Conflict Two: 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 operating ASH 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 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 TWO
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 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 Rudd's actions on the day in question, May 25, 2011. On this basis, as described in the prior article, on July 16, 2012, I submitted my good faith formal motion to have Joel Rudd removed as counsel for the appellee.
WELL, JOEL"THE MORTICIAN/ANGEL OF DARKNESS” 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. (AKA PJ Reed)
Appellant ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH SERVICE'S
RESPONSE TO
APPELLANT'S MOTION
(
Assigned to Honorable Kay Abramsohn.
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.
Now, I am surely not representative of so high falootin' a stable of horses as the the Arizona Office of the Attorney General, and I hate flies, anyway. But I do like a good puzzle. Like a good puzzle, mind you, not love (I draw my line at the Sunday NY Times crossword puzzle- I have actually finished one in entirety in my life, and I am pretty proud of that). But puzzles are central to what lawyers who specialize in administrative law tend to rely on when it comes to limiting the publics' awareness of what exactly goes on behind all those closed doors of government, and so on. And the structure of Arizona's administrative authorities is no different.
THIS IS HOW I AM LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR MATTER:
A) You have a 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 dept. of health, (whose clients are also citizens of the state and nation).
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, and presumably the state's citizens. The state AG is indeed, a nefarious sort of figure in the lives and minds of Arizona's collective folk, but 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.... Little ol' me... Or little ol' us, that is.
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 a.g. to represent the state hospital? (Keep in mind, that 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 of law:
Arizona Administrative Code, Title 38 Public officers and employees.
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 whole 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, which definitely named 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/Angel of Darkeness” could face some pretty heavy costs in terms of his role as one of Arizona's legal guardians. Therein: Any Substantial Interest?
Hell yes, he has, the little worm.
Conclusion:
In my humble opinion, as a seriously mentally and yet not as half baked as the Rat Bastards at ASH wish there patients to be, I must emphatically say:
Yes, there is a conflict of interest issue here. Ba-ding!
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!"
IN CLOSING: 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.
Patient abuse is a known hazard in the best of circumstances, and that much more so when the patients are as highly at risk as The Arizona State Hospital's seriously mentally ill patients 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.
DATELINE 2018: The gist of absurdity when it comes to this story, lies in terms of any aggrieved citizen’s right to be provided equitable redress via the role of Arizona’s Office of Administrative Hearings, which touts itself as a legitimate tribunal; as illustrated by Joel Rudd and the Arizona Office of the Attorney General’s response (below) to my motion to have Rudd removed as representative counsel for Arizona State Hospital/Arizona Department of Health Services, which I submitted as per protocol on the basis of conflict of interest. As follows:
(1) The Tribunal is without authority to remove a party's counsel. Herein, how is it that the tribunal itself has lesser authority in these cases then one side (the state) of any given proceeding? To know that Joel Rudd has the authority to direct the court’s decision making, as illustrated in this response, why and how can any citizen- including and foremost the disabled patient-consumers at ASH- expect anything resembling equitable redress? For any attorney to possess more authority then an involved judge more then just wrong- it is outlandish in all senses!
(2) On the facts presented by appellee, there is no conflict. As presented above and in our previous article “Conflict One” (January 12, 2018), Arizona law, AAC Title 38 (Public officers and employees.) defines conflict of interest and dictates the following in context: Conflict of interest; exemptions; employment prohibition. 38-503 (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. How is that Joel Rudd, a clear appellee in the central allegations and issues at stake in this matter, who has clear and convincing substantial interest in the decision to be made by the involved public agency in this case, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (the judge), sees no conflict of interest? More importantly, it is clearly due to the fact that Rudd has more authority then the involved tribunal (the judge), that he would again decide in his own right whether there is or is not conflict of interest, and therein direct the decision making of the tribunal in relation to my motion to have Rudd removed. Again, flatly wrong, unethical, and outrageous in terms of any democratic society.
(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. Who, if not the appellee in any reasonably equitable code of procedure, has the right to raise the issue of conflict of interest that poses risk to the interest(s) of said appellee? “Strictly between ADHS and its counsel” is precisely how Rudd sees it. It is patently ludicrous to believe that there’s any justice or equitability in allowing a party arguably acting in conflict of interest to decide (in its own right) if this is a legitimate claim, as stated in my motion to the court int his matter. It is hands down the role of any valid tribunal (the judge) to decide the merits and relative issues at stake in such motions. Unless, that is, you are talking about procedure in Arizona’s Office of Administrative Hearings. Just as outrageous as granting one party in any legal proceeding more authority then the involved tribunal (the judge), this aspect of the story again illustrates how deeply the injustice runs when it comes to the rights, care needs, and interests of disabled patient-consumers at ASH.
Again, none of this is rocket science. Nor is any thematic aspect of reasonable justice in these sorts of legal proceedings. The sole reason for why this specific case (and all others taken to the Office of Administrative Hearings with such issues at stake) bears so vast a degree of absurdity has everything to do with Arizona’s broken public legal system. Thus allowing dirt bag, bottom feeding attorneys such as Joel Rudd (and whoever it is that has taken his place, onsite at ASH as the Hospital and ADHS’ legal counsel) to bask in the same nature of safe haven that ASH’s most abusive staff enjoy. Individuals willing to exploit, abuse, and neglect the rights and care needs of Arizona most seriously mentally ill adults. All at the taxpayer’s expense.
paoloreed@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would really love input of any kind from anybody with any interest whatsoever in the issues that I am sharing in this blog. I mean it, anybody, for I will be the first one to admit that I may be inaccurately depicting certain aspects of the conditions
at ASH, and anonymous comments are fine. In any case, I am more than willing to value anybody's feelings about my writing, and I assure you that I will not intentionally exploit or otherwise abuse your right to express yourself as you deem fit. This topic is far, far too important for anything less. Thank you, whoever you are. Peace and Frogs.