JULIE FELLMETH and ROBERT FELLMETH OF CPIL ARE LOBBYISTS FOR TRIAL LAWYERS!

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL harms children

2010-07-26T18:27:00.000-07:00

As cited on the MBC website under minutes: ...stated that part of the mission of the Medical Board is the objective enforcement of the Medical Practice Act. She stated that when disciplinary action is taken because of choreographed hoax victims teamed with special interest lobbyists and media ambush teams, there is no justice and no objective enforcement. When a revocation is pre determined due to personal animus, the mission becomes a sham. Patient protection is harmed when the process is co-opted. She stated that she and her family were harmed because of vindictive enforcement taken by the Board. She introduced her children and stated that she and her children had been harmed for seven years due to actions of the Board.

Julie Fellmeth and friend Liz Figueroa both have a problem with the truth

2010-07-26T17:59:00.000-07:00

In 2003, then Senator Figueroa, with the assistance of Ed Howard, passed legislation that was the beginning of the end for the Physician Diversion Program and the creation of the Medical Board Enforcement Monitor position for Mrs.Fellmeth. The EF qualifications were designed so only Mrs.Fellmeth would be eligible. Today, she trumpets the EF position was awarded as a result of "open, competitive bidding". She never mentions that Ed Howard is a CPIL Lobbyist and member of the CPIL satff. Ms.Figueroa is a member of the Board of Public Citizen, chaired by Robert Fellmeth.

Apparently, Ms.Figueroa has a truth issue in other areas, too.

http:www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/liz-figueroa-lies-about-her-residence/Content?oid=1854300

Recent tabloid articles by ProPublica, usually a respected Public Interest Journalism source, on these issues appears more like a CPIL conduit. It seems timed to support the budget request by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for $30,000,000+ to add enforcement positions and make the process of enforcement less encumbered by Due Process or Equal Protection for Healing Arts practitioners. The financial gain for Mrs.Fellmeth and CPIL should be out in the open (eg. What's her involvement in the DCA "Enforcement Academy" and what is she being paid?).

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL is the Abramoff of California Politics

2010-07-26T17:33:00.001-07:00

Here is more commentary about the corrupt DCA and company:

Karen Bass, Rosario Marin, Carrie Lopez, and Liz Figueroa are all proven to be corrupt government officials. Look at their connections and to whom they are beholden. The California Department of Consumer Affairs and Julie Fellmeth is the common thread between these criminals. Julianne D'Angelo Fellmeth of CPIL is the Abramoff of California politics. Where is Gerry Brown? Oh, right; he is defending them and running for governor. Where is the Federal Judiciary? Oh, right; they are unprosecuting Shirley Sherrod.

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL - Trying to hide the Truth by joining several social networking sites!

2010-07-26T17:26:00.000-07:00

Did Julie Fellmeth and Robert Fellmeth of CPIL hire Reputation Defender? Google Julie Fellmeth. Look at ALL the social networks Julie has recently joined. Why hide Julie? What is it that you are affraid of? The truth?

Senator Liz Figueroa lies and cheats too....

2010-07-03T13:37:00.000-07:00

In 2003, then Senator Figueroa, with the assistance of Ed Howard, passed legislation that was the beginning of the end for the Physician Diversion Program and the creation of the Medical Board Enforcement Monitor position for Mrs. Fellmeth. The EF qualifications were designed so only Mrs. Fellmeth would be eligible. Today, she trumpets the EF position was awarded as a result of "open, competitive bidding". She never mentions that Ed Howard is a CPIL Lobbyist and member of the CPIL staff. Ms. Figueroa is a member of the Board of Public Citizen, chaired by Robert Fellmeth.

Apparently, Ms. Figueroa has a truth issue in other areas, too.

Recent tabloid articles by ProPublica, usually a respected Public Interest Journalism source, on these issues appears more like a CPIL conduit. It seems timed to support the budget request by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for $30,000,000+ to add enforcement positions and make the process of enforcement less encumbered by Due Process or Equal Protection for Healing Arts practitioners. The financial gain for Mrs. Fellmeth and CPIL should be out in the open (eg. What's her involvement in the DCA "Enforcement Academy" and what is she being paid?).

A crooked lawyer in our society is almost beyond reach

2010-07-03T13:32:00.000-07:00

“A crooked lawyer in our society is almost beyond reach.”

G.Robert Blakey, Organized Crime section of the Department of Justice

Add dark political influence to said crooked lawyer and we deal with a ridiculously unassailable fortress.

The passage of term limits in California completely changed the locus of power in Sacramento. Legislators now race through the system, attempting to master a thirty year job in fewer than ten years in order to create their legacy. With term limits, the permanent parties have the real influence. They are the Lobbyists, Legislative staff and State employees. They train the Legislators and try to keep them out of trouble. They are the crafters of the legacy. The professional Licensing Boards are identical. The Board Members are appointed, and rarely do they serve more than 5 years. They are informed and guided by the Boards Executive staff and influenced by Lobbyists. State employees remain on board while Members come and go.

The Fellmeths are both lawyers. Mrs.Fellmeth is a trained Prosecutor and Registered Lobbyist for CPIL, their family business. Ed Howard is a Lobbyist for CPIL and on their Board of Directors They also have a Media Lobbyist (KSR Strategy Group). With a media lobbyist, CPIL is able to feed a nasty story about a doctor to an Orange County free paper and then place it in a State document as independent investigative reporting.

In one of Mrs Fellmeth’s self-aggrandizing themes, she points out how she has attended every Medical Board meeting for over 20 years. Together with Robert, they require law students from the USD School of Law to attend the meetings of the other Licensing Boards. The purpose is to invent or develop reasons to complain that a particular Board is not protecting the public. Robert came up with this lucrative justification for CPIL.

The Licensing Boards are low hanging fruit for CPIL. Once the Boards came under the Department of Consumer Affairs, no one was allowed to question their attacks. Under their self-proclaimed banner of public protection, no challenges are permitted. Easy pickings.

Mrs.Fellmeth likes the Medical Board in particular. She has been enriched by selling an equation: advocating various ways to damage and ruin physicians equals patient protection. Her special target has been physicians in recovery and the former Physician Diversion Program. In spite of the obvious successes and contributions the Diversion Program has provided to better the quality of medical care, Mrs.Fellmeth was able to sell her false narrative of the “failed program”. Like any professional Lobbyist, she forged alliances with the Executive Directors and the Board Members, then determined their perceptions. Calling Audits from the early 80’s “evidence of failure” rather than a record of accomplishment in the face of difficulties , she relied on the fact that no one reads old audits. Her epic tome of bad faith, the Enforcement Monitor Report, is largely unread but frequently quoted by her. Even the BSA Audit of 2007 is generally unread. Who reads State audits? For those who are familiar with program audits, they don’t find it a failure by any means. If they actually read other BSA audits of California Programs or Departments, they are baffled by the CPIL negative spin . If they read other BSA audits, they will find much harsher Findings and conclusions. She falsely claims the lucrative Enforcement Monitor Report has never been challenged or refuted. Both Fellmeths repeat the false claims that patients were harmed by physicians in Diversion, and no one demands actual facts. Mrs Fellmeth/KSR fed media stories are never verified. Having a Media Lobbyist is solid gold for CPIL. In politics, perceptions rule and perceptions are easily manipulated by CPIL.

CPIL like to represent themselves as protectors of the underdog against the powerful special interests. In their war or “judicious jihad” against physicians in recovery, they are the well paid Lobbyists. Physicians in recovery are easy to demonize by fictional accounts of patient harm. The supposed powerful advocates, like CSAM and CMA, are politically weak and have other more important agendas.

The case of the Target Physician is a prime example. CPIL aligned with self-proclaimed victims and tabloid media to create a monster to destroy. They had their “evidence of patient harm by a physician in Diversion”. With this concoction, they dominated the Medical Board and its Chairman, Richard Fantozzi MD. Reading Fantozzi’s apologia for closing Diversion in the Medical Board‘s Official document, a discerning reader easily realizes Mrs.Fellmeth is the real author. The references to “botched surgeries” have never been verified, and in fact have utterly fallen apart after the damage to the Target Physician and the Diversion Program. Mrs.Fellmeth illicitly obtained the Target Physician’s confidential Diversion record and published the titillating and petty details in an official publication of the University of San Diego, a prestigious Catholic University. We can guess the University misplaced its traditional commitment to social justice.

Years earlier, CPIL inserted a Lobbyist (Ed Howard) as Chief Counsel to then Senator Liz Figueroa. CPIL was thus able to write the legislation weakening Diversion. The legislation also created the lucrative Enforcement Monitor position specifically for Mrs.Fellmeth. As payback, Ms Figueroa was appointed to the Board of Directors of Public Citizen. Robert Fellmeth is Chairman of the Board of Public Citizen.

Politically, Mrs.Fellmeth forged a close relationship with Bill Gage, a senior Legislative Consultant for the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. This is the Committee that deals with Licensing Boards. The Chairmen come and go and Mr.Gage stays. In 2007, Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas Chaired the Committee. He absorbed the CPIL rhetoric against physicians in recovery. He authored and led the effort to successfully pass SB1441 to establish standards for Board sponsored Diversion Programs (e.g., Nurses, Dentists, Pharmacists, etc). Carrie Lopez, the former Executive Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, along with Mrs.Fellmeth , were in position to be able to undermine the implementation for the benefit of the D’Angelo- Fellmeth family business, CPIL..

In the fall of 2007, Senator Ridley-Thomas generously agreed to meet with actual alumni of the Physician Diversion Program. Bill Gage was at his side, introducing himself as a “close friend of Julie Fellmeth”. The Senator led with the Fellmeth feed of “botched surgeries” “zero tolerance” and “enforceable standards”. Next, the doctors introduced themselves and told their stories of recovery. Among them was a distinguished Ophthalmologist who had recently received a community service award from the Senator. He provides many hours of unpaid care to an underserved community. Most of us in attendance left somewhat discouraged. The false narrative of CPIL won again. However, in January of 2008, there was a “what do we do now?” Stakeholders meeting in Sacramento. Senator Ridley-Thomas appeared and spoke about the physicians he’d met. He described them as “stellar individuals”. In March 2008, at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Business professions and Economic Development, he interrupted Mrs.Fellmeth to rebuke her for her “callous disregard” regarding physicians.

Lost in the false narratives and media manipulations are the typical examples of the benefit of physicians in recovery. While reams of valid research clearly supports the conclusion that physicians in recovery have far lower potential for harm than physicians in general, the accounts of their added benefit to society are lost. Physicians in recovery spot and intervene with addicted patients earlier and more effectively than others. This both reduces healthcare costs and prevents the progression of disease and injury. In contrast, the overall training of physicians regarding addiction is scant. The typical attitude of physicians in training toward addicted patients is quite negative. Addicted patients are demonized and regarded as clogging up the healthcare system. The resulting focus in their training emphasizes end organ damage caused by addiction, while ignoring the underlying cause. CPIL’s emphasis on punishing and eliminating physicians in recovery is against the public interest and against consumer protection.

CPIL continues to wage its war against physicians and to enlist the Board’s cooperation. Building on a previous victory, the public Enforcement Link, Mrs. Fellmeth seeks further damage under the cover of public protection. In the public Enforcement Link, Accusations by the Attorney General are presented in their entirety without challenge or rebuttal. It is a pure and unadulterated adversarial portrayal of the case. While this writer has objections to the manner of publishing Decisions (no rebuttal, no authentication of the actual facts), publishing Accusations is even worse. Physicians are traumatized when they read them. Those who read a number of Accusations recognize the hyperbolic boiler plate language of the Prosecutor. While the Prosecutor has a necessary function in a Court, the Court has a Judge and Defense Attorney along with the burden of proof. The public Enforcement Link in its present form is merely destructive. Many Deputy Attorney Generals agree.

The public Enforcement Link is simply a step for CPIL. CPIL desires to reduce or eliminate as many Constitutional protections for physicians as possible. Mrs.Fellmeth complains in the press about protections against illegal Search and Seizure. She claims these protections just slow down discipline. She now demands that Complaints be published and placed in doctor’s waiting rooms. She would eliminate due process entirely in the steps between a Complaint and Discipline. She wants to eliminate physician Members entirely from the Board, due to her false claim of excessive empathy. Witnessing the Board in action easily contradicts her assertion. The California Board is often both backward and punitive with respect to physicians in recovery. Physicians see the Board as their enemy now. She would substitute Public Members for doctors. The Public Members would be trained by CPIL under their lucrative California Endowment Grant. They would be “jurors” who only hear the Complaint, Accusation and the Prosecutor.

The need to support effective programs of early intervention, secondary prevention and monitoring continues. Additionally, those of us who care about patients and physicians must challenge the repeated false statements of CPIL, confront their destructive agenda and demand transparency from CPIL.

Mrs. Fellmeth continues to attend all Medical Board meetings. This is her life, she is tenacious, she is an expert in manipulating Regulatory Law for her own ends, and this gives her a great advantage over those for whom these issues are only a small part of what they do with their careers. She is now in the patronizing phase of her next attack. In a recent Board meeting, she complimented the Board for having “the sixth best” medical board web site, according to Public Citizen. Stop laughing. Sid Wolfe, MD, is also on the Public Citizen Board. He fronts an annual study that rates and ranks State medical boards based on the number of physicians disciplined. The more disciplined, the better the board, according to Wolfe. They sell the equation that harming doctors equals consumer protection. Their interlocking connections of cronies and media manipulation must be matched with intelligent, active involvement. No Medical Board meeting should lack CSAM, CMA, and CPA participation. The CPIL dominance of the Board functions best in darkness.

FELLMETH FRAUD EXPOSED, AGAIN!!

2009-04-14T21:17:00.000-07:00

"April 13, 2009

Patricia Harris, Acting Executive Director
Department of Consumer Affairs
1625 North Market Blvd Suite N112
Sacramento, CA 95834

RE: California Senate Bill 1441

Dear Ms. Harris:

I have watched with interest the situation with the Physicians Health Program in ill physicians as well as the communities they serve.

I am disturbed to hear that Registered Lobbyists for CPIL have offered what, on its surface, has the appearance of deliberately misleading and unfounded opinions.

I have served as Medical Director of the Mississippi Professionals Health Program (MPHP) since 1998. Prior to this Program’s modernization, Mississippi took a very punitive/disciplinary approach to any physician identified as having either addictive illness or psychiatric illness. Pre-1998, our Program received about 18 referrals per year, all of whom had been subjected to the board disciplinary process. There existed in our state an atmosphere of fear and silence. Potentially impaired physicians remained hidden with those in the best position to assist them were hesitant to do so.

Once the Mississippi Professionals Health Program came into effect and afforded physicians an avenue by which they could receive assistance without threat of adverse disciplinary action and public embarrassment, our Program saw referrals increase over 480%. In my 10 years experience with this Program, I am pleased to say that there have been no instances of patient harm by a monitored physician in our Program. This is in line with the data reported in the Domino Study a few years ago and more recently in the 11/08 British Medical Journal’s report of 16 state physical health programs. This recent study followed 904 monitored physicians an average of 7.2 years. It saw 78% of these physicians complete the monitoring without relapse. There was one (1) report of patient harm (over prescribing).

The public is best protected with a viable, healthy professionals health program is in existence to assist physicians with potentially impairing conditions. Illness and impairment exists on a continuum. The presence of illness does not in and of itself imply impairment. In fact, illness may precede overt impairment by decades.

For more information on the Federation of State Physician Health Program’s Public Policy regarding this matter, please refer to the Federation’s website.

Unfortunately, the public’s perception of recovering physicians, fueled by groups such as Citizens Advocacy Committee and the CPIL, create an atmosphere of public fear that is not supported by the data. It is my understanding that CPIL’s poster child, Brian West, M.D. did not, in fact, actually harm anyone while in the CA Diversion Program. I do not know the facts of this case but assuming that it is true, it is noteworthy.

I trust that cooler heads in California will prevail and re-establish a professional health programs to bring it back in line with what is occurring nationally and internationally. The citizens of California will be better served if this is accomplished.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Carr, M.D., FAAFP
Diplomate ABAM
Medical Director, MPHP"

Non-Adoption: When the Punishment For No Crime Is Not Severe Enough

2009-02-09T09:58:00.000-08:00

Non-Adoption: When the Punishment For No Crime Is Not Severe Enough

Most people will read the negative Press on the Target Physician, Non-Adoption, and will assume he got a fair trial. They will infer he had all the Civil Rights due an American citizen, and was allowed a full defense. After all, that is what the majority believe about the American Judicial system. However, they’d be wrong.

When someone earns an MD License in California, they get double jeopardy, or in the case of the Target Physician, triple jeopardy.

The Decision in the case of the Target Physician was Non-Adopted by the Medical Board of California (MBC). He was found to have committed gross negligence in the care of one patient. “Gross Negligence” – that sounds awful. Did he remove the wrong limb or organ? Did the patient die or become permanently disabled? NO!! She doesn’t like the size and shape of her breasts! After dozens of false accusations and Complaints of killing and maiming patients, that’s it!

The Target Physician has been the target of a disgruntled former patient, the D’Angelo Fellmeth family business (CPIL), and a questionable reporter for CBS/Sacramento. They have worked together to damage him in every way possible. D’Angelo Fellmeth used him to destroy the Physician Diversion Program . The reporter got awards. The former patient, who works for the reporter, lost her lawsuits and Appeals. All she gets is the opportunity to appear on TV with Mrs. Fellmeth and at Medical Board meetings with her lynch mob. Mrs. Julie Fellmeth used the good name and official publications of the University of San Diego to claim the Target Physician, while in the Diversion Program, harmed patients. However, this particular case occurred prior to his entry into Diversion. All of the other solicited false Complaints were investigated and thrown out for no merit.

How does double jeopardy apply here? The undisputed facts are : The Target Physician got two DUIs. Period. For MDs and non-MDs, that means having to deal with criminal Prosecution, defense and legal consequences. His DUI’s did not result in harm to others. He paid the price for his mistakes. This is where the double jeopardy arrives. With two DUI’s , an MD gets in trouble with the Medical Board. The Board has access to this information, and investigates whether there was harm to the public, or if this affected patient care. Defending against an Accusation by the Board is a very expensive, prolonged and painful process. It is also judicially lob-sided. The defenses afforded a criminal defendant are denied to MD’s. For example, the Target Physician was not allowed to bring up 1) the patient continued to see him after her breast surgery to consider additional unrelated procedures, and 2) the fact that the patient was connected to the disgruntled former patient who solicited false complaints. This hurt the Target Physician in two ways. First, these fact do not appear anywhere in the record. Second, by suppressing this information, the opposing Attorney was able to impune the Target Physician's documentation of satisfaction expressed by the patient with his care.

Now there is triple jeopardy for the Target Physician. D’Angelo Fellmeth and company have made a mockery of Public Interest and Consumer Protection here. They routinely attack all Regulatory Boards, but the Medical Board has been a particularly profitable target for the Fellmeths. Mrs. Fellmeth appears regularly at Board meetings to chastise the Board, while simultaneously seeking lucrative Enforcement Monitor appointments. She is tireless in her efforts to reduce or eliminate the Civil Rights of Doctors. With her media Lobbyist, she plants insightful stories to pressure the Board to seize as many Licenses as possible. Using the old Ralph Nader techniques (Robert Fellmeth was a protégé of Ralph Nader in the 60’s), of creating voluminous, soporific reports combined with “purple prose rhetoric,” they have been effective in creating a false sense of risk and danger. Or as Mrs. Fellmeth likes to put it, “All doctors are dangerous!”

So now, the Target Physician faces triple jeopardy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gave the Target Physician a one year extension of Probation, a 30 day Suspension and a requirement to take the PACE program at UC San Diego. The PACE Program evaluates the competence of doctors. This Decision, in perspective, is a harsh but not devastating outcome. However, the Board, by it’s positing of Non-Adoption, wants to Revoke the Target Physician’s License to protect itself from further criticism. Often, Non-Adoption is used simply to financially break a doctor and force them to give up the fight. Appeals can cost millions and take years, while the doctor is deprived of their livelihood.

Young MD’s have no idea how a minor misdemeanor or even a family law issue can jeopardize their License. This dark factoid is not mentioned in Medical School. In the case of the Target Physician, the Consumer Protection Movement is severely damaged by such untruthful attacks and dark politics. Taking away the Licenses of decent, capable doctors is in no way in the Public Interest.

Robert Fellmeth - Public Interest Law - NOT! or (Get Real Mr. Fellmeth)

2009-02-01T22:46:00.000-08:00

Itzel Berrio
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Response to Comments of the Center for Public Interest Law on Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure Regarding the Alternative Discipline Program (March 17,2008)

Dear Ms.Berrio :

Robert Fellmeth’s critique of the ADP has an all too familiar tone and agenda. He offers up his usual unchallenged attack, full of questionable and soporific detail, combined with an a priori position against the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP). This bait and switch approach of questioning ADP is merely a platform to attack LAP. This is typical Fellmeth/D’Angelo family business, protected under CPIL’s banner of public interest.

The methods used by CPIL to first demean, then demolish the Medical Board of California (MBC) Physician Diversion Program are now focused on LAP. The first and foremost tool is the repeated Big Lie. Fellmeth states their “audit “ revealed physicians in Diversion “harmed patients”. This is a cornerstone or Pillar of CPIL’s “Judicious Jihad”. After 25+ years of failed attempts to find a single instance of harm to a patient by a physician in Diversion, CPIL made one up. Using a disgruntled former patient whose lawsuits were thrown out of Court numerous times, CPIL established a Target Physician as emblematic of the Program’s failure to protect the public. The former patient combined her efforts with a CBS/Sacramento reporter to create and finance a false Complaint soliciting web site. With the help of CPIL’s media lobbyist, they developed inciteful stories which they gave to lazy, uncritical press organizations, stating a doctor who killed and harmed patients was allowed to continue to practice . These fed articles were then re-cycled by CPIL to create pressure on the MBC to end the Program.

In October of 2008, the Administrative Hearing of the Target Physician (the target physician of the 2004 Report ) ended. Highlights in the Hearing included prosecution witnesses testifying 1)they were pleased with the care and outcome of the Target Physician’s work , 2) they called the Complaint soliciting web site out of curiosity and were contacted by the disgruntled former patient, and 3) the former patient came to their homes, wrote out a false Complaint which she had them sign. The former patient told them to file a Complaint on behalf of those who were harmed, and that there was no risk in filing a false Complaint. At the Hearing, the Deputy Attorney General informed the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ,) that they were aware the Complaints were “contrived”.

So when Fellmeth writes about “abuses that have resulted at the hands of Physician participants in that program” we must look at the actual facts. Neither Robert nor Mrs. Julie d'angelo Fellmeth has EVER produced a single, legitimate victim.
However, CPIL was able to successfully promote and promulgate the notions of “zero tolerance” and “enforceable standards” along with their rigged “audit” in the attack on Diversion. Their “audit” of 2004 was in no way a valid audit. The lucrative appointment of Mrs. Julie Fellmeth as Enforcement Monitor was the result of a shady back door process. Shady and back door, due to the fact that the application process was hidden from more qualified parties until after Mrs. Fellmeth was appointed. An audit, to be valid, uses established benchmarks and the auditor is objective. The 2004 Report met neither of these criteria. A “zero tolerance” approach allowed CPIL to condemn the drug testing component altogether after finding a lone graduate who acknowledged “gaming” it (in fact, he eventually was detected, an appropriate intervention was made, and no patient harm occurred). CPIL’s application of “zero tolerance” could be effectively used to shut down any human endeavor.

CPIL attempted to equate any positive test result with a Relapse and condemn the program for not ejecting participants. As anyone with even the most basic substance abuse education knows, a detected positive isn’t a relapse, but rather a warning sign, which is the basis for an early intervention and relapse prevention. Extensive data from legitimate, long-term studies indicate these doctors are actually much safer than doctors in general. Recovering doctors are exceptionally and uniquely valuable to their patients and community. Senator Mark Ridley Thomas described the ones he met as “stellar individuals”. What a stunning contrast to CPIL’s demonizations and legalistic fictions!

CPIL has used its lobbying (Mrs. Julianne d'angelo Fellmeth is a Registered Lobbyist, and CPIL is the client of two additional lobbying firms) to gain other lucrative Enforcement Monitoring appointments and write Legislation. Currently, CPIL is the recipient of a large California Endowment Grant. Their stated purpose is to bring “diversity” to Regulatory Boards. But CPIL uses common terms to misdirect potential scrutiny. “Diversity” in their case means removing all Licensees from Licensing Boards. Instead, Joe-the-Plumber types, trained by CPIL, would evaluate Complaints and make decisions. CPIL would then have a field day with its overheated and unchallenged Prosecutorial rhetoric and be able to erode and eliminate as many legal protections as possible for Licensees. For example, Mrs. Fellmeth wants all Complaints to be published. That way, by the time the Joe-the- Plumber Board Members hear the Complaints, there would be built in added prejudice for reactionary and unjust decisions. Mrs. Fellmeth was rebuked by Senator Mark Ridley Thomas in the March, 2008 Meeting of the Senate Business and Professions Committee, for her utter disregard for the lives and well-being of physicians.. CPIL has been greatly enriched by attacking Licensing Boards. Around 1997, after a meeting of the MBC Liason Committee in San Diego, Mrs. Julianne Fellmeth remarked to a small group, “when CPIL started, all the good consumer issues were taken, so we decided to attack the Medical Board”. They have further enriched themselves by getting other lucrative Enforcement Monitor appointments, using their so-called “independent monitor” status. For the Fellmeths, the term independent monitor is synonymous with CPIL. They were paid insiders in the 2007 audit of MBC Diversion by the Bureau of State Audits (BSA), using their power to influence the conclusions of the Audit .

CPIL has worked for decades to place itself as the sole voice of public protection with respect to Regulatory Boards. They have made public protection a wedge issue. Either one is for public protection and must never question CPIL, or is against public protection. They have exploited the worst negative stereotypes as opposed to providing actual, relevant information. As such, CPIL has done tremendous damage, reducing the very credibility of Public Interest Law, and putting their affiliate organizations at risk.

The Bar needs to take CPIL’s Comments and rhetoric with a large grain of salt when deciding how to modify the ADP. Further, the value and future of LAP should never be left in the self serving hands of CPIL.

Respectfully Submitted

Public Interest Law - NOT! or (Get Real Mrs. Fellmeth)

2008-09-29T09:14:00.001-07:00

Dear Mrs. Fellmeth:

For the past fifteen-plus years you have expounded on and on about openness vs secrecy. You have urged passage of laws that would make physician’s private medical records open to public scrutiny if they were receiving treatment for addictions or mental health issues, or participating in the soon to end Diversion Program. So, in the spirit of openness, how about being open about the fact that you are a Registered Lobbyist? Or that Ed Howard, too, is a Registered Lobbyist and you are his client? Please tell us about the work that KSR Advocates (another Registered Lobbying Group) has done to assist you in manipulating the media.

Why don’t you open up about how CPIL receives substantial donations from Trial Lawyers who sue MD’s, Healthcare Organizations and HMO’s? Your work against Doctors surely will benefit them tremendously.

The work you do to deny or limit MD’s constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure gives these lawyers - these cronies of yours – major advantages in Plaintiff law suits.

Please tell us about your secret and underhanded appointment in 2003 as Enforcement Monitor for Diversion. Other, more qualified, interested candidates were told to apply, then told they couldn’t, then told they were too late and the position had been filled by you. Clue us in about how this was aided by David Thornton. Tell us how you could be considered an Independent Monitor when your conclusions were foregone. Mrs. Fellmeth, Mrs. Fellmeth, the deeper one digs, the more Kafkaesque this becomes.

Your self assumed identity as a patient advocate is preposterous. Your collaborator, Tina Minasian, is a prime example. While claiming she’d been injured by a Doctor in the Diversion Program, she never mentions how she gained excessive weight and resumed smoking after major lower body surgery, in direct disregard of written and verbal orders. Outside of your fantasy world, evidence trumps accusations and media manipulations. After Minasian’s complaint to the Medical Board was thoroughly and professionally investigated, why was it rejected? Why was her Medical Malpractice case rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court of California and Minaisan ordered to pay court costs? Minasian’s self-proclaimed “Victim Posse” is equally merit-less, as are the multitudinous false complaints to the Medical Board she has solicited through her lynch mob mentality, incendiary web sites. Please tell us who pays for all this? We know you know.

The repeated lynchings in the press and other media against the Target Physician has been going on so long and is so egregious that the Medical Board’s own attorney appeared before the Board. In this unprecedented appearance, the Board’s Attorney (the Prosecutor) informed the Board that there was not a single valid complaint of Patient Harm. The Board’s own Attorney recommended the Board not take the case to trial, as it would be lost.

Mrs. Fellmeth, you like to emphasize “Zero Tolerance.” Should that be applied to you? Since benefiting plaintiff Trial Lawyers does not always equate with Public Protection, shouldn’t you have to be accountable? Let’s apply the same standard to you and Tina Minasian and demand that you disclose how your efforts benefit lawyers who sue doctors.