75 y/o Paul Volkman, MD was given 4 life sentences for treating pain patients with opioids.  He is applying for compassionate release from prison.  He won’t be practicing medicine again, and he is not a danger to society.  The problem he faces, however, is that the FBOP doesn’t want to release any prisoners because they are their money-maker. And even though there is a law to give inmates compassionate release, it is the FBOP’s decision and they usually decide “No” to any request.  In my experience in the FBOP, they let inmates dying of cancer die in their cells rather than give them compassionate release and let them die at home.  This disrespect of the law has to end with taking away immunity from federal employees.

Dr. Volkman asked me to publish his addition that he sent to his lawyer to add to his petition. I pray that they do give him compassionate release, and ask you to do the same.

To the FBOP:
As I stated in my pro se petition, confirmed by you in your supplement, that under the FSA the adjudication of my petition for sentence reduction (compassionate release) is strictly limited to evaluation of the 3553(a) factors spelled out in the black letters of the law.  The criteria are:

1. Risk of re-offense;
2. Danger posed to the community upon release;
3. Medical issues defined as comorbidities to COVID;
4. Viable release plan.

The AUSA has effectively conceded my right under the law to apply for compassionate release, and conceded that my medical conditions, documented by provided medical records, combined with my advance age of 75+, satisfy the legal requirements for granting my petition for compassionate release.  Since my offenses of conviction, to which I maintain my actual innocence, all involved alleged issuance of prescriptions for controlled substances “without legitimate medical purpose”, it is, by definition, quite impossible for me to reoffend, or to pose a danger to the public upon release, since I no longer possess a medical license, and could never again obtain one, as a convicted felon.  As to my housing arrangement upon release, my daughter, son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren eagerly look forward to my living with them.  The AUSA has therefore put forward no substantive objection to my petitions, so he has resorted to an attempt to relitigate my criminal case.  As you have told me, this is inappropriate and irrelevant to the requirements of the FSA.

Nevertheless, the AUSA has unfairly and falsely attacked my personal and professional character, just as he did in his closing arguments at trial, to secure multiple unjustified and unproven convictions by any means necessary. (See Doc. 504, pp8776 ff).  The AUSA repeatedly characterized me as a “heartless, callous monster”, a “pills-for-cash” drug dealer, although the AUSA was well aware that waves of undercover agents had been sent to my office to make “controlled buys”, but were sent away empty-handed.  Co-defendants Denise and Alice Huffman had been given 5K 1.1 credit for cooperation, but both testified at trial that I have never received any money for selling prescriptions or pain pills.  At the jury instruction conference, Judge Beckwith commented that “there has been no testimony of personal profit per se.” J. Beckwith further refused to proffer my proposed jury instruction (after the objection of the AUSA), taken verbatim from the 1975 MORE SCt holding: “In order to find the defendant doctor guilty of violation of the CSA, you must determine that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he ad used his prescription-writing powers to engage in illicit drug trafficking as conventionally understood, for the profits to be gained therefrom, and had not acted as a physician at all.” After the testimony of the Huffmans, and after the testimony of some 14 former patients that they had considered me their trusted physician, J. Beckwith was well aware that my proposed jury instruction amounted to a directed verdict of acquittal.

My nationally recognized medical experts, Drs. Blatman, Tennant, and Bonnell, considered it their duty to testify in my defense at trial, for which they refused payment. They flatly contradicted every unsupported allegation of the three government “experts” who were well paid to come to the court and present false propaganda.  My experts testified under oath that my pain management practices complied with controlling state law, The Ohio Intractable Pain Treatment Act, and all federal requirements of the CSA.  Dr. Tennant, who largely created the recognized specialty o medical pain management in the 80s, testified that he used the same combinations of medications as I had used (as did Dr. Blatman, and even the government “expert” Severyn) impugned by the AUSA as the “deadly Portsmouth cocktail”. Dr. Tennant futher testified that management of chronic severe pain amounts to hospice comfort care of the terminally ill.  Hospice doctors are not tried for murder when their terminal patients expire!  In fact, in WASHINGTON V GLUCKSBERG (1997), the SCt held that pain relief of terminal patients was an Eighth Amendment Right, even when providing the strong medication required should “hasten the death of the patient” as long as the patient and his family had been apprised of this potentiality.”

The critical moment of my criminal case occurred at the outset of the pretrial DAUBERT hearing, mandated to allow the defendant to cross-examine the qualifications and proposed testimony of the government experts, to prevent damaging “junk science” from reaching the ears of the jury.  J. Beckwith announced that she would not permit my councel to cross-examine the government “experts”, denying me my basic constitutional right of confrontation, and ignoring the holdings of DAUBERT.  Had J. Beckwith fulfilled her mandated “gatekeeper” role, and appropriately excluded the false testimony of the three paid government “experts”, the case would have quickly ended with the charges dismissed.  As it was, I had no chance for a fair trial.

On the morning my trial was to begin, the government advance a plea deal: Upon pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to illegally distribute controlled substances, I would receive a 15 year sentence.  I rejected the plea, maintaining my innocence to all charges (as I do to this day!), went to trial, and received four consecutive life sentences.  Had I accepted the “deal”, as 97% of the accused do, I would be home already, as the 15 year sentence would have required 10 years behind bars.  The “deal” previously offered by the AUSA undermines his present characterization of me as a heatless, remorseless, menace to society.

At the trial, the government “experts” characterized the patient deaths as “multidrug overdose deaths”, despite the testimony of forensic pathologist and toxicologist Dr. Bonnell that the toxixicological results did not support the charge that ANY deaths “resulted from” the medications I had prescribed. In 2014, the SCt issued a “GVR” order, vacating the imposed life sentences, citing the 2013 BURRAGE case which required proof of “but for” causation of death to impose enhanced sentences for 841(b)(1)(c), obviously not provided by the government “expert” testimony. The 6^th Circuit then reissued their original opinion without changing a word, and reimposed the four consecutive life sentences without the required resentencing hearing.

I have at this point served over 11 years, after my critically important confrontation rights were illegally denied, convicted of being a drug dealer absent evidence of “drugs for money”, and convicted of killing my patients with drug overdoses without a semblance of FACTS to substantiate the convictions.

The AUSA claims that:

1. I am actually safer from COVID here than at home with my family.
2. I am well taken care of here by the USP Tucson medical staff.

He then cites BOP statistics that show that only one or two inmates released to home confinement have died.  As to medical care here, I have urgent need to see a consultant cardiologist, but this has not been, and WILL NOT be scheduled, according to the provider. Just a week ago, I was taken by ambulance to Banner South Hospital for evaluation of chest pain.  As to my type 2 diabetes, my request for a self-carry glucometer, to allow me to appropriately and carefully monitor my serum blood sugar levels, has been denied. (“Once a year blood test for HgA1C is adequate monitoring.”) As to my multiple kidney stones and right hydronephrosis, no consultation with a urologist is scheduled.  The AUSA also asserts that, as USP Tucson is supposedly following “level 3 COVID protocols”, that daily COVID tests are administered.  When I arrived at USP Tucson in July 2021, I had 3 negative COVID tests during the standard one month stay in quarantine. Since then, in the following six months, I had exactly one COVID test about 2 weeks ago, and one more at Banner South ER, per their protocol for all patients.  Once released, I will certainly be able to obtain the requisite care for my multiple conditions, from reputable an conscientious physicians in the community.

The AUSA has included my 2018 letter to “Doctorsofcourage.org” to demonstrate what he regards as my “lack of remorse, or acceptance of responsibility for the devastation I wrought upon my patients and my community.” None of these accusations are legitimate. I stand by the letter that the AUSA included, and I would today change nothing I said.

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of my petition for compassionate release.

Paul H. Volkman MD, PhD