Conflict One: State Sanctioned Ineptitude, Overt Conflict of Interest, and The Negative Impacts On Arizona Consumers Of a Broken Legal Format and Protocol: Wherein a state agency, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, acts as the ultimate authority over patient generated grievance issues specific to another state agency, The Arizona Department of Health.

"You, Dr. Cara Christ , are 100% responsible for doing the right thing today. So do it, already."

Dr. Cara Christ.
Director, Arizona Dept. of Health Services
2015-the present. 

Since her appointment to the highest ranking position in Arizona’s public health care system in 2015, Arizona Department of Health Director Dr. Cara Christ has repeatedly stated that there have been “great improvements” in the state’s sole long term public mental health care facility, Arizona State Hospital (ASH). To date however, January 2018, Dr. Christ has never provided any evidence or information about just what these “improvements” at ASH are, in fact. This is of very real concern to the staff of this publication, given that Dr. Christ’s immediate predecessor (Will Humble ADHS Director 2009-2015) willfully relied upon producing a pattern of overt and untruthful propaganda that served to delay a subsequent process of critically needed oversight and accountability at ASH. Propaganda that defied the realities specific to the ASH operation, including but not limited to preventable patient deaths, the tragic murder of a young Phoenix woman, and a wide range of patient generated concerns expressed in grievance submissions; and as such, granted the former administrators of ASH further opportunity to continue operatinASH in a manner deeply harmful to the welfare of the Hospital’s patient community. These issues have been exemplified by the information provided in this blog since 2012, as well as in a number of scathing investigative findings of the staff of ABC Ch15 circa 2013-2015; (As reported previously in this publication, at least three preventable deaths occurred due to this fact). 

The following article was originally published sometime in the first twelve months of the life of this blog, PJ Reed The Arizona State Hospital Patient Abuse. We are republishing this information as one means to remind our readers of how dismally substandard the operation at ASH was circa 2010-2012, and in order to raise consideration as to whether in fact any legitimate improvements have in fact come about since Dr. Christ was granted directorship over Arizona’s public health care system. 

——————————————

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.

(Originally published June 4, 2012)

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.

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY TO ALL OF THE APPLICABLY DESERVING STAFF AT THE ARIZONA STATE HOSPITAL. 

(YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.)

FACT: I HATE DIRTY LAWYERS.

THE ISSUE

WHEREIN I PJ REED- 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 (Joel Rudd, most specifically, but also 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 in the allegations central to this case.

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 continued confinement  at 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.

——————————————

“ 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.”

Joel Rudd's presence as the appointed counsel for the appellee in this proceeding thus clearly constitutes clear conflict of interest that abridges my right to affair and impartial hearing, as per my and any other ASH pateint’s constitutionally protected right(s) to due process under the law of the land. And yet, on any given day of regular business operation at ASH, this Rat Bastard and undeniably dirty lawyer goes about violating his required obligations as a member of the Office of Arizona Attorney General. The occurs in a manner deeply detrimental to the rights and care needs of the ASH patient community across the board, is yet another bright line example of standard practice(s) at ASH, and clarifies the crucial need for immediate oversight and accountability. Anything less will only further the ability of ASH administrators and medical staff to carry on with gross abuses of the Hospital’s patient clientele.

OAH Case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS

        June 16, 2012.  At which time 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 specific to issues at stake; and I therein 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. ————-  (AKA PJ Reed) JULY 16, 2012   

   ————————————————————————————————————

                       

As already stated, allowing Rudd to act as the representative attorney in relation to the central allegations and associated risks of identified conflict of interest in context is patently unlawful in itself. There are a number of applicable provisions of law and policy specific to the topic of identifiable and unallowable conflicts of interest. In upcoming articles I will offer an overview of some these things. In the meantime, below are two specific citations of what conflict of interest is as per legal definition.

1) According to the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, a conflict of interest exists “if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person.” The key is whether the lawyer’s exercise of independent professional judgment is likely to be unduly influenced by other interests. (West Publishing, Inc., Encyclopedia of American Law. [Edition 2]. Copyright 2008. The Gale Group.)  

2) Arizona State Legislature, Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) 

     AAC Title 38-503, 504 (PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) 

      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.

      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 officer or employee…. if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer with respect for the officer’s duties. 

As a matter of clarification (38-503 [B]), Joel Rudd is a “public officer” and state “employee” with a “substantial interest”  interest in the decision(s) of judges working in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (which is in itself a “public agency”), who must “refrain from participating in any manner” on the basis of his interest in this matter; and it follows, any other like issue in patient generated grievances that arise specific to his conduct as ASH’s legal counsel.

As such (38-504 [C]), Rudd is a public officer who is prohibited from using “the officer’s… official position to secure and valuable thing or benefit for the officer or employee.” As such, in matters/legal cases wherein he is central to associated allegations, Rudd will possibly, if not most certainly  benefit from any decisions by OAH judges who are influenced by him as his own representative. Ergo, Rudd’s participation in and influence over this matter is both “substantial and improper”  on the simple basis that his participation will most necessarily influence his given duties as a highly entrusted state employee.  

——————————————————

IN CLOSING: SINCE DAY ONE AND THE SUBMISSION OF MY ORIGINAL GRIEVANCE, 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. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY PAR TO THE SITUATION AS IT APPLIES, WITH RESPECT FOR THE AZ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. ABJECT AND DISPROPORTIONATE POWER OVER THE INTERESTS OF ANY AGGRIEVED ARIZONA CITIZEN SEEKING REDRESS VIA THE STATES CONSUMER GRIEVANCE SYSTEM, AND PARTICULARLY THE INTERESTS AND CARE NEEDS OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT-CONSUMERS WHO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO ASH.   

       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. 

DATELINE 2018. As though it is bad enough that state agencies effectively investigate themselves with no degree of objectivity, to the direct detriment of the interests of aggrieved citizens who rely on the state to protect and preserve their interests. Add to that, the fact that at Arizona State Hospital, issues of legal significance derived of patient generated grievances fall under the investigative authority of persons who work for either the Hospital itself, or for the state in one or another position. In all senses, this defines a broken system. 

On that note, there is no reason today to believe that this particular area of concern has changed. While Joel Rudd himself also departed Arizona State Hospital following the 2015 scandal originally exposed in this publication since 2012, and is in fact no longer a staff member of the Attorney General’s office, no formal changes have been made to the twisted construct that deny aggrieved patient-consumers at ASH have had to deal with since time immemorial.  

But someone has taken Rudd's place, this much we know; a person who is just as much a “public officer” and state “employee” with just as much  “substantial interest”  in the decision(s) of judges working in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. This simple fact puts all/any ASH patient with legitimate concerns expressed in such submissions at grave risk of being denied due process in a context of the seeking to resolve such concerns and issues, and in turn, posing risk of related harm that may in fact negatively effect the welfare of the greater ASH patient community. 

All Americans are deserving of meaningful redress when questionable issues arise specific to their relationship with state government. It is, after all, a matter of American values that flow back to the findings of out nation’s founders and the establishment of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. And while I know all too well that there are any number of issues in this context that negatively impact Americans in a wide range of ways today, I know as well that when it comes to persons disabled by mental illness, this reality has the greatest potential of harm. 

It doesn't take a lawyer or rocket scientist to realize these things. 

Or does it?

In closing, yet another plea to ADHS Director Dr. Cara Christ. If there are indeed examples of great improvement at ASH, please present these examples to the public in a detailed manner. (Cease and desist with vagaries. Please.) 

This is really all it will take to get me and my staff to back off. Well, not entirely “back off”, but it will certainly serve in getting us to believe on any level that such improvements are for real. Because to date, we simply do not believe your statements in this context. (How can we?) 

And nor does anyone else with a valid history of following this blog over the years. Said followers most definitely includes current ASH staff, and employees of your departmental office; well intentioned and equally well qualified individuals who have continually supported this blog since well before your appointment, Dr. Christ. 

    

paoloreed@gmail.com