "the mortician" Rudd serve as representative counsel in regards to a hearing that is supposed to be looking at a matter wherein the central allegations include Joel "the mortician" Rudd's actions on the day in question, May 25, 2011; as described in the prior article, I went ahead, on July 16, 2012, and submitted my good faith motion to have Joel "the mortician" Rudd removed as counsel for the appellee.

WELL, JOEL"THE MORITICIAN" RUDD WILL HAVE NONE OF THAT GOING ON,  BY GOLLY, AS REFLECTED IN HIS OPPOSITION TO MY MOTION, SEEN HERE:

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 of document)

      THIS IS HOW I AM LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR MATTER:

A) You have a (the) state hospital, a public facility/entity and a functionary of the state dept. of health (its' client-patients are citizens of the state and nation).
B) You have state department of health, (whose clients are also citizens of the state and nation, including each and every ASH patient).
C) You have the state attorney general, a public agency whose staff are state employees, which represents the state itself, inc. state dept. of health and its functions, directly obligated to the the state's citizens (including each and every ASH patient). I have included the following two-cent diatribe offered on the AG's website:

     Welcome to the Arizona Attorney General’s web page. As Attorney General, I am committed to defending Arizona. Not only does my office represent the state in court, but it is my job to advocate for security along the international border, for consumer protection, and to keep the public safe from criminal predators. It is also my commitment that this office treats every legal matter with integrity, thoroughness and fairness.
     If you are in need of help, there are many resources available through this website or you may call any of our offices statewide for more detailed assistance.
     It is my honor to serve Arizona as Attorney General and I thank you for taking time to visit this site.
Tom Horne
Attorney General

D) And then, last but not least, you have the client-patient of the state hospital, who is a citizen of the state and nation.

One basic means by which to examine legal puzzles of any kind looks to apply a solvent, of sorts, a puzzle fixer known as the I-R-A-C approach (I considered going into this last night, but it being the fourth of July and all...), which is simple enough.  

       "I" = Issue

      "R" = Rule (applicable rule or rules)

      "A" = Analysis

      "C" = Conclusion

And as I see it, this little fix, imposed on me by the state officials and agency representatives whom I, as a disabled member of the state of Arizonas' respective citizenry and clientele, believe I should be able to expect to be reliable, ethical, honest, and so on, can be looked at pretty simple, as follows:

Issue:

   When the state hospital acts in such a way that a client-patient is aggrieved and seeks to hold the state hospital and the dept. of health accountable, and the state attorney general is involved in the act at issue, is it lawful for the state attorney general to represent the state hospital (and itself, in effect)? Keep in mind, I contend each of the state agency entities involved in this matter are expected to serve the interests of the state of Arizonas' citizens first and foremost, and I do not even need to go into what The Arizona State Hospital's mission is supposed to be about.

Rule:

Title 38 - Public Officers and Employees Search Title 38

CHAPTER 3

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

B. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.

   38-504. Prohibited acts

C. A public officer or employee shall not use or attempt to use the officer's or employee's official position to secure any valuable thing or valuable benefit for the officer or employee that would not ordinarily accrue to the officer or employee in the performance of the officer's or employee's official duties if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer or employee with respect to the officer's or employee's duties.

   38-508. Authority of public officers and employees to act

A. If the provisions of section 38-503 prevent an appointed public officer or a public employee from acting as required by law in his official capacity, such public officer or employee shall notify his superior authority of the conflicting interest. The superior authority may empower another to act or such authority may act in the capacity of the public officer or employee on the conflicting matter.

B. If the provisions of section 38-503 prevent a public agency from acting as required by law in its official capacity, such action shall not be prevented if members of the agency who have apparent conflicts make known their substantial interests in the official records of their public agency.

Analysis: 

     This details of this entire case has had conflict of interest written all over it ever since Dr. Steven Dingle investigated himself in relation to my original complaint and grievance, in spite of that grievance document identifying Dingle as a party to the essential wrongdoing that I was subjected to. That said, if it were to be determined in this hearing that the actions of ASH on May 25, 2011, in complicity with Joel Rudd, were unlawful in terms of coercion, etc. (a violation of federal law, as well as state law, etc.) than Joel Rudd stands to be held accountable, and the significance of my contention that this matter has federal implications also means that "the mortician"  could face some pretty heavy costs in terms of his role as one of Arizona's legal guardians. Therein: Does Joel Rudd have any Substantial Interest in the case at issue herein?

                     

Hell yes, he has, the little worm. 

Conclusion: 

      There is a clear and irrefutable conflict of interest underling the overall framework of this case's management by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, which does apply to the handling of the factual details underlying the issues at stake in the original grievance report by which this case was established.  In my opinion, as a seriously mentally ill and yet not as half baked individual as the folks at ASH want their patients to be, I must say, emphatically: Joel Rudd of the Arizona Office of Attorney General has been willfully breaching the public trust for at least two decades, acting via his given authority in order to violate the constitutional right(s) of ASH patients to due process under state and federal law. The fact is, no ASH patient has a chance of prevailing anytime they follow the immediate protocol offered to them as clients of ADHS/BHS and file a formal ASH/BHS grievance report/complaint. There is so disproportionate a distribution of power in these type cases that such grievances are effectively suppressed, in graphic violation  any ASH patients most fundamental constitutional rights, as established in state and federal laws throughout the United States. The presence of these disproportionate power dynamics greatly further the presence of abject discrimination and outright abuse against all ASH patients as a group, and as such, if any court allows for these dynamics to  prevail, the court itself is rejecting the findings of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the provisions of international Universal Declaration of Human Rights.    

           I will amp up my aggression and back off on exceedingly waste of time in terms of asking these freaks to cooperate with my good faith attempts, over 18 months of time, and put it this way:
                 Good ahead, counselor. 
                                                                "I dare ya!" 

I will keep outlining this course of events as it evolves. As I have tried to make clear in my last couple signings off, these hearings in themselves, convened within the confines of the realm of Arizona's rather questionable administrative network of ne'er-do-wells and carpetbaggers, are not the end all to my work. It is all part of a bigger record. The entire time I was at The Arizona State Hospital, for thirteen full months, I watched these people (Where the hell do they find these kinds of people, anyway?) carry forth in so disheveled a manner, ignoring the most basic of rules and stomping all over the rights of their patients, abusing their given authority in such clear defiance of their obligations that I became starkly clear to me that none of them value their work enough to actually realize how inept they are. As such, I gradually watched these matters unfold in the way one watches a fourteen year old favorite dog try to ride a unicycle. A comedy of horror and tragic fact. Only at ASH.... So let's do it. Let's take these nut bags off the payroll and bring in people who care as much for their clients as they do for themselves, in the American way, as one, until the cleanup is done. 

IN CLOSING: Patient abuse is a highly illegal practice in the best of circumstances, and that much more so when the patients are seriously mentally ill and disabled, as each and every patient at The Arizona State Hospital's are. If we sit back and allow for incompetence and ineptitude to rule the network of administrators and caregivers at ASH and throughout the Arizona behavioral health care system, than we may as well give in our identity as a compassionate, democratic nation. Patient abuse is inhumane, it is illegal, and the one's responsible for subjecting the patients at ASH to the sorts of wrongdoing that I am investigation and exposing- abuse that I in fact experienced in my own right while at ASH and am still being subjected today through the failure of the state legal system to do its basic job- have to be held accountable, punished, and banned from having anything to do with caring for our vulnerable fellows. Please get involved today. 

paoloreed@gmail.com