Thereâ€™s Gotta Be Some Logic Here
By: Keith Allison
As the title of this piece states, thereâ€™s gotta be some logic here, but I sure donâ€™t see it.
A few years ago, I filed a federal lawsuit against the American Dental Association (ADA) and its constituent associations and/or societies for Restraint of Trade and Civil Rights violations. The case was based on the premise that due to the fact that the ADA and its constituent associations and/or societies throughout the nation had placed a regulatory ban on denturist supplying the public with full and/or partial dentures, they had violated mine and all other denturists Common Law Right to Labor at Our Chosen Occupation of denturitry; thus violating our Civil Rights as well as committing Restraint of Trade.
The way they banned denturists from serving the public involves the wording contained within their so-called Dental Practice Acts. What dentistry did, was go to their individual State legislators and tell them they wanted their Dental Practice Acts enacted into law. One of the provisions of those Acts was to state that â€œonly licensed dentists could provide full and/or partial dentures directly to the public.â€ I donâ€™t know if these illustrious members of the dental community carried with them a sack full of money as a means of showing their legislators their righteous intent in having this Act placed into law, but I suspect it had something to do with it since there was an obvious issue of Restraint of Trade involved; all of this despite their knowing full well that the practice of denturitry represents no known potential for harm to anyone. Many years later, four empirical reports, one from the Federal Trade Commission, one from the Michigan State Department of Health, one from the Kentucky State Legislature, and one from the Washington State Health Coordinating Council verified the fact that there was no known potential for harm from denturists nor their practice of denturitry. Despite these findings of fact, none of the various State Legislatures have done anything to change their State Laws to eliminate this obvious restraint of trade.
Anyway, getting back to the lawsuit I filed in Judge Robartâ€™s U.S. District Court in Seattle, my case sat around there well beyond the 21 day time frame the defendants had to respond to my allegations before I finally made another motion for a Default Judgment against the defendants for their failure to respond. But, after that had sat around the judgeâ€™s chambers for a few weeks, there was no response from him on that motion, or my motion on the original filing of the case. Judge Robart sat on his thumbs through a couple of more motions for a Default Judgment as I strenuously complained about his failure to follow the law and issue a judgment against the ADA. Finally, I did receive a filing from the defense counsel stating â€œthere was no need for the defendants to respond, because â€˜the allegations were taken as admitted.â€™â€
Now I donâ€™t know about you folks, but to me and the other plaintiffâ€™s on the case, that was an admission of guilt on the part of defendant members of the ADA. But, even when I brought this to the attention of our illustrious Judge Robart, no judgment was forthcoming from the bench.
Finally, after the case idled away in his chambers for nearly one full year, he dismissed the case, with prejudice, with no findings of fact and/or conclusions of law showing any justification for his failure to follow Court Rules, or settled case and/or statutory laws. As a result of Judge Robartâ€™s failure to follow the law, I decided to file a complaint about his lack of judicial ethics with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Guess what. The 9th Circuit refused to hold him accountable for his obvious perversion of the law. So, while I still had some respect for our judicial system at the time, I filed complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice; again to no avail.
Iâ€™m not sure if what I experienced is the norm, but Iâ€™ve come to the conclusion, erroneously or not, that it does little good to try to hold our public officials accountable whenever they violate our Rights under color of law. I find that beneath contempt; especially when I know that if someone is caught with an â€œopen containerâ€ in their vehicle, they will suffer the oppressive tactics of government coming down their throats whether they, or someone else were the ones that drank the offending brew. All it takes for the public to draw official ire in a case like that, is for there to be an open container in the vehicle, and the driver is automatically guilty regardless of how it got there, or who left it there.
Am I wrong, or are we dealing with a double standard in the law where our public servants are concerned?