Conflict Three: 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.

"This story illustrates the basic fact that the Arizona Administrative Court is nothing more then a puppet court functioning in gross violation of the rights of Arizona Citizens."

"This case has had conflict of interest issues written all over it ever since Dr. Steven Dingle, another one of the parties to my central allegations, literally investigated himself in response to my original grievance and then issued the first patent denial of my claims."

"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 THREE

(Originally published June 6, 2012)

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.

Fact: I hate dirty lawyers.

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 the articles Conflict ONE (7/4/12) and Conflict TWO (7/5/12), I have as the appellant in the cited case proceeding submitted a motion to the court to have a conflict of interest issue resolved in a fair and impartial manner (Conflict ONE). This motion was followed with a response in opposition to that motion by  the Arizona Office of the Attorney General, and attorney  Joel Rudd more specifically speakng (Conflict TWO),  who is a central party in the allegations at issue in this case. And it was somewhat but not entirely a surprise to observe Rudd’s oppostion to my motion, he being 100% committed to maintaining the status quo at Arizona State Hospital, which has for years put the patient community at ASH at grave risk of harm. Rudd’s opposition is also consistent in such case proceedings when someone with too much power is questioned in the context of conflict of interest issues- patent denial or refusal to acknowledge such conflict of interest. 

Regardless of Rudd’s highly predictable stance, I have been willing to trust the authority of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to abide by the standards of law in any legitimate legal proceeding. My trust in this context has brought us to where we are today.

Upon receiving Joel Rudd's response in opposition to my request that he be removed as representative counsel for the appellee (himself, in part) due to very obvious conflict of interest issues, administrative law judge Kay Abramsohn immediately issued the following June 26, 2012, ruling (flatly denying my request on its face), which has the appearance of a Pavlovian reaction to the fact that Joel Rudd has undue influence over this proceeding due to his status as a public officer/employee who works for the largest law office in the state of Arizona (Wickepedia 2010 ed.), the Arizona Office of the Attorney General. The following is a copy of Judge Abramsohn’s ruling:  

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 

Judge Kay A. Abramsohn, presiding.

PRIVATE In the Matter of: P.P., Appellant. (AKA PJ Reed)		No. 2012C-BHS-0338-DHS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMOVE ADHS REPRESENTATIVE.

The administrative hearing in this matter is noticed for formal administrative hearing to convene on July 16, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. pursuant to the ADHS Notice of Hearing issued on June 4, 2012.  The issue for hearing is as follows: 

Appellant’s disagreement with the Department’s October 7, 2011 decision that Appellant’s five allegations that the Arizona State Hospital had violated his SMI rights were unsubstantiated.

On June 14, 2012,  Appellant filed a motion to remove Assistant Attorney General Joel Rudd as the ADHS representative, arguing that there was a conflict of interest and asserting that Mr. Rudd and another person, a person who allegedly worked under Mr. Rudd’s direct supervision at the legal office at Arizona State Hospital (“ASH”), were “parties to the central allegations of my rights to due process and related access to fair and impartial court proceeding(s).”  Appellant indicated that this is demonstrated through his grievance in this matter, which was originally submitted to ADHS by a staff person at the ADHS Office of Human Rights.  Appellant included one page from his grievance.  Appellant cited no statutory or regulatory authority applicable to, or in support of, his motion.  

On June 22, 2012, ADHS, through Assistant Attorney General Rudd, filed its response to the motion.   ADHS argued that there is no conflict and that the Tribunal has no authority to remove a party’s legal representative.    

On consideration of the foregoing,

      IT IS ORDERED denying Appellant’s motion to remove Mr. Rudd for the reason that there is no statutory authority, in these matters, for the Tribunal to remove the ADHS legal representative or to interfere with the legal relationship between ADHS and its legal representatives.   

 ORDERED this day: June 26, 2012.   

       Kay A. Abramsohn

       Administrative Law Judge

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

        

I was disappointed, to say the last, by Judge Kay Abramsohn's unwillingness to more meaningfully consider my motion/request that Joel "the mortician" Rudd be removed as counsel for the appellee (himself, in part), so I immediately tried once again to reason with the court on the basis that the whole affair and proceeding is increasingly looking/feeling very fishy to me, the appellant, as a citizen and as a human being, and on the basis, as well, of the fact that Rudd submitted no authoritative rule of law or policy in support of his opposition to my motion. It looks, in short, as though public employees who work for the Arizona attorney General can do whatever they want, including state any given opinion they have in relation to a court proceeding with relative certainty that the judge will respond in kind.

In any case, below is a copy of a second request that the judge in this proceeding to consider the fact that I the appellant- a disabled citizen of Arizona and the United States and client of the state of Arizona's Department of Health Services behavioral health services system- have rights, too.

In this second request, I also made note of the fact that neither Joel Rudd nor the judge herself had provided or cited any authoritative rule of law in opposing and denying my request, that it is my opinion that I am protected against such mischief by provisions of the United States Constitution, and that Joel Rudd knows perfectly well about the conflict of interest issue in question, as follows:

TO: Judge Kay Abramsohn; Joel Rudd. From -------- AKA PJ Reed I AM INDIGENT, SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL AND DISABLED, I HAVE NO FAX MACHINE OR OTHER LIKE RESOURCES AT MY DISPOSAL, AND I CANNOT AFFORD TO SEND FAXES THROUGH COMMERCIAL VENDOR. BUT THE OAH ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS RESOURCE IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO SUBMIT MATERIALS, THUS, I AM SENDING THIS DOCUMENT IN THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL.

This communication is my formal response to Judge Abramsohn's finding, as issued to me by email earlier today (June 26, 2012), in relation to my motion to have Joel Rudd removed as representative counsel for the appellee in this case (#2012c-bhs-0338-dhs): 

The Tribunal has denied my good faith and reasonable motion on the basis of me not citing any applicable authoritative rules, etc., but I must note that neither Joel Rudd nor the Tribunal cited any like form of authoritative rules in the context of his opinion on the matter. 

I also need to know, if the presiding judge in this case does not have the authority to remove Joel Rudd from the case, than who in the heck does have that authority? Where is the fairness in this? 

Mr. Rudd did willfully engage in unlawful actions specific to this grievance, this is clear from the record as it has stood from day one in this situation and as it will be presented at hearing on July 16, 2012. I am not willing or able to accept the Tribunal's willingness to allow a person/agency representative who grossly violated my fundamental human and constitutional rights in this matter actively challenge my allegations as representative counsel for the appellee in this hearing. 

The authoritative laws in relation to this matter flow from my constitutional right to equal protection and due process under the law of the land, and to even consider this insults my basic sense of jurisprudence, and flies in the face of civil procedure as I understand it. The conflict of interest issue at this time is undeniable, and Mr. Rudd knows it. If necessary, I will file a related complaint with the district office of the US Attorney General rather than risk seeing the merits of my grievance ignored by this highly questionable process if this matter is not more fairly resolved and allowed to precede in so disproportionately unfair a manner. 

I have rights, too, in direct relation to this proceeding, and I demand that my rights to play a role in the proceedings to the same degree that Joel Rudd/ADHS rights are. PLEASE ADVISE ASAP. 

Thank you. ------- aka PJ Reed. July 01, 2012. 

—————————————————

Needless to say, I never received any response to the above second request. The most troubling thing about Judge Abramsohn’s parochial disregard for the basic merits of my request is that she not only refused address the technical elements of this undeniable conflict of interest, but further disregarded the related ethical implications. It is so blatantly unfair to me as the appellant that I see this entire process as nothing more than a waste of time and other related resources.

The issues underlying these sorts of cases, wherein a person such as myself does all he can to express nothing more than heartfelt dissent over clear patterns of substandard mental-medical health care and practice, are far, far too critical for such a shortsighted system of legal redress, this is glaringly clear to me. But I am willing to "waste" my time, as it were, because the only I am going to be able to expose these problems is by going through this process. I carry on with my participation in this insulting, demeaning and dehumanizing process with little concern for my own mental and emotional stability because it has to be done, but I highly doubt that Judge Kay Abramsohn is up to the task of wrapping her mind around the implications of my concerns.

Ergo, at this point and so far as this specific CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE stands, I am willing to allow this proceeding continue as it is. This case has had conflict of interest issues written all over ever since Dr. Steven Dingle, another one of the parties to my central allegations, literally investigated himself in response to my original grievance and then issued the first patent denial of my claims.

If the judge in this case wants to to risk violating any number of of sanctions that apply directly to her obligations as an officer of the court, than so be it, yet again. And if Joel "the mortician" Rudd is comfortable with the matter as it stands today, than I am for that, too. He deserves everything coming to him, he is after all, a public employee working for the biggest law firm in Arizona.

                                                    "Go ahead counselor. I dare ya'."

38-510. Penalties                         

A. A person who:

1. Intentionally or knowingly violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 6 felony.

2. Recklessly or negligently violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

B. A person found guilty of an offense described in subsection A of this section shall forfeit his public office or employment if any.

C. It is no defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 that the public officer or employee to whom a benefit is offered, conferred or agreed to be conferred was not qualified or authorized to act in the desired way.

D. It is a defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 that the interest charged to be substantial was a remote interest.

                                                                                                                       

IN CLOSING: What a royal pain in the ass these people are (where in the hell do they find these sorts of people?). I will just say for now, that I highly doubt that the information I am posting in relation to my concerns will have any effect on the situation at this time. The disproportionate power dynamic between the client-patients and the people running their lives is and has been so grossly out of control for such a long time the I am willing to bet people like Joel "the mortician" Rudd have become complacent in the exercise of their duties. Complacency of this sort is endemic in places like the Arizona State Hospital, and the fact that the public office assigned the responsibility of watching over the administrative and legal affairs of ASH is so willing to snub the findings and intent of fundamental precepts of law and policy only highlights my illustration of these problems. Mentally ill persons in the Arizona behavioral health system are constantly forced to accept ongoing violations of well established codes of conduct as a direct consequence of the nature of their given illnesses and disorders. They are voiceless in every aspect of the word, and this is particularly true at The Arizona State Hospital. 

Please do whatever you can to support this cause. Visit my "Resource Ideas" (4/30/12) and elect the best course for you to become involved. The abuse on seriously mentally ill patients at ASH is an affront to the integrity of their families and the history of the state and nation. There is a criminal element of administrative misconduct very much at play in the Arizona behavioral health care system, and ASH is where the issues play out on a day to day basis, at the direct expense of the patients. It is substandard mental-medical health care and practice, and the administrators at ASH are getting away with it. 

DATELINE 2018: It is fact that at some point following the scandalous activity at ASH that somewhat concluded in 2015 with the firings of no less then seven individuals directly associated with the operation of ASH circa 2010-2015, Joel Rudd resigned or otherwise exited the Arizona Office of the Attorney General. But as with the entire medical staff at ASH who were involved in the issues central to that scandal, Rudd was never formally held accountable for his role in it all, or subjected to the penalties presented above that are applicable to his misconduct. So it goes in Arizona today.

This story illustrates the basic fact that the Arizona Administrative Court is nothing more then a puppet court functioning in gross violation of the rights of Arizona Citizens. When it comes to the rights and care needs of the disabled and seriously mentally ill patient community at Arizona State Hospital, this fact further illustrates how and why ASH is operating in patent violation of established medical standards. A condition that can and does directly exacerbate the struggles of ASH patients with respect for their given diagnoses. 

I attest in my own right to the fact that the conditions and care practices at ASH, and willingness of ASH medical staff and administrators to subject me to abject abuses of my rights, heightened my personal challenges specific to my diagnosis of major depressive disorder and associated post-traumatic stress disorder, both while hospitalized at ASH, and in the years since my February, 2012, discharge from there. I do, as a matter of plain fact, occasionally experience nightmares deriving of the fear I felt while I was an ASH patient, fear that only arose from my realization(s) that these highly entrusted state health care professionals are willing to do whatever they have to in order to preserve the status quo there. With regard for the cover-up of the Jesus Murietta escape, for example, and the irrefutable retaliation that I was subject to after I engaged in advocating for my rights and those of my patient peers at ASH, this fear was valid in all senses. 

And as I have learned in recent months, the current CEO at ASH, Dr. Aaron Bowen, is also exhibiting behavioral characteristics that are consistent with those of other, former CEOs, persons such as Donna Noriega and Cory Nelson, who were both fired in 2015. Those firings only came about after years of information about the corruption at ASH had been disseminated to the public in this blog and elsewhere, which contributed to the preventable deaths of several ASH patients, and at least one member of the greater public, April Mott. 

Today I am seeing the same patterns of abject refusal to acknowledge current issues at ASH that I witnessed circa 2011-2015, most specifically with respect for the previous director of Arizona Department of Health Services, Dr. Will Humble, and the current director, Dr. Cara Christ. Both of these individuals have engaged in praising the administrators and senior medical staff at ASH in graphic defiance of known wrongdoing there, including the very recent misconduct of Aaron Bowen, and the documented history of the Hospital’s chief medical officer, Dr. Steven Dingle. 

As a matter of plain fact and beyond his history as a sexual predator, Dingle played a direct role in all aspects of the covered up escape of Jesus Murietta in May, 2011, which in turn, directly contributed to April Mott’s preventable death in late September of that year. And, as a matter of plain fact, Bowen not only hired Lisa Wynn as ASH’s executive quality control officer after her having been fired from the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners, but has also defended Dingle in very disturbing ways.

I know today that the current patients at ASH are suffering the same  issues that I had to deal with when I was hospitalized there. And as these most recent articles have proven, the public legal system in Arizona is directly furthering the issues most at stake due to ridiculously short sighted judges. 

This is unacceptable.  

paoloreed@gmail.com