The allegation that past FSPHP President Luis Sanchez committed multiple felonies is a very specific claim. If the claims are wrong then disproving them should be a quick and simple task.
These allegations rest on the premise that direct evidence of crimes consistent with felonies exists that is not open to interpretation. No alternative explanations exist. Documentary evidence provides direct evidence sufficient to support the assertion that serious crimes were committed. No additional evidence or inference is needed to support this assertion as the misconduct is black letter law. A record of the actions taken by individuals and a timeline is all that is needed to determine misconduct. Either the actions are consistent with standards-of-care, ethical guidelines and the law or they are not. For example the document below is a fax from the Massachusetts PHP to USDTL drug testing labs that requests a lab report be “updated” to reflect that “chain-of-custody”was maintained and the donor ID # be changed.
Are the actions here procedurally acceptable? Can you update lab reports with donor ID numbers and chain-of- custody is documentation of time and place. It records the whereabouts of something and if the chain-of-custody is “broken” then it invalidates the results. And what can we infer from the request to “Please update the lab report to reflect that chain of custody was maintained”? We can infer that the chain-of-custody was not maintained as why in the hell else would they make such a request. Updating a chain-of-custody is not possible. It is an oxymoron. What is seen here cannot be justified either ethically or legally. It is egregious. I can think of no situation in a laboratory where the request to update a lab report with a new ID number was on the up and up. This is unacceptable and when the lab report is already positive for an illicit substance it is egregious.
PHS request to USDTAL was by fax. What is seen is not justifiable and represents “dry-labbing” and this is exactly the same sort of thing Annie Dookhan was into.. What we see here is fabrication of evidence. It is forensic fraud; not only unjustifiable but egregious.
These documents show clearly that PHPs are colluding with their drug-testing labs in misconduct. This is not a rare event . Allegations of falsified labs (laboratory developed tests) such as EtG and PEth are common but there is no oversight or regulation other then the College of American Pathologists (CAP) CAP can investigate allegations of erroneous or fraudulent labs but they only have the ability to correct it. They have no authority to punish the wrongdoers. A positive test is often the stepping stone to an assessment at one of the out-of-state “PHP-approved” assessment and treatment centers. These facilities are willing to engage in “diagnosis-rigging” where a diagnosis is not made by interpreting signs and symptoms but by making the data fit the hypotheses. What we see below is the lab report after USDTL complied with the faxed requests from PHS. Note the first line has been changed to #1310. This is my unique identifier. PHS requested that the ID # on an already positive test be changed to my ID and the collection date was changed to July 1, 2011.
USDTL “revised” this report “per clients request.” Th donor ID was “corrected” from 48143to to 1310 and the collection date was “corrected” to a blank line to 7/01/2011.
Now one can “revise” a book report or an expense report which consist of a number of words and numbers that can be added or subtracted and changed. But how does one revise a laboratory report? A laboratory report consists of a single piece of data from a specific lab test along with the necessary information linking it to the individual tested and those who ordered the test. What could one conceivably”update” on an already processed lab result? Nothing plausible comes to mind and if one were to do so it would be considered a bit shady. Changing information on a “forensic” test is something that is prohibited. Strict chain-of-custody needs to be maintained at all times for a lab test to remain valid.
On July 19, 2011 a fax from PHS to USDTL asked the drug-testing lab to update an ID # and update the report to reflect that chain-of-custody was maintained. A verbal report of a positive alcohol biomarker was also reported to the medical board on July 19, 2011. What can we conclude from this? We can conclude that PHS requested USDTL to change unique identifiers and dates on an already positive test . We can also conclude that PHS conspired with USDTL in order to fabricate a positive test and link it to me. Reporting falsehood and forensic fraud are crimes.
A complaint was filed with the College of American Pathologists and on October 4, 2012 USDTL reported to Luis Sanchez that the alcohol biomarker was positive. USDTL VP of lab operations Joseph Jones and Dr. Luis Sanchez kept this revision to themselves and two weeks later took action against my medical license and I was suspended. I did not find out about the revision until 67-days lated. I confronted Sanchez December 10, 2012. He said he had just found out about the revision in a letter to the medical board on December 11, 2012.
The two documents above represent misrepresentation and perjury. On August 6, 2014 I was able to obtain the complete records from USDTL. Included was the report from USDTL to Sanchez reporting the revised test.
I am making a claim that past FSPHP President Luis Sanchez committed multiple serious crimes consistent with felonies and that this can be determined by the documents alone.
The two documents above represent perjury and the documents concerning the alcohol biomarker represent a collusion between PHS and the lab to fabricate a positive test and it was then reported as a valid positive test.
If you can show that Sanchez did not commit multiple felonies then by all means prove me wrong. If you can the the more than $25,000 worth of cool prizes are yours.
Documents provide direct evidence of collusion between the PHP and some other agency. The documents provide direct evidence of collusion to fabricate evidence, concealment, perjury and other crimes. The documents provide direct evidence of fraud an abuse. If I am wrong, then disproving my claims should be simple. Claiming that Sanchez was involved in at least three serious crimes consistent with felony crimes is a specific and narrowly defined challenge. Simply show that the the documentary evidence does not support a s multitude of felonies. Just show fewer than three felonies and you can claim the $25,000 in cool prizes. If I am wrong then disproving me should be a quick and simple task. Do the records show that Sanchez committed multiple felonies? If he did not commit multiple felonies did not. If he did not commit multiple felonies then why is no one knocking at my door to claim their prizes?
Forensic drug testing for alcohol and drugs is not only subject to error but also open for manipulation, fraud and abuse. Both “tailoring” a diagnosis and “updating” a chain-of-custody are not possible. They should be never events. . What is seen here needs to be addressed directly and completely. These documents are not going away and neither am I.
Either disprove my assertion that no fewer than three felonies are evident in the papers and come get your prizes or face the inconvenient facts. If multiple felonies were not committed then you would think at this very moment there should be people knocking on the door trying to get my attention so they can collect these prizes. I don’t hear anybody knocking, do you? And if multiple felonies cannot be dis[proved then the multiple felonies must be true. If that is the case then how is it possible for someone to commit multiple felonies with no apparent consequences. Selective application of the law is unacceptable. Sanchez is a licensed medical professional in Massachusetts and must abide by the same rules, regulations and laws as anyone else. He does not “get a pass” to commit felonies. The medial board claims to take disciplinary action with just one felony. Sanchez had committed multiple crimes and multiple felonies.
I have been providing Board attorney Deb Stoller with evidence of forensic fraud since December 2011 and we now know that she hid or suppressed all of it. How many doctors and others have died by suicide in this very same scenario. This puts the entirety of the public in immediate or eventual grave danger. These individuals are contracted by the state. Deb Stoller is employed by the state. These people have specific responsibilities.
The inability or unwillingness to meaningfully investigate and punish offenders needs to be acknowledged. Selective application of the law is the root of government corruption. It destroys the moral authority of the government and leads, inevitably to collapse and chaos.
Source: I am Offering Over $25,000 in cool prizes to anyone who can disprove that no less than 3 felonies were committed by past FSPHP President Sanchez as shown by documentary evidence alone! I claim I can detect multiple very serious crimes in these documents–prove me wrong and the whole lot is yours!