Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Arthur Thexton, the Wisconsin Prosecutor who was recently humiliated in the Wisconsin Department of Regulation & Licensing (DRL) v. Kadile case, has been sued by another MD in the State of Wisconsin. When I read the NEW case, the charges against Thexton, and the surrounding documents, all of which I’m making available for you to read, I couldn’t help but shake my head in wondering.
Thexton has just finished being demolished in the Kadile case in Wisconsin, where Thexton spent $165,000 of the State’s money, falsely prosecuting Kadile, using as the accuser, case advisor, and “expert witness,” the well known crackpot Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, whose medical/dental career has sunk so low his current income source, besides testifying, is the operation of a hair removal and ear piercing salon in Braintree Massachusetts, from which address he also runs the dubious National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). Now, Thexton has moved right on to another Wisconsin State debacle. He’s apparently prosecuting an MD in a billing dispute with a health insurance company. Thexton is acting on behalf of the insurance company, and, he’s using taxpayer funds to do it.
Isn’t anybody at the helm in Wisconsin?
There were two questions, and concerns, that had already come to my mind about Thexton, et al, in the earlier Kadile case “(1) How can our system allow a sleazebag like Arthur Thexton to get into a position where he can use his natural viciousness, his God-complex, his excesses, his insane biases, and his obvious hatred for his betters, at all… and, (2) Where’s the ‘oversight’ for Thexton – and why isn’t it working?
My questions, and concerns, have been SOLIDLY reinforced with the new case involving a non-AltMed MD named Stuart Suster MD, a man I’ve never met – so far.
The case, filed in the United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, filed by Stuart M. Suster, Plaintiff, against Ruby Jefferson-Moore, Individually, Arthur Thexton, Individually; and Wayne Austin, Individually, Defendants, is a CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Pursuant to USC TITLE 42 §§1983-88 with TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
Boy, is it interesting…
Besides suing Arthur Thexton, Individually, Suster found it necessary to sue Ruby Jefferson-Moore, Individually, and Wayne Austin, Individually. Who are these two? Ruby Jefferson-Moore, we know, is the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the Suster case. Moore is the ALJ who declared NAET illegal in the Barbara Lemke RN case – only to have her decision reversed by DRL management shortly thereafter. Wayne Austin is the attorney for the Medical Board. Suster didn’t sue the so-called “Case Advisor” for the Medical Board – yet, but I assume he will once he finds out that person’s role, or lack of responsible role, in the case..
Quoting from the Statement of Case – “The Plaintiff, Stuart M. Suster, is a licensed practicing physician in the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board (“WMEB”) started an investigation against the Plaintiff substantially due to a billing dispute with a health insurance provider. Due to ideological, economical, philosophical and political differences, the WMEB decided that the Plaintiff must be adverse to the jurisdiction and authority of the WMEB. The Defendants acting under color of State law used their office with the WMED to act in their individual capacity against the Plaintiff in violation of his civil and constitutional rights. The overt acts are outlined in Counts 1 through 10 of this Complaint.”
And here is 1 through 10 of the complaint, with Conclusions, Damages, and Injunctions…
Count #1 – The State of Florida denied Plaintiff’s application for medical license based substantially on Arthur Thexton’s illegal investigations in Wisconsin.
Count #2 – Arthur Thexton and others willfully and knowingly encouraged, inflamed the passions and prejudices, enticed and coerced relatives, etc., former and present patients, to testify and make statements against Plaintiff with misrepresentations, false and perjured declarations, when in fact, said patients had only grievances and self-interests not related to the jurisdictional Medical Board investigations against Plaintiff.
Count #3 – Arthur Thexton and Ruby Jefferson-Moore had numerous ex parte communications to conspire against Plaintiff concerning his legal pleadings and strategies that greatly prejudiced the Plaintiff’s due process rights of law.
Count #4 – Arthur Thexton and Wayne Austin refused to adequately respond and comply with legitimate and legal due process requests concerning –
a.) Pre-administrative hearing concerning final decision to investigate and summary judgment determination of guilt of Plaintiff.
b.) Index and cross-index to statute all Board opinions, decisions, ruling, interpretations, etc. concerning allegations in the original Complaint.
c.) Complying with the Privacy Act of 1974 since the Board assumed Federal jurisdiction and is a nominee for Federal agencies.
d.) Complying with providing all rules and regulations concerning allegations in the Complaint against Plaintiff.
e.) Complying with providing copies of Oaths of Office for all Board members and appointed officers.
f.) Providing necessary rules of interpretation or construction in the Administrative action.
g.) Providing copes of verification of certification, dating and filing of regulations used in the Complaint against Plaintiff.
These are all in violation of due process and equal protection under the law of the Plaintiff.
Count #5 – Ruby Jefferson-Moore ordered Plaintiff to cease and desist a proper legal process of a counter-claim and cross-claiming persons that have harmed, violated or made false witness declarations and statements against the Plaintiff in violation of due process and equal protection under the law of the Plaintiff.
Count #6 – Ruby Jefferson-Moore ordered Plaintiff to be under an illegal jurisdiction, venue and authority when in fact the original Complaint was fatally defective and did not exist due to several missing legal and fact essential elements, overcharging with federal regulations and where overt acts were outside the statute of limitations in violation of due process and equal protection under the law.
Count #7 – Ruby Jefferson-Moore deliberately delayed rulings on motions of the Plaintiff, while at the same time, made timely rulings for the Board to greatly prejudice and harm Plaintiff so that he could not adequately prepare for trial in violation of due process and equal protection under the law.
Count #8 – All of the above Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in violating his due process of law and equal protection under the law both individually and in combined conspiracy among themselves. The Defendants had an improper ulterior motive for the discrimination.
Count #9 – All of the Defendants were only concerned with injustice, prejudice and unfairness to be administrated to the Plaintiff through their acts, words and deeds in violation of due process of law and equal protection under the law.
Count #10 – All of the Defendants violated and deprived the Plaintiff of liberty concerning the right to be left alone and pursue one’s chosen profession without interference and harassment under the liberty clause of due process in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deprived and are continuing to deprive Plaintiff of property under the property clause of due process in the Fifth Amendment causing the Plaintiff to experience undue difficulty and expense in protecting his interest.
Conclusion – Therefore, due to the severe harassment, intimidation and illegal overt acts against the Plaintiff, he has endured and suffered great harm in less income, loss of business opportunity, loss of reputation, loss of liberty and property, loss of due process of law and equal protection of the law outside of a legitimate government interest and which was totally unwarranted.
Damages – The Plaintiff asks this Court for a judgment in his favor and actual damages of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) from each defendant. The Plaintiff also asks for Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) in punitive damages from each defendant.
Due to the fact that the defendants may be unable or unwilling to pay for said damages in cash, Plaintiff demands that any and all personal and real assets be the subject matter for damages which would include but is not limited to any and all real property, stocks, bonds, vehicles, certificates of deposits, money market accounts, equipment, furniture, jewelry, boats, sporting equipment, etc. Therefore, the defendants’ real and person property will be subject to a Notice of Lis Pendens prohibiting the sale or disposition of said property until a final disposition of this cause of action.
Request for Temporary and Permanent Injunction – The Plaintiff is entitled to an immediate temporary injunction due to the continuing abuse, actions and violations of substantial rights caused by the defendants. It is certain that irreparable and irreversible harm will result if this Court does not issue a temporary injunction and finally, a permanent injunction. The Plaintiff will prevail on these claims and the defendants cannot prevail due to the overwhelming legal grounds and evidence against them in this case.
Due to a billing dispute with a health insurance provider?
Question #1 – What the hell is a prosecutor for the Wisconsin DRL doing litigating a billing dispute, using taxpayer money, on behalf of health insurance providers?
Question #2 – Arty Thexton, as a prosecutor for DRL, makes $19.04 per hour. This is the third case I’ve seen, involving Thexton, where DRL is providing legal work on behalf, or regarding, health insurance companies. Medical Board funds, in Wisconsin, come out of licensing fees for MDs and DOs. Insurance companies contribute NOTHING to this fund. Billing disputes between doctors and insurance companies have no place in DRL licensing hearings. What is Thexton’s personal motivation for using taxpayer money to act in the interests of health insurance companies?
Question #3 – New DRL boss Donsia Strong Hill was quoted by NBC’s News 3 as saying of DRL prosecutors “What I inherited were a group of prosecutors who basically had functioned in the past with very little supervision over them or direction or even the establishment of priorities,”Strong Hill said. “We certainly have changed that.” When News 3 asked Strong Hill, “You’re supervising them more closely?” She responded,“They are definitely being supervised more closely.” So, just so we know how to proceed with our health freedom concerns in Wisconsin, is this Suster case an example of Arthur Thexton being “supervised more closely?” Sarcasm intended.
Question #4 – I’ve had the opportunity to talk over this federal case, and the assault on Doctor Suster by Arthur Thexton, with Dr. Suster’s legal advisors, and I’m abhorred by Thexton’s conduct in this case, and other cases I’ve seen him involved in. The term “Prosecutorial Misconduct” comes to my mind in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. What is Wisconsin DRL’s, and the Wisconsin State Bar Association’s, procedure to deal with “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” and when can we expect to see those procedures activated?
Question #5 – I’ve had the opportunity to talk over this federal case, and the behavior of ALJ Ruby Jefferson Moore, with Dr. Suster’s legal advisors, and I’m abhorred by Moore’s conduct in this case. What is Wisconsin DRL’s, and the Wisconsin State Bar Association’s, procedure to deal with “ALJ Misconduct,” and when can we expect to see those procedures activated?
Much more on this case to come…
For now, read (1) The Federal Court Case, (2) the Opening Statements in the ongoing Admin law hearing, (3) the Motion to force Arthur Thexton to be examined, and the Emergency Motion to Quash Complaint.
Stay tuned…
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate