"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Occupational licensing in the U.S.: the stifler of talent and innovation, the waste of human capital. The story of a Renaissance man whose knowledge and talent America rejected - likely, under the pressure of several special interest groups.


Meet Dr. Richard M. Fleming, MD, JD.

This handsome man, a Peter O'Toole look-alike (compare)

is actually also an actor.  

And a nuclear cardiologist, and an inventor and patent holder in important areas of medical diagnostics, and an ardent advocate of public health, this is his self-description on the professional LinkedIn profile.

He holds undergraduate university degrees in:
  • biology;
  • psychology and 
  • science (physics);
and professional degrees in law and medicine.

He is also a man who is not allowed to practice in his profession, engage in his valuable scientific research that would have helped not just his locality, not just his state, not just this country, but very likely - the entire world.


According to documents I so far received and reviewed, not because he broke any laws - even though that is what he was made to plead to - but because he stepped on too many toes of two many financially and politically powerful and "connected" people.

Dr Fleming courageous exposure, using entirely legal means, of what he considered in good faith to be a powerful charlatan, and his going public in order to protect the public from that charlatan, led to
  • his conviction on a coerced nolo contendere plea (under a hint that otherwise he will be sent to prison and his children will be abused while he was there) to a legal nonsense, to committing what was not a crime as a matter of federal rules and regulations, and to 
  • stripping him of his medical license;
  • preventing him from ever having a law license;
  • denying him support as a scientist (based not only on the conviction, but apparently on the fact that diagnostic methods for treating heart disease and breast cancer may be much cheaper and easier than the medical establishment would have wanted it to be to gouge the American public).

You know what this man has gained out of all of this, in addition to poverty and humiliation.

He's got his children who he saved from abuse, paying his entire career, dreams and visions as a scientist as a price.

Meet Dr.  Richard M. Fleming - doctor, inventor, innovator, public health advocate, actor - the Renaissance man whose talents are rejected by American bureaucracy and against whom occupational licensing, the tool declared to be introduced to protect the American public, was used as a sword of retaliation, simply because he crossed too many of the "wrong" people.

A FATHER, with all capital letters.

The story of Dr. Fleming is so complex and so full of details requiring specialized knowledge that it took me a long time to go through all the materials in this case that were available to me and verify credibility of issues I am going to raise in description of Dr. Fleming's story.

Due to its complexity, I will have to present the story in not just one article, but in a series of articles, this one being just an introduction.

I am not naïve and I do realize that Dr Fleming may be a complex man and may have his own flaws, as all of us do, or that there are more undercurrents in his story than I could discern from research of open public records and interviews with some witnesses to what was happening to him.

And, people who, I believe, so far stopped his career as a doctor and scientist (and prevented his career as a lawyer, while he also holds a Juris Doctor degree), are so rich and so powerful that, I am sure, they tie their ends well.

What remained for me is to try to trace those ends, as a court of law does reviewing and judging based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lot of both first hand and circumstantial evidence in this case pointing at certain individuals, businesses, institutions, public officials and industries that may have benefited from professional demise (or at least, forced hibernation) of Dr. Fleming.

I am starting to publish the story of Dr. Fleming along with the story of another whistleblower about what is wrong in our public health system - even though in an entirely different geographic locality and in an entirely different area of public health, treatment of people with developmental disabilities.

Yet, the bottom line in treatment of both whistleblowers - Dr Fleming of Missouri and Iowa where he held medical licenses and Jeffrey Monsour of New York - is the same: vicious, petty, unreasonable, stupid, vulgar, ruthless retaliation by those in power whom these men criticized and attempts to deny them their right to do what they do best and what they love to do - for the benefit of us, the people.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment