Why We Continue to Fight for Dr. McIver…
Why We Continue to Fight for Dr. McIver (full text); John P. Flannery II; Pain and Social Policy listServ, Pain Relief Network; 2006-12-20.
Excerpt: The reason that we write and argue is because manifestly - silence changes nothing. It is acquiescence, if not surrender… When you consider the magnificent brief in the Hurwitz appeal, and the series of issues that were rebuffed by the court, you could be quite discouraged… Still, that Hurwitz brief managed to catch the court on the question of Dr. Hurwitz’ good faith, and the failure of the trial court to instruct on that issue.
See also: McIver v. USA - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (full text PDF); John P. Flannery II; 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; Filed: 2007-04-03.
USA v. McIver - Petition for Rehearing En Banc (full text PDF); Argued by: John P. Flannery II before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; 2006-09-21. Conviction Affirmed: 2006-12-05.
Comment (Siobhan Reynolds): Friends, these briefs raise questions of exceptional importance. For nearly a hundred years, the DOJ has manipulated the legal system, using defendants and judges alike as pawns in its effort to acquire by precedent what it could not have gotten had it honored the democratic process. At the Pain Relief Network (PRN) we have been working with attorneys to ‘push back’ since early 2003. These briefs by Flannery I think begin to get at the central legal errors enabling the silent genocide that is the US war on opioid-taking people.
See also: USA v. Dr. McIver - Zero Tolerance for Opioid Therapy; War on Pain Sufferers Special Collection #9; Compiled by DeLuca; 2006-2007. Updated: 2007-04-22.
[END]
Tags: constitution, csa, diversion, good faith, govt misconduct, legal brief, legitimate practice, persecuted physicians, prescription drug abuse, prosecution, red flags, statistics
Comment by
Bill
I was just wondering when the Supreme Court may decide whether or not to grant the Writ of Certiorari. I certainly hope they do because his case, like many others including Dr. Hurwitz’s, challenges the high court’s ruling in Moore and Gonzales. The US Attorney’s Office has unfortunately caused district courts to lower the criminal standard to the civil standard when physicians are on trial. Certainly the Supreme Court will see the need to restrain the DOJ again.
I would love to see a discourse on how it is decided which cases will be heard in the Supreme Court.
Bill
Comment by
adeluca
Apologies to Bill and all for the delay in continuing this discussion. Bill asked a very good question, and has been waiting patiently for the answer.
The delay in my getting back to bill’s comment is that Siobhan Reynolds and Frank Fisher and I have wrote an Amicus Curae brief in support of McIver’s writ before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Pain Relief Network. — and we ran into the usual time-crunch, and Siobhan had to go to the Virgin Islands to help Dr. Maynard — and I stayed up all night editing this beast and footnote-wrangling…
But we got it done, and I will make it available here as soon as I know it is proper to do so. Hopefully we got it in on time.
My understanding is that the Court will meet in conference to decide whether or not to take Ron McIver’s case. As I’ve said before - that the case will eventually get heard is still a long shot, but just getting to the conference stage is, we at PRN feel, is a real success for us.
More when Siobhan returns and has a moment to fill us in further.
[Also - did anyone else notice the EXCELLENT posts left on TierneyLab and elsewhere by our very own "Bill"? I did. Nice writing, Bill, good points well made.]
..alex…
Comment by
adeluca
(arrgh) - ADDENDUM In all that blather in my last comment, I forgot to say that the Court will likely meet in conference to decide whether or not to take the McIver case VERY SOON - perhaps even this week!
Will keep all here informed.
..alex…
Comment by
doctordeluca
McIver Postmortem
The Supreme Court met in conference to consider the McIver writ prepared by PRN, and decided not to hear the case.
PRN had previously gotten assurances from nationally prominent civil rights and anti-drug-war orgs to support us with Amicus briefs if we could find them a case with a clean, clean doctor. McIver was such a case - but at the last moment the big boys reneged.
Siobhan Reynolds, Dr. Frank Fisher, and myself rushed to prepare an Amicus Curiae from PRN in support of McIver. And through an extraordinary effort, we got it done. Then, as I only vaguely understand it, in a tragic misstep by the lawyers, the PRN Amicus was not submitted, and therefore not considered.
I cannot express adequately my sadness for Dr. McIver and his family. We really tried - and failed. I believe a nationally prominent journalist will soon be publishing on the case, and I do not myself know what further legal recourse poor Dr. McIver has, but if the case can be pushed further, I assure you PRN will be involved to the extent or our resources and skill.
Bill, I’m not yet ready to publish the PRN Amicus Curiae because Siobhan may rework it for formal publication. But I will send you the pdf privately in thanks for your consistent support and for consistently expressing yourself so eloquently.
I’d also like to invite you to join our closed advocacy listServs - will send info privately.
..alex…