Fact: The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) functions as though it is an genuine court of authority obligated to serve the legal interests of Arizona's citizens. But it is not. OAH is a for-profit entity that operates entirely outside of Arizona's actual court system. The "judges" are hired via the internal interests of the state's executive authority (the governor's office, in effect), rather than appointed, elected, or otherwise granted authority via the public interest, with no formal association with the state bar, the wishes of the greater public, or any other reasonably democratic process. I contend that OAH operates as an arguably private interest entity that has no actual obligation to abide by the provisions of state or federal law. And yet, in Arizona at this point in modern history, this is an accepted practice. Mind blowing, even sickening to anyone of conscientious.
In this context, at one point of my seeking redress from this arguably nefarious body of so called judicial rule, I was advised that Joel Rudd -who just so happens to be the long standing formal legal representative of my adversary in this specific matter (Arizona State Hospital)- has more authority than the "court" itself. And not only that, as per the evidence I submitted to ADHS/BHS's Office of Grievances and Appeals, Joel Rudd and his staff at ASH were also identified as being responsible for the issues at stake. As I saw it then, and still do today (2014), as per his status in this sense and the provisions of common law (state and federal), Rudd was required to be identified as one of the named defendants in this matter, with no right to act as an authority over the assigned "court", given the evidential data at stake. I further contend that no legitimate court in the nation would have allowed for this man to exercise any such authority if, in fact, that granted privilege would have the potential to inequitably influence the required terms of due process and associated civil procedure as it applies in such matters.
But my concerns in this context were flatly rejected by the administrative staff at OAH (in writing, and I do have all copies of this specific data); and Rudd was therein allowed to act as the representing attorney in direct association to his own possible misconduct, as per the facts included in the original complaint in this case. This rejection of due process and equal protection occurred in graphic defiance of Rudd being a clearly identified party to my allegations as they stood at that time. The fact is- and I have all associated documentation- rather than acknowledging the basic merits of my concerns, OAH formally advised me in an e-mail that the officers of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings have no jurisdictional authority over Rudd's status as an Assistant Attorney General.
As a consequence of this standard (or lack there of), Rudd was allowed to reject and/or otherwise challenge the presentations of my overall allegations in this case, including my own sincere testimony, despite the bare-bones fact that he himself was centrally involved in my well founded and good faith allegations at that time. I will remind my readers that the evidence underlying my allegations also included the testimony of a highly reputable human rights advocate, employed in fact by the state of Arizona, named John Gallagher. Rudd's willingness to participate in this grossly inequitable process is representative of what I contend to be just one more example of the unlawful abuses of power by ASH's senior clinicians, in complicity with the Hospital's executive staff, as well as Rudd's personal staff members (and, it only follows, Rudd in his own right). All of these people work on-site on the actual grounds of the ASH facility itself, meet at least once a day in order to coordinate their formal actions, and in doing so, obviously engage- as such- in irrefutable patterns of abject unlawfulness that due to the walls and fence lines at ASH, are rarely if ever exposed to the greater public. This issue extends into the legal office of ADHS/BHS itself, where there is a whole other body of legal staff, including at least one "rules expert."
Specifically, I did submit a formal motion (protest) to both the court at OAH, as well as the ADHS/BHS "rules expert", with the lawful intent to have Rudd removed as ASH's legal counsel on the basis of an undeniable conflict of interest, in direct association to the documented fact that the full breadth of my allegations most definitely included the misconduct of these so-called legal professionals (all affiliated names and titles were included in my original grievance document); misconduct that I was aware- were my allegations found to be valid- this Rat Bastard (and his staff) would be exposed of in the context of the specific issues at stake in this case. I contend that had this case been presented to an actual court of law, the issue of conflict of interest and the role of Rudd and his associate staff in this matter would have been acknowledged, and all elements of my testimonial evidence would have been allowed to be included in the record. But due to the graphic disconnect between Arizona's Office of Administrative Hearings- which again, is not in itself a valid court of judicial authority- and the established state and federal laws that do apply in this context, all elements of my civil rights in this matter were patently denied in all senses. That's 1) due process as per the letter of law; 2) equal protection as per the letter of law; and 3) state and federal civil procedure as per the letter of law.
Where in so disproportionate a structure of administrative "justice" (authority) can any aggrieved client of ADHS/BHS/ASH find any possibility of true jurisprudence? To have the named defendant (again, in my original grievance I very clearly identified Rudd, and at least one member of his staff, as being centrally involved in issues at stake) exercising more authority than the given court itself is nothing short of an abomination of the legal process in all senses. But this is precisely the unlawful standard in effect at this time, which I attest to be of grave harm to the ASH patient community, patients' families and other such loved ones, as well as the greater public, as may apply (as illustrated by the death of April Mott, in late August, 2011). This crap is ongoing, day in day out; and it's considered standard practice by the one's entrusted by the taxpaying citizens of Arizona to oversee the rights and care needs of the ASH patient community. This is simple fact, and any person interested in looking more into this perverted form of so called "jurisprudence" in the state of Arizona can do so by reviewing the applicable state rules, all available on-line at no cost to the public.
But my concerns in this context were flatly rejected by the administrative staff at OAH (in writing, and I do have all copies of this specific data); and Rudd was therein allowed to act as the representing attorney in direct association to his own possible misconduct, as per the facts included in the original complaint in this case. This rejection of due process and equal protection occurred in graphic defiance of Rudd being a clearly identified party to my allegations as they stood at that time. The fact is- and I have all associated documentation- rather than acknowledging the basic merits of my concerns, OAH formally advised me in an e-mail that the officers of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings have no jurisdictional authority over Rudd's status as an Assistant Attorney General.
As a consequence of this standard (or lack there of), Rudd was allowed to reject and/or otherwise challenge the presentations of my overall allegations in this case, including my own sincere testimony, despite the bare-bones fact that he himself was centrally involved in my well founded and good faith allegations at that time. I will remind my readers that the evidence underlying my allegations also included the testimony of a highly reputable human rights advocate, employed in fact by the state of Arizona, named John Gallagher. Rudd's willingness to participate in this grossly inequitable process is representative of what I contend to be just one more example of the unlawful abuses of power by ASH's senior clinicians, in complicity with the Hospital's executive staff, as well as Rudd's personal staff members (and, it only follows, Rudd in his own right). All of these people work on-site on the actual grounds of the ASH facility itself, meet at least once a day in order to coordinate their formal actions, and in doing so, obviously engage- as such- in irrefutable patterns of abject unlawfulness that due to the walls and fence lines at ASH, are rarely if ever exposed to the greater public. This issue extends into the legal office of ADHS/BHS itself, where there is a whole other body of legal staff, including at least one "rules expert."
Specifically, I did submit a formal motion (protest) to both the court at OAH, as well as the ADHS/BHS "rules expert", with the lawful intent to have Rudd removed as ASH's legal counsel on the basis of an undeniable conflict of interest, in direct association to the documented fact that the full breadth of my allegations most definitely included the misconduct of these so-called legal professionals (all affiliated names and titles were included in my original grievance document); misconduct that I was aware- were my allegations found to be valid- this Rat Bastard (and his staff) would be exposed of in the context of the specific issues at stake in this case. I contend that had this case been presented to an actual court of law, the issue of conflict of interest and the role of Rudd and his associate staff in this matter would have been acknowledged, and all elements of my testimonial evidence would have been allowed to be included in the record. But due to the graphic disconnect between Arizona's Office of Administrative Hearings- which again, is not in itself a valid court of judicial authority- and the established state and federal laws that do apply in this context, all elements of my civil rights in this matter were patently denied in all senses. That's 1) due process as per the letter of law; 2) equal protection as per the letter of law; and 3) state and federal civil procedure as per the letter of law.
Where in so disproportionate a structure of administrative "justice" (authority) can any aggrieved client of ADHS/BHS/ASH find any possibility of true jurisprudence? To have the named defendant (again, in my original grievance I very clearly identified Rudd, and at least one member of his staff, as being centrally involved in issues at stake) exercising more authority than the given court itself is nothing short of an abomination of the legal process in all senses. But this is precisely the unlawful standard in effect at this time, which I attest to be of grave harm to the ASH patient community, patients' families and other such loved ones, as well as the greater public, as may apply (as illustrated by the death of April Mott, in late August, 2011). This crap is ongoing, day in day out; and it's considered standard practice by the one's entrusted by the taxpaying citizens of Arizona to oversee the rights and care needs of the ASH patient community. This is simple fact, and any person interested in looking more into this perverted form of so called "jurisprudence" in the state of Arizona can do so by reviewing the applicable state rules, all available on-line at no cost to the public.
I, in turn, will be including all such data in my ongoing work, specific to future articles in this blog, and in my upcoming book.
paoloreed@gmail.com
ayam bangkok ganti bulu Bonus Deposit Rp 2.000.000,- Khusus Di Hari Ulang Tahun Bolavita ke-6 !
ReplyDelete