FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email

EMAIL

MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c

Threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.


"You can’t go to prison for doing the right thing.”

Sure you can, and you will, and so will your children's children, until you say No!

For those of you who are even mildly ignorant about 'your' government;

Once upon a time a group of passive hicks (just like you) became violent REVOLUTIONARIES A.K.A. Gang Affiliated Persons, because of such similar 'taxation' or form of repression by the Red Coats (police). Now the Blue Coats.

They (presumably) won a battle (the Crown eventually slipped his lawyering minions back into the mix) to begin a new country, a REPUBLIC! The first go-round they stupidly screwed it up... the Articles of Confederation. Because they omitted the necessary means of conducting COMMERCE between any foreign nations and states (the states are foreign entities to each other) they were the laughing stock to the world. Whoops... better fix that!

So back at the old drawing board they revised and added the means to regulate COMMERCE. They called this warez update the CONstitution of the UNITED States (more likely because they knew they were going to CON you, the peoples, sooner or later). Alright, NOW they were in BUSINESS.

However, and thankfully, there was one stumbling block. A few of these guys were very forward thinking, so they proposed a Bill (to leave the peoples out of ALL government scamming... eh, BUSINE$$) of Rights.

No Bill of (leave the peoples the hell alone) Rights, no CONstitution!

Well, things went steadly downhill from there, one grab at a time. You see, this government (CON) was intended to operate self contained only managing the affairs of BUSINESS, COMMERCE, i.e. TRAFFICING. The executive branch, currently pres YoBama, the ADMINISTRATIVE branch, two buildings of whores-4-sale and the judicial (TITLES of NOBILITY, e.g. ESQUIRES!) who are essentially bared from sitting in government office or position (Article I, Section 9).

Well, anyway, in an attempt to shorten this tale, this evolving group of whores-4-sale psychopaths (of course with the blessing of the executive and judicial (ATTORNEYS) found many, many ways to scam into and strip away the protections of the peoples Bill of (so now you have to fight and sue us to get your) Rights, uh Bill... uh, Bill of (PRESUMED) Rights.

Now that these whores have recklessly squandered away most of your tax DONATIONS paid into this CORPORATE CRIMINAL monster, they (this STATE division) of the original CON intends to use MORE of your tax DONATIONS to further break your (financial) back (and will to fight back) by applying (injecting) yet one more COMMERCE CLAUSE regulation (those damned to hell speeding cams) into your private (fictionally) protected life.

Well, now that you've had a brief lesson into government sponsored crime did it ever occur to you to study the law(s) for yourself and discover that NO! government regulation, NOT ONE! applies to the Citizen or resident outside of contract or gov. employment?

Did it ever occur to you that "revenue" is not what it appears to mean? It is nothing about money, it is about these corporate theives stealthly moving you from your protected (BoR) status into their CORPORATE VENUE (we want your money)... duh, Re-VENUE. Do you understand that "VENUE" is a PLACE, as in in the Bill of Rights?

Oh yeah, this speed cam matter. Maybe you need to learn that you MIGHT NOT be using the highways in a COMMERCE (def. TRAFFIC) manner. Maybe you need to give CVC (California Vehicle Code) 260 a read to see if you are in COMMERCE on the PEOPLES RIGHTS of WAY and thereby subject to (this proposed) regulation. Oh and do follow up with Title 18, Section 33 in the federal code. If you are not acting in COMMERCE, you are NOT subject. Beleive me, these criminals absolutely love an ignorant, stupid, trusting, forgiving (read memory deficient) and compliant peoples.

This camera plan is but one more straw leading to a 1776 re-do. Only next time, the people will be more aware and less trusting when drafing a revised, hopefully non-CONstitution.

take back 'your' government,

Good luck fighting your tickets slaves. Either take back 'your' government, or just pay and shut up.

AND until you decide which course to choose, when faced with the choice of freedom or slavery, yours or someone else's, here is a picture of a ferret in a hat for you to stare @.

I'm not a goblin. I'm a ferret.

 

"ONLY ONE TRIBUNAL THAT EVER ADOPTED A PRACTICE OF FORCING COUNSEL UPON AN UNWILLING DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE STAR CHAMBER." U.S. v FARETTA , 422 US 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OF THE COURTS TO SUPRESS THIS KIND OF SPEECH?" --Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL OF KILLERCOP

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

EPIC CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right.

Do you understand?

NO?

ARE YOU STILL BAFFFLED?

WIKI

WOUNDED WIKI

FAQ 1 FAQ 2

FACEBOOK AND THE TWITTER

YOUTUBE

We Love Those Nurses with the big mouths!

KERMIT, Tex. — It occurred to Anne Mitchell as she was writing the letter that she might lose her job, which is why she chose not to sign it. But it was beyond her conception that she would be indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.

When she was fingerprinted and photographed at the jail here last June, it felt as if she had entered a parallel universe, albeit one situated in this barren scrap of West Texas oil patch.

“It was surreal,” said Mrs. Mitchell, 52, the wife of an oil field mechanic and mother of a teenage son. “I said how can this be? You can’t go to prison for doing the right thing.”

But in what may be an unprecedented prosecution, Mrs. Mitchell is scheduled to stand trial in state court on Monday for “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas.

The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making “inflammatory” statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.

Mrs. Mitchell counters that as an administrative nurse, she had a professional obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Charges against a second nurse, Vickilyn Galle, who helped Mrs. Mitchell write the letter, were dismissed at the prosecutor’s discretion last week.

The case has been infused with the small-town politics of this wind-whipped city of 5,200 in the heart of the Permian Basin, 10 miles from the New Mexico border. The seeming conflicts of interest are as abundant as the cattle grazing among the pump jacks and mesquite.

When the medical board notified Dr. Arafiles of the anonymous complaint, he protested to his friend, the Winkler County sheriff, that he was being harassed. The sheriff, an admiring patient who credits the doctor with saving him after a heart attack, obtained a search warrant to seize the two nurses’ work computers and found the letter.

Both sides acknowledge that the case has polarized the community, and the judge has moved the trial to a neighboring county.

The state and national nurses associations have called the prosecution an outrage and raised $40,000 for the defense. Legal experts argue that in a civil context, Mrs. Mitchell would seem to be protected by Texas whistle-blower laws.

“To me, this is completely over the top,” said Louis A. Clark, president of the Government Accountability Project, a group that promotes the defense of whistle-blowers. “It seems really, really unique.”

Until they were fired without explanation on June 1, Mrs. Mitchell and Mrs. Galle had worked a combined 47 years at Winkler County Memorial Hospital here, most recently as its compliance and quality improvement officers.

The nurses, who are highly regarded even by the administrator who dismissed them, said the case had stained their reputations and drained their savings. With felony charges pending, neither has been able to find work. They said they could feel heads turn when they walked into local lunch spots like El Joey’s Mexican restaurant.

“It has derailed our careers, and we’re probably not going to be able to get them back on track again,” said Mrs. Galle, 54, a grandmother who is depicted around town as the soft-spoken Thelma to Mrs. Mitchell’s straight-shooting Louise. “We’re just in disbelief that you could be arrested for doing something you had been told your whole career was an obligation.”

It was not long after the public hospital hired Dr. Arafiles in 2008 that the nurses said they began to worry. They sounded internal alarms but felt they were not being heeded by administrators.

Frustrated and fearing for patients, they directed the medical board to six cases “of concern” that were identified by file numbers but not by patient names. The letter also mentioned that Dr. Arafiles was sending e-mail messages to patients about an herbal supplement he sold on the side.

Mrs. Mitchell typed the letter and mailed it with a separate complaint signed by a third nurse, who wrote that she had resigned because of similar concerns about Dr. Arafiles. That nurse was not charged.

To convict Mrs. Mitchell, the prosecution must prove that she used her position to disseminate confidential information for a “nongovernmental purpose” with intent to harm Dr. Arafiles.

Mari E. Robinson, executive director of the Texas Medical Board, has warned in a blistering letter to prosecutors that the case will have “a significant chilling effect” on the reporting of malpractice.

The nurses’ lawyers, John H. Cook IV and Brian Carney, have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court charging the county, hospital, sheriff, doctor and prosecutor with vindictive prosecution and denial of the nurses’ First Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, the sheriff, Robert L. Roberts Jr., and the prosecutor, Scott M. Tidwell, express confidence in their case.

“The only side of the story that the town has heard is that these are sisters of mercy, missionaries of peace,” said Mr. Tidwell, who is trying the case because the district attorney is in poor health. “The town has not heard the whole story.”

Dr. Arafiles, 47, who attended medical school in his native Philippines and trained in Baltimore and Buffalo, said his lawyer had advised him not to talk. “I’ve been brutalized and abused,” he said. “I’m the victim in this case, and that is all I can say.”

Several Texas laws would seem to enshrine a nurse’s right, and perhaps duty, to report a physician when he or she believes that patients are at risk. Lawyers on both sides agree that the case will hinge on whether a jury believes that Mrs. Mitchell reported in good faith. In civil whistle-blower cases, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that good faith requires only a reasonable belief that the conduct being reported is illegal.

The hospital administrator, Stan Wiley, said in an interview that Dr. Arafiles had been reprimanded on several occasions for improprieties in writing prescriptions and performing surgery and had agreed to make changes. Mr. Wiley, who said it was difficult to recruit physicians to remote West Texas, said he knew when he hired Dr. Arafiles that he had a restriction on his license stemming from his supervision of a weight-loss clinic.

In a surprise inspection last September, state investigators found several violations by Dr. Arafiles and concluded that the hospital had discriminated against the nurses by firing them for “reporting in good faith.”

But Sheriff Roberts, who has held the post for 18 years, said the state would show that the complaint had been filed in vengeance. “If it’s made to destroy somebody’s reputation or forcing them to leave town,” he said, “then I don’t believe it is good faith.”

Sheriff Roberts called Dr. Arafiles “the most sincerely caring person I have ever met.”

Mr. Wiley said he believed that the nurses had acted in bad faith because they went to the state despite his internal efforts to discipline Dr. Arafiles. But, he said, “I don’t believe they did it on a personal vendetta.”

Mrs. Mitchell said all she saw at the hospital was delay.

“The medical staff needed to make a decision on him,” she said. “You don’t get a second chance to save somebody’s life.”

A version of this article appeared in print on February 7, 2010, on page A18 of the New York edition.

KILLERCOP BOTTOM-LINE: Sounds like "a novel theory."


 

ALEX KOZINSKI COMMITS AND COVERED UP CRIMES

THEY ALL IGNORED THEIR OATHS, THE FACTS, THE RULES THE LAW AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SELECTIVVE PERSECUTION IN A SECRET HEARING.

A COVER UP BY JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI

POD SERVER

Sponsored By Psych Ward Entertainment.

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

Copyright 1997-2022

THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME IS FOR SALE.

EMAIL KILLERCOP

Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.