Title 21: The Controlled Substance Act
Title 21 USC: The Controlled Substances Act Chapter 13: Drug Abuse Prevention & Control
The Controlled Substance Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October 27, 1970.
NOWHERE in the CSA are doctors the target of the law. In fact, doctors are supported by the actual law. The actual targets were the drug cartels that were inundating America at the time with illegal drugs–from Columbia, for example. The goal was to catch them, charge them, and confiscate all of their assets. The writers of the law probably saw $$ signs in their vision. But when they found out it was difficult to charge the cartel lords, and even harder to confiscate their offshore assets, someone decided to look elsewhere for an easier target–and that was the doctors. Doctors are mentioned in the law through the term “dispense” and only as being exempt from prosecution.
First, the law states the basis for its creation, through Congress’s findings. Notice that all of the findings pertain to illegal drugs, not prescriptions. [Note: the quoted sections are from the CSA. Parts have been redacted that do not apply to the topic]
SEC. 3002. FINDINGS.
The Congress hereby finds that–
(2) a balanced, coordinated, multifaceted strategy for combating the narcotics drug abuse and trafficking in the United States should include–”
(A) increased investigations of large networks of drug smuggler organizations;
(C) increased emphasis on stopping narcotics traffickers in countries through which drugs are transshipped;
(E) increased Federal Government assistance to State and local agencies, civic groups, school systems, and officials in their efforts to combat the drug abuse and trafficking problem at the local level; and
(F) increased emphasis on the interdiction of drugs and drug smugglers at the borders of the United States, in the air, at sea, and on the land;
(3) funds to support the interdiction of narcotics smugglers who threaten the transport of drugs through the air, on the sea, and across the land borders of the United States should be emphasized
(6) the civilian drug interdiction agencies of the United States are currently interdicting only a small percentage of the illegal, drug smuggler penetrations in the United States every year;
NOWHERE in the congressional findings was listed a concern about prescription medicines.
Next, the CSA states its purposes. Again, this demonstrates that the target is illegal drugs coming into the country from elsewhere as shown here:
SEC. 3003. PURPOSES.
(2) to increase the level of support from the Department of Defense as consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act [18 U.S.C. 1385] (which limits use of military forces), for interdiction of the narcotics traffickers before such traffickers penetrate the borders of the United States
SEC. 3301. ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNITED STATES-BAHAMAS DRUG INTERDICTION TASK FORCE
The CSA gives statistics of illegal drug use in America and the cost of drug abuse. Nowhere does it mention prescription drugs, except for those procured illegally–i.e. “without medical supervision”.
Findings.–The Congress finds that–”
(2) over 500,000 individuals are known heroin addicts; 5 million individuals use cocaine; and at least 7 million individuals regularly use prescription drugs, mostly addictive ones, without medical supervision;
(3) 10 million adults and 3 million children and adolescents abuse alcohol, and an additional 30 to 40 million people are adversely affected because of close family ties to alcoholics;
(4) the total cost of drug abuse to the Nation in 1983 was over $60,000,000,000;
On July 6, 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was established in the Department of Justice through an amendment to the CSA, the Ex. Ord. No. 11727
Section 1. The Attorney General, to the extent permitted by law, is authorized to coordinate all activities of executive branch departments and agencies which are directly related to the enforcement of laws respecting narcotics and dangerous drugs.
In this section “definitions”, there is actually written respect and support for physicians.
(56) The term “filling new prescriptions for controlled substances in schedule III, IV, or V” means filling a prescription for an individual for a controlled substance in schedule III, IV, or V, ifâ€”
(C) the practitioner, acting in the usual course of professional practice, determines there is a legitimate medical purpose for the issuance of the new prescription.
Here, it states that it is the practitioner who determines that there is a legitimate medical purpose for the prescription–not the US Attorney, or the DEA Agent who might not even be a high school graduate.
Since when has the government lost its respect for the medical profession? When they decided to look to us to pay their salaries. Because also in the CSA, it says that the moneys confiscated by attacking the drug cartels would go into the DOJ coffers to pay the costs of the law. That’s why doctors are now being systematically targeted. The DOJ is looking for the provider for their next pay check, and that is all!
SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Part C — Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances
§823. Registration requirements
(b) Distributors of controlled substances in schedule I or II
The Attorney General shall register an applicant to distribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II unless he determines that the issuance of such registration is inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the public interest, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) maintenance of effective control against diversion of particular controlled substances into other than legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial channels;
(2) compliance with applicable State and local law;
(3) prior conviction record of applicant under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of such substances;
(4) past experience in the distribution of controlled substances; and
(5) such other factors as may be relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.
But the DEA doesn’t follow this statute. If they target a doctor, even though he is doing everything legally, they simply use No. 5 to deny him registration, stating that it is “inconsistent with public health and safety”, but they can’t and won’t state the reasons why. This is pure abuse of power.
They do the same thing with revocation or suspension. Without just cause, they will simply enter the doctor’s office and hand him a suspension notice. At that stroke, suddenly hundreds of patients are without care and face withdrawal and pain. THAT is ‘inconsistent with public health and safety’, and those agents who ordered that suspension should be held accountable. Oh, but the law actually has a statute that provides immunity to any agent working under the umbrella of this law. Nice, huh? They can break the law, cause deaths of innocent civilians, and are completely safe from prosecution. No wonder they have taken on the role of God.
§824. Denial, revocation, or suspension of registration
A registration may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant–
(1) has materially falsified any application
(2) has been convicted of a felony relating to any substance defined in this subchapter as a controlled substance.
(3) has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority
(4) has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section; or
(5) has been excluded (or directed to be excluded) from participation in a program pursuant to section 1320aâ€“7(a) of title 42.
(c) Service of show cause order; proceedings
Before taking action pursuant to a denial of registration, the Attorney General shall serve upon the applicant or registrant an order to show cause why registration should not be denied, revoked, or suspended. The order to show cause shall contain a statement of the basis thereof and shall call upon the applicant or registrant to appear before the Attorney General at a time and place stated in the order. Proceedings to deny, revoke, or suspend shall be conducted independent of, and not in lieu of, criminal prosecutions or other proceedings.
Supposedly this order to show cause is to give the registrant his “day in court”. But this action is a farce. The DEA judge works for the same “company” as the DEA prosecutor, and they work together. It doesn’t matter how the registrant can show just cause for not having their registration suspended, the court will use the phrase “inconsistent with public interest and safety” to deny the motion.
(d) Suspension of registration in cases of imminent danger
The Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend any registration simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under this section, in cases where he finds that there is an imminent danger to the public health or safety. A suspension under this subsection shall continue in effect until the conclusion of such proceedings, including judicial review thereof, unless sooner withdrawn by the Attorney General or dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
This paragraph is what the DEA uses to enter a doctor’s office and immediately shut it down without just cause. Pure abuse of power.
(a) Schedule II substances: No controlled substance in schedule II may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner, except that in emergency situations.Â
(b) Schedule III and IV substances: No controlled substance in schedule III or IV may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription.
(c) Schedule V substances: No controlled substance in schedule V may be dispensed other than for a medical purpose.
(e) Controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet
(1) No controlled substance that is a prescription drug may be dispensed by means of the Internet without a valid prescription.
(A) “Valid prescription” means a prescription that is issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice by–
(i) a practitioner who has conducted at least 1 in-person medical evaluation of the patient; or
(ii) a covering practitioner.
(B)(i) The term “in-person medical evaluation” means a medical evaluation that is conducted with the patient in the physical presence of the practitioner
(ii) Nothing in clause (i) shall be construed to imply that 1 in-person medical evaluation demonstrates that a prescription has been issued for a legitimate medical purpose within the usual course of professional practice.
(C) The term “covering practitioner” means, with respect to a patient, a practitioner who conducts a medical evaluation (other than an in-person medical evaluation) at the request of a practitioner whoâ€”
(i) has conducted at least 1 in-person medical evaluation of the patient or an evaluation of the patient through the practice of telemedicine, within the previous 24 months; and
(ii) is temporarily unavailable to conduct the evaluation of the patient.
Doctors are being charged with distribution based on their prescriptions for controlled drugs. The justification in these charges is that the record does not include enough of a physical exam. Yet these patients are being seen monthly for continuation of treatment for chronic pain. Most evaluations for chronic conditions don’t even require physical assessment because in conventional medicine, chronic diseases are simply maintained, they are not improved. Doctors should not be charged with distribution based on this reason, because right here in the CSA, doctors can prescribe scheduled drugs via telemedicine for 24 months without even an in-person visit. This is penalizing doctors who see their patients face-to-face. And there is nothing here to warrant charging the doctor with a crime based on absence of a physical anyway. So how are they getting away with that?
Part D — Offenses And Penalties
§841. Prohibited acts A
(a) Unlawful acts
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally–
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.
This is the statute that doctors are being charged with. But it was not the intent of the congress to convict doctors of prescribing controlled substances. They are exempted from this statute by statute 1306.4. It is obvious to the average person that this statute is referring to the distribution of illegal drugs. To further demonstrate that was the intent of congress, the penalties that follow are obviously for the cartels doing this manufacturing, distributing and dispensing, because of the size of the fines and the years of incarceration. Also, the substances listed in the penalties below for Schedule I-II drugs only list those that are illegal. Even though doctors are being convicted for this statute, they do not suffer these amounts of fines because they don’t make that kind of money. The courts know they are attacking doctors outside of the realm of this statute, and they do it anyway. Pure abuse of power.
(b) Penalties for Schedule I-II: any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: Substances covered: heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, marihuana, methamphetamine.
(1) 10-20 years without possibility of parole
(2) fines of $10,000,000 to $50,000,000
(c) Penalties for Schedule III:
(1) 10-15 years without possibility of parole
(2) fines of $500,000-2,500,000
(d) Penalties for Schedule IV:
(1) 5-10 years
(2) fines of $250,000 to $1,000,000
(e) Penalties for Schedule V:
(1) 1 year
(2) fines of $100,000-$250,000
§849. Transportation safety offenses–for distributing at truck stops or rest areas
Again, showing that the focus of the law is illegal drugs, not prescription drugs. Doctors don’t do medical evaluations at truck stops or rest areas.
§852. Application of treaties and other international agreements
More proof of the actual intent of congress as to this act. The practice of medicine does not involve international treaties or agreements. This is to make it easier to charge those in the drug cartels with commission of a crime.
§853. Criminal forfeitures
Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes–
(1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and
(2) tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities.
Here we get to the reasons for the act–to confiscate the property of the illegal drug cartels. But instead, when that became too difficult, the government turned on an easy target–the doctors in the country that are pledged to prevent suffering.
§856. Maintaining drug-involved premises
(a) Unlawful acts: Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful to–
(1) knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance;
(b) Criminal penalties: up to 20 years or a fine of up to $500,000, or both
Again, just by the amounts of the sentence and fines, this statute is obviously focused at the illegal drug pushers, and not doctors.
§858. Endangering human life while illegally manufacturing controlled substance
§859. Distribution to persons under age twenty-one
§860. Distribution or manufacturing in or near schools and colleges
§860a. Consecutive sentence for manufacturing or distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, methamphetamine on premises where children are present or reside
None of these statutes apply to doctors. They are all obviously targeting illegal drug manufacturing or distribution. And yet doctors are being charged now if their clinics are near a school! Amazing! The DOJ is so puffed up with a God complex, that they think they can do anything they want with these statutes. We, the people, have to change that.
PART 1306 — PRESCRIPTIONS
§1306.12 Refilling prescriptions; issuance of multiple prescriptions.
(a) The refilling of a prescription for a controlled substance listed in Schedule II is prohibited.
(b)(1) An individual practitioner may issue multiple prescriptions authorizing the patient to receive a total of up to a 90-day supply of a Schedule II controlled substance provided the following conditions are met:
(i) Each separate prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice;
(ii) The individual practitioner provides written instructions on each prescription (other than the first prescription, if the prescribing practitioner intends for that prescription to be filled immediately) indicating the earliest date on which a pharmacy may fill each prescription;
(iii) The individual practitioner concludes that providing the patient with multiple prescriptions in this manner does not create an undue risk of diversion or abuse;
This intent of this statute was to take the prescriptions written by a medical practitioner OUT of the realm of criminalization. Instead, the DOJ corrupts the phrase “for a legitimate medical purpose” to make the writing of a prescription an illegal act.
More evidence of the intent of the law being pointed at the distribution of illegal drugs, not prescriptions from doctors is in the drug quantity table designed by the United States Sentencing Commission shown below. Please note the amounts designated for the level of crime. They are all illegal drug distributor amounts, not amounts that could be arrived at through doctor’s prescriptions to a patient.
[72 FR 64929, Nov. 19, 2007]
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION DRUG QUANTITY TABLE
Level 38: Heroin, cocaine,, hashish, ketamine, Schedule 1 or II depressants, amphetamine, flunitrazemethamphetamine, LSD, fentanyl.Â 90,000 KG marihuana.
Level 20: 60-80 KG marijuana. Adds Schedule III Substances 60,000+ units
Level 12: 5-10 KG marihuana.Â Adds Schedule IV 80,000+ units
Level 6: <1 KG marihuana. Adds Schedule V <160,000 units
In the case of a controlled substance that is not specifically referenced in this guideline, determine the base offense level using the marihuana equivalency of the most closely related controlled substance referenced in this guideline. In determining the most closely related controlled substance, the court shall, to the extent practicable, consider the following:
- Use of Drug Equivalency Tables.–
(A) Controlled Substances Not Referenced in Drug Quantity Table.–The Commission has used the sentences provided in, and equivalences derived from, the statute (21 U.S.C. Â§ 841(b)(1)), as the primary basis for the guideline sentences. The statute, however, provides direction only for the more common controlled substances, i.e., heroin, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine, fentanyl, LSD and marihuana. In the case of a controlled substance that is not specifically referenced in the Drug Quantity Table, determine the base offense level as follows:
(i) Use the Drug Equivalency Tables to convert the quantity of the controlled substance involved in the offense to its equivalent quantity of marihuana.
For example, in the Drug Equivalency Tables set forth in this Note, 1 gram of a substance containing oxymorphone, a Schedule I opiate, converts to an equivalent quantity of 5 kilograms of marihuana.Â In a case involving 100 grams of oxymorphone, the equivalent quantity of marihuana would be 500 kilograms, which corresponds to a base offense level of 26 in the Drug Quantity Table.
When a doctor is charged with a crime using the CSA, all prescription drugs are converted to marijuana by this equivalency table. That, alone, should show that this law is pertaining to illegal drugs and not prescription meds from a doctor. But you can’t go to trial charging a doctor with “distribution of marijuana”. So they chose a prescription drug with a propagandized bad rap–oxycodone. So all drugs prescribed are converted to oxycodone for charges.
Schedule I or II Opiates*
1 gm of Heroin = 1 kg of marihuana
1 gm of Fentanyl = 2.5 kg of marihuana
1 gm of Hydromorphone/Dihydromorphinone = 2.5 kg of marihuana
1 gm of Methadone = 500 gm of marihuana
1 gm of Morphine = 500 gm of marihuana
1 gm of Oxycodone (actual) = 6700 gm of marihuana
1 gm of Oxymorphone = 5 kg of marihuana
1 gm of Codeine = 80 gm of marihuana
1 gm of Hydrocodone (actual) = 6700 gm of marihuana
*Provided, that the minimum offense level from the Drug Quantity Table for any of these controlled substances individually, or in combination with another controlled substance, is level 12.
Now level 12 is 5-10 KG marihuana. Again, that would represent a rather hefty load of illegal drugs, not a simple prescription.
Schedule III Substances (except ketamine)***
1 unit of a Schedule III Substance = 1 gm of marihuana
***Provided, that the combined equivalent weight of all Schedule III substances, Schedule IV substances, and Schedule V substances shall not exceed 79.99 kilograms of marihuana.
Schedule IV & V Substances (except flunitrazepam)*****
1 unit of a Schedule IV or V Substance = 0.0625 gm of marihuana
*****Provided, that the combined equivalent weight of all Schedule IV and V substances shall not exceed 9.99 kilograms of marihuana.
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION DRUG EQUIVALENCY TABLES
MDA 250 mg
Mescaline 500 mg
PCP* 5 mg
Peyote (dry) 12 gm
Psilocin* 10 mg
TYPICAL WEIGHT PER UNIT (DOSE, PILL, OR CAPSULE) TABLE
Marihuana: 1 marihuana cigarette 0.5 gm
Stimulants: Amphetamine* 10 mg
Methamphetamine* 5 mg
All of these drugs, again, are illegal.
§2D2.1. Unlawful Possession; Attempt or Conspiracy
First time Schedule II opiates are mentioned is in this category of Possession.
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) 8, if the substance is heroin or any Schedule I or II opiate, an analogue of these, or cocaine base; or
(2) 6, if the substance is cocaine, flunitrazepam, LSD, or PCP; or
(3) 4, if the substance is any other controlled substance or a list I chemical.
PART E – OFFENSES INVOLVING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES AND RACKETEERING
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987.
§2E1.1. Unlawful Conduct Relating to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
§2E1.2. Interstate or Foreign Travel or Transportation in Aid of a Racketeering Enterprise
§2E1.3. Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity
§2E1.4. Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-For-Hire
§2E2.1. Making or Financing an Extortionate Extension of Credit; Collecting an Extension of Credit by Extortionate Means
Doctors are being charged with “racketeering” in order to fit the “crime” of distribution. But if you look at these conducts associated with racketeering, they do not fit in a medical office scenario.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
In the course of raiding doctors’ offices, suspending their licenses, ending their careers, and setting them up through gross government misconduct during the trial, with forced perjury and knowingly using a law that was not meant to target physicians, the government violates at least the following four amendments:
Fourth amendment–Unreasonable searches and seizures
Fifth amendment–Due process of law
Sixth amendment–Impartial jury; Have assistance of counsel for his defense
Fourteenth amendment–Depriving a person of liberty or property without due process
Over the course of the last 50 years, there have been multiple cases that have gone to the Supreme Court that support the freedom of doctors in their practices. Many of these cases prove that these attacks on doctors using the CSA are illegal.
U.S. v. Roth.:
Deliberate perjury to the grand jury may result in dismissal of charges.
In many cases, it is only through deliberate perjury to the grand jury by government agents that indictments are achieved. Common perjury includes statements that the doctor knowingly gave prescriptions to known drug dealers or drug addicts. Even knowing that the CSA exempted doctors from its conception, and yet using one phrase to charge them with a crime should be considered deliberate perjury.
U.S. v. Russelli.:
Pertaining to outrageous government conduct:
The acts of the government have violated the consensus and exceeded the limit of what a free society can tolerate.
Linder v. U. S.:
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the Federal government. Congress therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Federal power is delegated, and its prescribed limits must not be transcended even though the end seems desirable.”
(1) Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Federal government.
(2) Any provision of an act of Congress solely to the achievement of something plainly within the power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the Federal government.”
The law does not undertake to prescribe methods for medical treatment. “We cannot possibly conclude that a physician acted improperly or unwisely or for other than medical purposes solely because he has dispensed”, in the ordinary course and in good faith. What constitutes bona fide medical practice must be determined upon consideration of evidence and attending circumstances.
U.S. v. Doremus.:
“of course Congress may not in the exercise of Federal power exert authority wholly reserved to the states.”
Hayman v. Galveston.:
“the right of a duly licensed physician to practice his profession is liberty and property within the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”
Minnesota ex rel Whipple v. Martinson.:
“the statute exceeds the authority of the state in the exertion of its police power, in that it undertakes to regulate a lawful business in the manner prescribed in the statute, in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Gonzales v. Oregon.:
Challenged the Interpretive Rule of “legitimate medical purpose” pertaining to assisted suicide and Supreme Court affirmed, saying: The CSA manifested no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.
The Oregon regime was an example of the state regulation of medical practice that the CSA presupposed. When Congress wished to regulate medical practice in the given scheme, Congress did so by explicit statutory language. “In deciding whether the CSA can be read as prohibiting physician-assisted suicide, we look to the statute’s text and design. The statute and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond this; however, the stature manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally. The silence is understandable given the structure and limitations of federalism. The structure and operation of the CSA presume and rely upon a functioning medical profession regulated under the state’s police powers.”
Sorrells v. U.S.:
The criminal acts were a “creature of the agent’s purpose”. The Court called the action a gross abuse of authority. Chief Justice Hughes concluded that to provide the opportunity to commit the crime is beyond reproach. The government may not incite or create crime for the purpose of punishing it. “It is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and to the established law of the land to punish a man for the commission of an offence of the like of which he had never been guilty of if the officers of the law had not inspired, incited, persuaded, and lured him to attempt to commit it.” If the acts of the prosecutor offend the tribunal, the defendant may not be prosecuted. The Courts must be closed to the trial of a crime instigated by the government’s own agents. No other issue, no comparison of the equities as between the guilty official and the guilty defendant has any place in the enforcement of this overruling principle of public policy.
This should exonerate any doctor charged with prescribing medicine to a lying government agent.
Boyd v. U. S.:
The disputed question is whether the defendant issued the scripts in good faith in the course of his professional practice. The court instructed the jury that if they were issued in good faith “for the purpose of curing disease or relieving suffering”, the defendant should be acquitted.
Jin Fuey Moy v. U. S.:
“manifestly the phrases “to a patient” and “in the course of his professional practice only” are intended to confine the immunity of a registered physician in dispensing narcotic drugs strictly within the appropriate bounds of professional practice, and not to extend it to include a sale to a dealer or a distribution intended to cater to the craving of an addict.”
This means for illegal use only, not for the treatment of pain, which would be in the bounds of professional practice
Sherman v. U.S.:
The Federal Courts have an “obligation to set their face against enforcement of the law by lawless means or means that violate rationally vindicated standards of justice.” At stake is the integrity of the process. It is the responsibility of the Court to protect our citizenry from such prostitution of the law. To do otherwise would undermine the Court’s standing as administrators of justice. If the acts of the authorities are so reprehensible, the problem transcends the individual defendant. The Courts would become corrupted by a process that is the fruit of corrupt government methodology.
Greene v. U.S.:
Government involvement in the operation of an illegal act precludes conviction.
Again the use of government agents to cause a prescription to be written when the agents are fake should preclude conviction.
Olmstead v. U.S.:
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. The government incites what the prosecution considers illegal action. Government teaches by example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for the law. It breeds anarchy. To declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure a conviction would bring terrible retribution.
Hampton v. U. S.:
if the government acts are of greater offensiveness than those of the defendant, the defense of Outrageous Government Conduct is available.
Walder v. U.S.:
“the government cannot violate the 4th Amendment–namely through its agents–and use the fruits of such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction. All these methods are outlawed, and convictions obtained by means of them are invalidated, because they encourage the kind of society that is obnoxious to free men.”
Prosecutors should not be allowed to fabricate and lie on a request for a search warrant. This is a violation of the doctor’s 4th Amendment rights. By this flagrant abuse of authority, the government can invade the private domain of anyone in this country that they choose. This has to be stopped. This breeds anarchy.
It is imperative that every American communicate with the health issues staff person for their legislators. If you don't have that contact information, you can get it by filling out the contact form here: