Government Abusing The Public Trust
By: Keith Allison
Any time the government prostitutes the law in order to please their big time special interest financial contributors, they are abusing the public trust. Our government employees, particularly the judges, are there to protect the public from the shylocks who routinely prey on unsuspecting citizens. The problem is, however, they are so busy looking for ever newer methods to dip their grubby little fingers into the public till, they have no time to perform the tasks they should be taking care of. As a result, itâ€™s not uncommon for our corrupt politicians, judges, and/or bureaucrats to prostitute the law in order to further their own ambitions.
The case of State of Washington (plaintiff) vs. Pacific Health Center, Inc. (defendant)is one such case. This case is cited from a decision from Division One of The Court of appeals of The State of Washington, Case Number 56886-8-1, and is a perfect example of how government entities attempt to prostitute the law in order to assist their financial benefactors in aiding and abetting an illegal monopoly on serving the public.
In the above cited case, the Court found that while the defendants were, in fact, practicing medicine, acupuncture and naturopathy as defined by the laws of the State of Washington, the defendants were not in violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. This despite the fact that no one at the Pacific Health Center, Inc. held a license to practice medicine, naturopathy, or acupuncture. In this case, the state relies solely on the fact that appellants were not licensed as proof that they misrepresented their skill level.
While the Appeals Court found the acts that PHC employees were performing were, in fact, the practice of medicine, acupuncture and/or naturopathy, they also stated: â€œThe State has not proved they were in fact not skilled in using EDT. To prove a deceptive practice, the State must demonstrate that PHC employees were not skilled in doing what they represented to the public they could do. Instead, the State relies solely on the fact that appellants were not licensed as proof that they misrepresented their skill level.â€
The Court also held, â€œA party practicing law or medicine without a license does not deceive the public if they do not claim to be licensed, and are, in fact, competent or skilled in doing what they represent they can do. Someone who practices law or medicine without a license is not necessarily incompetent to perform the service that constitutes the practice of law or medicine.â€ In short, the Court stated that the possession of a license, certificate, or any other such document does not guarantee the practitioner is skilled or proficient in whatever trade, calling, or profession the holder of that license, certificate, etc. has obtained from any government source.
PHC represented to the public that they were skilled in EDT and could help people with various problems and maladies. They specifically said they were not medical doctors and did not claim to be licensed to practice any discipline. To prove a CPA violation, the State had to show that PHC employees were not skilled in using EDT or helping people in the manner they represented. This, the State failed to do. In fact, the record is replete with evidence that PHCâ€™S CLIENTS BELIEVED ITS EMPLOYEES WERE COMPETENT AT WHAT THEY DID.
Further, although the State need not present evidence that PHCâ€™ss practices actually caused harm, it has failed to produce any evidence that there is even a reasonable possibility of harm. This, the State failed to do. The State must at least demonstrate that appellantsâ€™ actions have a reasonable possibility of causing harm. Because it has not done so, its CPA claim cannot stand. (This sounds quite a bit like the problems denturists have when the American Dental Association and/or their constituent associations and/or societies bribe politicians and/or State Attorneyâ€™s General to prosecute them for practicing dentistry without a license if they construct full and/or partial dentures so people can eat and masticate their food properly.)
In effect, what the court has stated is that when the State can prove little, if any, potential for harm, the Stateâ€™s authority to regulate is pretty much limited to regulating through registration which is the least restrictive level of regulation available to government interests. Such findings reflect the Washington State legislative findings in RCW 18.120.010(3)(c). Here, the legislature has specifically stated: â€œWhere the threat to the public health or safety is relatively small as a result of the operation of the health profession, the regulation should implement a system of registration.â€
Such legislative edicts clearly indicate that all Dental Practice Acts throughout the United States which seek to deny denturists their Right to practice their chosen occupation of denturitry are unconstitutional due to the lack of potential for harm to anyone. This concept has been presented to numerous Courts in the state of Washington, but the judges appear to find it best for their own financial interests to turn a deaf ear to this concept. I personally know of one judge who found a denturist â€œnot guilty of practicing dentistryâ€ the first time he was hauled into his court. However, according to information that originally came from the judges wife and later confirmed by the judge himself, after â€œalmost every dentist in town, along with a few politicians, telephoned him at his home and offered him a â€œguaranteed nomination to a higher court if he would find the denturist guilty as charged,â€ the judge agreed to their proposition. When the denturist was hauled back into the subject judgeâ€™s court, there were no new arguments or evidence presented to the Court. In obeying dentistryâ€™s orders, he did, however, find the denturist â€œguilty as charged.â€ And, even though the American Bar Association along with the Washington State Bar Association were fully informed of this egregious behavior on the part of the judge, he was apparently never disciplined because he still resides on the bench as a Superior Court Judge.
I believe that qualifies as judicial corruption.