DEFENSE
EXHIBITS
Blake Moore MD, et al
vs.
Semmelweis Society Internal, Inc. et al
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... ii
DEFENSE “A” .......................................................................................... iv
DEFENSE “B” ........................................................................................... v
DEFENSE “C” ......................................................................................... viii
DEFENSE “D” .......................................................................................... ix
DEFENSE “E” ..........................................................................................xii
DEFENSE “F”...........................................................................................xv
DEFENSE “G” ......................................................................................... xvi
DEFENSE “H” ....................................................................................... xviii
DEFENSE “I” .......................................................................................... xix
DEFENSE “J” ...........................................................................................xx
DEFENSE “K” ......................................................................................... xxi
DEFENSE “L”......................................................................................... xxii
DEFENSE “M” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “N” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “O” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “P”......................................................................................... xxv
DEFENSE “Q” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “R” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “S” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “T” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “U” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “V” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “W” ....................................................................................... xxv
DEFENSE “X” ........................................................................................ xxv
DEFENSE “Y” ....................................................................................... xxvi
DEFENSE “Z” ....................................................................................... xxvi
ii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “AA” ..................................................................................... xxvi
DEFENSE “AB” ..................................................................................... xxvi
DEFENSE “AC” ..................................................................................... xxvi
DEFENSE “AD” ..................................................................................... xxvi
iii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “A”
iv
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “B”
(SSI Announcement Letter (PDF) dated 11 Aug 2008)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Greetings to our FULL Membership:
A Semmelweis Society International (SSI) Board meeting was held on August 10, 2008.
When President Roland Chalifoux called the meeting to order, Board members Saundra
Counce and Clark Baker were present. George Holmes was unavailable.
We discussed various issues and made the following decisions:
1. The Directors have replaced Bill Hinnant, MD/JD, as an ex-officio member of the
Board. The Board thanks Dr. Hinnant for his many years of dedicated service to SSI
and our efforts to end sham peer review. Unfortunately, his current duties present
various conflicts of interest that make it difficult for him to continue as Director. We
expect that he will continue to provide outstanding service to his clients.
2. The Directors are happy to announce the appointment of SSI member Terry
Bennett, MD, MPH. Terry is a practicing physician in New Hampshire and has
successfully fought against sham peer review and has won. His story deserves much
more attention, but the hour is late. If you don.t know him, you.ll find a short
interview on this website. We welcome him aboard.
3. During the past few months, the SSI Board has been deluged with hostile,
belligerent, and uncontrolled invective, generated by a small group of SSI members.
As many of you know, their dissatisfaction began after ex-members James Murtagh
and Kevin Kuritzky alleged that two Clean Hands Awards were undeserved. The
Directors appointed me to investigate last June and I submitted my report to the
Board last July. Despite the Board’s determination that Murtagh and Kuritzky’s
allegations were false and the affirmation of the awards, that same small group of
members continued to behave inappropriately. Despite repeated requests by our
members and directors, many within that group did not abide by our repeated
requests. What complicated the issue was that the Board was receiving ongoing
advice by Doctors Hinnant and Bard, despite serious conflicts of interest that were
both known and unknown until recently. As a result of these revelations, the SSI
Board secured unbiased and unassailable counsel from outside sources that assisted
the Board in clarifying our duties and responsibilities as Directors.
Based upon the opinions of counsel, the Board has the authority to suspend,
revoke, or terminate any member, for conduct that is inconsistent with the
purpose, mission and objectives of Semmelweis. This is the obverse of the
power expressly vested in the Board (Art. III, Sec. III, Sub. I) that “Any Member
can be accepted to the society, subject to final approval of the Board”
[subject to appeal rights that also are spelled out in the present bylaws]: e.g.,
Art. II, para. 17, states that the “Society will support fair peer review that
follows due process guidelines and proper procedure,” implying that fair and
properly motivated peer review is not disrupting the very fabric of Medicine in the
United States. (see Declaration of Patients’ and Doctors’ Rights, para. 3). Just as bad
faith peer review disrupts Medicine, the Society's officers cannot stand silent
v
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
and allow members to engage in behavior that disrupts the Society. Hence
the Board’s implied power to take action against any member engaging in conduct
disruptive of the Society.
The present bylaws are sufficient to empower the Board to take necessary
actions against members whose conduct is either disruptive of the
organization, or is unprofessional in ways that bring discredit on the good
name and reputation of the Society.
Another important power of the Board, which is the entity that “manages the
business of the Society” under every State’s law that governs nonprofit corporations,
is to police and censure any members who act or attempt to take action, or
send communications, in the name of or under the authority or apparent
authority of Semmelweis Society International. Like every individual, every
corporate person has the power to protect their name, identity and reputation. No
member can be allowed to act in its name, unless expressly authorized by the Board
or the Officer with the mandate to control the relevant areas of the activities and
work of the Society. Obviously the President has more plenary authority, and of
wider scope than the Secretary or the Treasurer, however both of the latter-named
officers have limited plenary powers to act within their respective spheres of
authority. Correspondingly, the Vice President has plenary authority to act with full
powers of the President, in situations where the President is unavailable or disabled
and prompt action is required. It is highly desirable, whenever the Vice President
and/or other Officers are forced to take action by the exigencies of the
circumstances, for the President, the Officer for whom the other Officer took the
action, and/or the full Board, depending on the overall situation, to ratify, affirm, or
modify the emergency action taken as soon as is reasonably possible.
4. As a result, the SSI Directors regret to announce the revocation of the following
memberships:
Ralph Bard Lokesh Vuyyuru
Henry Butler Blake Moore
Under ordinary circumstances, membership revocation would be made privately between
the Directors and the member. In this case, the Directors felt that a more public statement
was appropriate, especially in light of these members’ open hostility that was witnessed by
so many members and non-members. Their disgraceful, sustained, outrageous,
unapologetic, and unprecedented exhibition so offended the Semmelweis organization that
it deserves special recognition. Our hope as Directors is that we will never witness or endure
another similar episode.
These revocations were not made without careful consideration. All of these former
members brought with them special talents and energies. Unfortunately, those energies
were more recently focused in a direction that conflicted with SSI’s commitment to end
Sham Peer Review.
Special notices will be sent to Doctors Bard and Hinnant which will better clarify the related
issues. If either individual wishes to share the information contained with you they may do
so. (Dr. Hinnant remains as a member in good standing.)
vi
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
If former members Bard, Vuyyuru, Butler, and Moore wish to appeal our decisions they may
do so by private email (no flaming) to Board Secretary, Clark Baker. Any interference or
appeals by other members is not approved.
The Directors advise all members that ANY unsolicited email or telephone calls regarding
the aforementioned awards, the investigation, or any hostile spamming and “flaming” will
not be tolerated by your directors.
The mission of the Semmelweis Society is to improve the quality of medical care in the
United States through assisting physicians who have been subjected to malicious and
improper (sham) peer review. Members who believe that other objectives subordinate our
mission are encouraged to seek membership elsewhere.
Please contact Secretary Clark Baker if you have further questions.
Respectfully,
Clark Baker
Secretary (for)
Roland Chalifoux, DO
President
Saundra Counce, RN
Vice President
vii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “C”
SSI Board Composition
May 20 2008
Roland Chalifoux (President) ELECTED
Saundra Counce (Vice President) ELECTED
Patrick Campbell (Secretary) ELECTED
George Holmes (Treasurer-Webmaster) ELECTED
Bill Hinnant (ex-officio) APPOINTED
July 30 2008
Roland Chalifoux (President)
Saundra Counce (Vice President)
Patrick Campbell (Secretary) (RESIGNED JUN 2008)
Clark Baker (Secretary) (APPOINTED BY BOARD JUL 2008)
George Holmes (Treasurer-Webmaster)
Bill Hinnant (ex-officio)
August 26 2008
Roland Chalifoux (President)
Saundra Counce (Vice President)
Clark Baker (Secretary)
George Holmes (Treasurer-Webmaster)
William Hinnant (ex-officio) (REMOVED BY BOARD AUG 10 2008)
Terry Bennett (Board Member) (APPOINTED BY BOARD AUG 10 2008)
October 2 2008
Roland Chalifoux (President)
Saundra Counce (Vice President)
Clark Baker (Secretary-Treasurer-Webmaster)
Terry Bennett (Board Member)
George Holmes (REMOVED BY BOARD OCT 2, 2008)
viii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “D”
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph Bard
To: 'Roland Chalifoux' ; 'Saundra counce' ; 'george.holmes.phd Holmes' ;
'William Hinnant' ; 'Clark Baker'
Cc: 'Ralph Bard'
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:04 PM
Subject: Membership in Semmelweis
Dear Board Members:
Clark Baker just called me on my cell. Of course, it was the weekend and I
was with my family, but Mr. Baker apparently decided that he needed to talk
to me now. Essentially, I was told the following:
1. Clark Baker said: You have a conflict of interest and I am going
to report you to your bar association and to your Board of professional
responsibility if you do not immediately send all corporate documents to
Roland and turn over your duties as agent for service of process to another
lawyer in the state of Tennessee.
My response: If Roland personally asks me to send him all
Semmelweis documents that I have (he has copies of all of the documents
already that I sent him at my expense) I will be happy to do so as soon as he
sends me adequate funds to copy all documents and postage to send them to
him. Further, as of this date, I will no longer pay Semmelweis fees or fill
out papers for Semmelweis required by the State of TN, but will send them to
Roland. I will inform Roland by email when fees need to be paid or some other
action such as those with the IRS need to be handled. It is not necessary to
be an attorney to be agent for service of process. I would suggest that
Saundra take over this position as she is located in TN. She will have to
make the necessary changes and pay the additional fees. If she wishes to have
my assistance, I will offer them as an attorney. I will give the SSI a
discounted rate of $175 per hour. As long as Clark Baker is on the board I
will no longer serve as agent for service of process and will not respond to
any IRS, state or other requests, but will forward them with my bill for the
time that this takes. All responses are now the responsibility of the Board.
I might suggest that you give this job to Clark. He seems to think that he is
in total charge. Please feel free to contact the Tennessee Board of
Professional Responsibility with your complaint.
2. Clark Baker said: There is no place in the bylaws for recall of a
director.
My response: Please see Article III, Section 2 para H. This
specifically allows recall of a Board member.
3. Clark Baker said: You can’t recall an officer.
My response: All officers are Board members. Based on the way our
bylaws are written, you cannot be an officer if you are not a Board member.
Thus, if you are recalled as a Board member, you cannot be an officer. Though
there is no specific recall of an officer, the bylaws cannot be interpreted
any other way that to make the conclusion that recalling a member who is a
ix
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
Board member cases that person to loose his position as officer if he/she is
also an officer.
4. Clark Baker said: You are no longer a member. I can do this by
myself because I am the secretary and a Board member.
My response: This is specifically prohibited by the bylaws.
The bylaws state that if membership is denied, which based on what is there,
means either getting rid of a member or refusing admission to a member
requires a hearing if requested by the member. I am therefore in accordance
with Article III, Section 3 para I requesting a hearing with due process
rights as guaranteed by our bylaws. If I? do not hear from the SSI Board
within 5 days, I will assume that I have exhausted all of my administrative
remedies within the SSI and may proceed with court action as I see fit. Clark
has overstepped his authority and has taken action which is specifically
prohibited and thus, as he has attempted to eliminate the appropriate due
process requirements that SSI stands for and is based on, I call for his
expulsion as a member of SSI.
5. Clark Baker said: The membership of SSI is over 134 members, thus
to recall, you must have votes from all of these members.
My response: The Board and officers have established a dues
structure. Thus, only dues paying members are full fledged members of the
SSI. They are the ones who have to vote. I know that there are members who
cannot pay dues to the same bad faith lack of due process that Clark is
trying to usurp at the present time in the actions taken against me and
others in SSI. I do not agree with everything that has been said or even most
of it. One of our problems is that matters that should exist between two
people have been published to the world. Despite this and the comments made,
if SSI is to take the position that in matters as basic as membership, there
is no due process, then let me know. I will withdraw my request for a
hearing, because I do not want to be part of SSI if it on one hand wants due
process in peer review, but denies the same to its own members. Just to be
clear for Clark’s benefit, this is not a resignation, but a statement of what
I believe is the right thing to do. Since dues are established, the dues-
paying members are the ones who are permitted to vote on this matter. I have
asked the Board for a list of the dues-paying members as these are the
persons who vote. Since the recall of a Board member is an affirmative
action, all dues paying members are counted if they vote or not. If a dues-
paying member fails to vote, abstains or votes to retain these all count the
same. Thus a non-vote is under our rules a vote to retain. Of course, if a
majority of dues-paying members vote to recall a board member, then the board
member is recalled (looses his/her position as a board member). If that board
member is also an officer (and currently all of the board members are
officers), then he/she under the current bylaws would also loose their
officer position, but not their membership.
I am now asking that the Board discharge Clark as a member as he is
disruptive, does not understand our position on due process and does not
support the goals and mission of the SSI. Of course, this is a Board
decision, but if the Board as a whole condones the latest actions by Clark,
then I cannot in good conscience be a member. So far I have heard from at
least 10 dues paying members. There are still some outstanding. I would
request that the Board provide me with a list of dues-paying members
immediately so that the vote can continue. If the Board refuses, I will file
a mandamus action in the Circuit Court of Coffee Country to force production
x
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
of the list and in addition will file suit for damages on behalf of myself
and other members who have been threatened by Clark or against whom Clark has
committed improper actions. If the Board disavows the actions of Clark Baker,
and takes action to deny membership to Clark, then only Clark will be liable.
On the other hand, of the Board supports the actions of Clark, then I have
been severely mistaken about the mission, goals and integrity of Semmelweis.
I will make is also clear that I paid a substantial sum to be listed on the
SSI website as an attorney who will assist victims of bad faith peer review.
This listing is available to any attorney who wishes to make the financial
commitment to have this information on the website. He/she does not need to
be a member. Thus, my name on the website is s separate issue from my
membership. As I would submit that the actions taken against me are far
beyond the scope of any duties in SSI or permitted by the bylaws, and are
malicious, intentional, reckless and further are a misrepresentation. These
are the 4 basis on which punitive damages are available in the state of TN.
If my name is removed from the website without my express permission, this
will be yet another act resulting in liability for the Board and particularly
Clark. I think that Clark has taken all of these actions unilaterally. Here
is the chance for the Board to say so. Thus, I would request a response from
the Board members. Please email me and me alone with any comments or
responses. I will not respond to any emails or further calls from Clark. I
will answer or respond to emails from the rest of the Board. If I do not hear
from the Board members by Tuesday night, August 12, 2008, I will assume that
the Board supports Clark in his actions and supports him without reservation.
On Wednesday, I will provide the names and phone numbers for lodging in
Coffee County so that you will know who to call when you are subpoenaed to
the Circuit Court of Coffee County. I also need current addresses so that I
may mail the complaint to each of you. If you do not send them, I will send
all of the complaints to Roland as the president, at which time you will be
considered served whether you are aware of the complaint or not. Of course,
at that time, I will be in an adversary position and thus will not be able to
accept service of process, therefore, I will also put down Saundra Counce as
the TN agent of SSI and serve her along with Roland.
In summary, if SSI acts in this way, I have no compunction against the ending
of the organization as it is standing for the exact opposite of the reason
that it was founded. There is potential individual liability for the actions
of the officers if they act in a way completely contrary to the bylaws, which
Clark has already done by alleging that I am out of SSI. There will be
further liability if my name as an attorney is taken off of the website as
assisting BFPR victims as this is an issue separate from membership. Quite
frankly what Clark has done has besmirched SSI and this has probably had a
negative effect on my association with SSI as an attorney with goals the same
as SSI in opposing BFPR. If my name is damaged by association due to the
actions of Board and/or officers, there may be additional damages.
Please feel free to consult with Bill Hinnant if you believe that these
theories of liability are not backed by law.
Thank you for your attention, I will be waiting for your response.
Ralph M. Bard, MD, JD
xi
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “E”
From: Ralph Bard [mailto:rmbard@charter.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:54 PM
To: SSI Members
Cc: 'Ralph Bard'
Subject: Recall vote
A motion has been made to recall Board members Roland Chalifaux. The bylaws
permit a Board member to be recalled by a majority of members. Article III
Section 2 para H states in part:
“A Board Member may be recalled by a majority vote of the Society
membership.”
A recall vote has been requested due to the recent problems in SSI related to
matters surrounding and following the recent meeting. The allegations are
essentially that the president and the secretary have acted improperly and
failed to follow the bylaws. The recall is not proof that the allegations are
true. There is no mechanism other than a majority vote of the members to
recall a Director of the Board. I cannot advise anyone how to vote, but will
follow with some observations regarding the bylaws. If you believe this
interpretation to be incorrect, then vote to retain Roland and Clark.
Effect of a recall:
The bylaws Article III, Section 2 para D state that the Board of Directors
will consist of the elected officers plus other members elected by the
membership up to a maximum of 7 members. The Board can decide how many Board
members there will be. Thus the Board will always consist of elected officers
and a number decided by the board to a maximum of 7. The board must always be
an odd number. The way that the bylaws are written state that all elected
officers must be board members. Though there is no specific section that
addresses recall of an officer, the clear reading of the bylaws requires that
all officers are Board members. Therefore, is a Board member is recalled who
is in that position because he/she is an officer, the officer/Board member
not only is recalled as a Board member, but as an officer as well. Thus, if
an Board member who is an officer is recalled, the effect is that the officer
is recalled from that position as well. If Roland is recalled, Saundra
Counce, who is the vice president, will become president until new officers
are elected. The president may appoint a new secretary if the secretary,
Clark Baker is recalled.
Votes to recall:
When we started Semmelweis, we let anyone in who wished. We talked about dues
for some time. Membership dues now exist. Article III, section 3 para B
states “Dues for membership are to be established by the officers and then by
the Board when it is established.” Dues have been established. Therefore, it
stands to reason that to be a full member of SSI you must pay dues. Thus it
is also reasonable that the vote to recall must be limited to dues-paying
members. Consequently, dues paying members are asked to vote on this matter.
There is no question that recall of a Board member is an affirmative action.
I my opinion there has been misinformation promulgated related to a quorum
needed to complete a recall. Quorums only apply to meetings. Please see
xii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
Article IV Section F. Thus to recall a Board member is will take 51% of the
dues-paying members of SSI. I have asked Mr. Baker for a current list of all
dues-paying members. He has refused claiming that since he discharged me as a
member, I have no right to this list. I would submit that summarily expel a
member without due process is the antipathy of the goals and mission of the
SSI, therefore, this unilateral action is illegal and improper. In any case,
my information is that there are 34 dues-paying members. Unless the Board
provides me with other information, I will use 34 members as the correct
count. As stated above since removing a Board member is an affirmative
action, there must be a positive vote to recall for the vote to be counted.
If a member decides not to vote, this is essentially a vote to retain the
board members. It is equal in effect to a vote to retain or an abstention. As
far as how long the vote remains open, based on all applicable law, the
determination is a reasonable time, frequently described by the courts as 30
days. Therefore, the recall will end on 30 August 2008. If there are 18 votes
to recall either Roland or Clark or both before 30 August 2008, they are
recalled and no longer hold the office they currently hold. If there are not
this many votes by 30 August 2008, the Board members remain and the officers
are likewise retained. In order to insure fairness and verify the votes,
please send me the votes directly by email or mail. I must be able to verify
votes to stand up to any later legal challenge if such occurs.
Please note that Clark Baker has been putting out a great deal of
misinformation. He has stated that the membership consists of 134 members,
but if we all agree that non dues-paying members are full voting members,
this would have required 67 members present at the last meeting to have a
quorum. If theses members were not there, the elections are not valid,
because there would not have been a quorum. I find this argument to be
unreasonable and contrary to the bylaws as written. Ignore comments of Clark
Baker. He is currently under a recall vote and thus has no say in this matter
and cannot contest the vote as he has tried to do. Though I consider this
behavior to be improper, he continues his attacks on this process. I have no
direct evidence of this, but it has been alleged that Clark has sent out
viruses in emails to members and other persons interested in this matter.
Please understand that I have no proof of this directly, but I would suggest
caution with these emails. Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I
must disclose that Clark Baker has on his own authority from the information
that I have, fired me as agent for service of process, threatened to report
me to my bar association and board of professional responsibility, expelled
me as a member, and otherwise attempted to intimidate me and has libeled me
as well. Needless to say, I am not a Clark Baker fan, but I am determined to
try to conduct this vote with fairness and with attention to the bylaws,
despite the action of Mr. Baker. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I
have asked that Me. Baker be expelled as a member. His inflammatory comments
and misrepresentation of facts is contrary to the goals and mission of SSI.
As a result I will be sharing the vote total with Bill Hinnant, so that he
can confirm my results while keeping all members voting confidential. Of
course, Clark has stated that both Bill and I have a conflict. Of course, the
person with a conflict is Clark Baker. Unlike Clark, Roland has not
threatened me, tried to disturb the process and has agreed with my
interpretation of the bylaws in this matter.
I have attached the bylaws for referral if needed. Please let me know you
position on this very important matter, if you have not done so already.
Please contact me, with the exception of Clark Baker, if you have any
questions of need a clarification. Please remember that a vote to recall
is the only action that can result in a recall. Not voting means retention
xiii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
of the affected individual. The recall vote ends 8/30/08. No votes will be
accepted after this date. I also need to remind all members that a vote
must be sent to me directly as the votes must be confirmed. Telling me
what someone else wants to do will not be accepted. Sending me an email
with a list of names, will only count as a vote for you, not for the
remaining names. Thanks
A. Dues for membership are to be established by the officers and then
by the Board when it is established.
xiv
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “F”
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:jmurtag@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 6:02 PM
To: Alan Ullberg
Cc: BLAKE MOORE; BILL HINNANT; Dr George E Holmes; george.holmes.phd Holmes;
hbutler@pol.net; Henry Butler MD; Jim Murtagh; John Raviotta; ralph bard;
Rene Umali; ROLAND CHALIFAUX; 'Saundra Counce, RN'; terry@greencafe.com; Gil
Mileikowsky ,M.D.; MedicalWhistleblower
Subject: Dr. Ullberg: have you no decency?
Importance: High
Dr. Ullberg,
I must remind you that we had two conversations, and you thanked me for
calling you. You represented that I let you know a lot that no one had told
you.
Contrary to your message below, you thought it would be good if all persons
were to talk to each other. In fact, you did most of the talking, and I did
most of the listening. I put into practice what you suggested.
Regardless, you must admit that SSI must be democratic. I don't seek to
control SSI. In fact, I did not want to rejoin. I rejoined because I was
asked, and because SSI had come to represent the opposite of what it claims
to support. You and I made common cause on a number of issues, including
Kuritzky and Poliner. You admitted that Clark had withheld a large number of
key facts.
Please come clean. Do you believe that a near unanimous vote of SSI should be
discounted? Do you agree with Clark's attack and destruction of Blake's
computer? Do you agree with Clark's mocking of Kevin's loss of leg? Do you
agree with Clark's threats against others?
Remember, I offered to debate anyone under formal rules. Clark had
plagiarized his report, and was unable to debate. Roland/Gil were unable to
defend their actions.
Clark attempted to steal the treasury, and the website.
Have you no decency sir? Do you seriously support these actions?
I had attributed decency to you sir. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
If you stand for decency, recognize that SSI has had a free and unfettered
referendum, and no one supports Clark/Gil/Roland. If you are the lawyer for
these persons, please say so openly. You have solicited and received
confidential communications that put you in a conflict of interest.
Decency demands that we move forward. Decency demands that we concentrate on
supporting Poliner and other important cases.
Please conduct yourself accordingly.
xv
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “G”
Dear Dr. Murtagh:
I am disappointed that your zeal to control the Society and antipathy
to present leadership (or, possibly, your understandable but unfortunately
acquired split or borderline personality(s)) apparently resulted in your
falsely attributing to me an invented statement you have alleged I made
during the telecon we had on October 1, 2008. Shortly after our telephone
interchange, in an e-mail you attempted to put words in my mouth as the
result of what I understood was a private exploration of common interests. I
let that false, but brief reference pass, as the work of a misguided
crusader, clueless to the basic understandings on which human dialogue takes
place. Your associate, Dr. Vuyyuru, subsequently tried to have me meet with
him so that the fact of my meeting with him "About SSI" could be twisted to
appear to be my support for your unsupported allegations against present
Society leadership and attempts to wrest control to carry out illegitimate,
private agendas.
Yesterday's misrepresentation I cannot let pass, so must take time away from
my work protecting physicians and nurses and our healthcare system, to
respond to all who may have doubts about where I stand; and whom I stand
behind.
I spoke to you when you telephoned me that day (without notice or
appointment)---the only time we have ever talked---to explore common
interests I might have with you; and it turned out I had some legal
information that could help Kevin Kuritzke. That information I immediately
passed on (see attached), but apparently Kevin was not in a position to use
it.
At no time did I do anything but LISTEN to your diatribes against present
leadership; in fact I made plain that I was supportive of Dr. Chalifaux,
Nurse Counce, Mr. Baker, and Dr. Bennett in their attempts to move
forward with the Society's crucial mission.
Your statement immediately below, "I hope Prof Ullberg will stick to his guns
and let Clark/Gil know they must step aside," is 100% your fabrication. I
teach the law of nonprofit organizations, and you know I have expressed my
professional legal opinion that Dr. Chalifaux et al.are the lawful officers
of the Society and you and your colleagues are only attempted, unlawful,
usurpers.
The broad subject I teach is TRUST, and how that essential force/feeling
among humans functions and is enforced so it can continue as the backbone of
working commercial, legal, and social relationships. But TRUST is a fragile
force/feeling, and disappears 100 to 500 or more times faster than it takes
to be rebuilt. In fact, there are no formulas to rebuild TRUST; it is
nurtured and grows in unpredictable ways. But we do know what makes it NOT
GROW, and your behavior is a prime example.
Sadly, I must tell you I can no longer have any TRUST in you or your
associates; so little, I can not risk any communication because of the
way contacts with me are twisted into appearances of support for the illegal
activities of you and your colleagues.
xvi
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
Please do not either contact, or make any references to me in any of your
communications, until such time as you decide to adhere to the commonly
understood rules for human discourse. If the (understandable) pressures on
you unfortunately have been so severe that your mental state is such that
you can no longer "cognitively decide" to return to working human
society, please get sufficient professional help so you can return to a
mental state where you can tell the difference between right and wrong. At
that point I will be delighted to work with you, synergizing with your
impressive talents and drive, toward common goals.
Dr. Murtagh, I see you as a highly intelligent and capable person, with
many talents and accomplishments; but for whatever reason your conduct I have
observed this year is immensely disappointing. PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF!
Best wishes for your good health.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Ullberg
xvii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “H”
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:jmurtag@mindspring.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 11:30 AM
To: Clark Baker
Cc: 'kathryn serkes'; 'BLAKE MOORE'; 'Gil Mileikowsky,M.D.'; 'Alan Ullberg'
Subject: Clark's LAPD complaint is falsified/Void/Nonexistent
Clark,
LAPD Report #08-0619018 does not exist.
I talked to the LAPD, and they made clear it does not exist. I also talked
to the law firm you claim represents you, and they formally state they have
no connection. I corresponded with Celia Farber's attorney, and that attorney
disavows you. The LAPD referred me to LAPD internal affairs. They maintain an
active file on you as an ex-LAPD officer. The LAPD does not hold you in high
regard.
You plagiarized Gallo's egg.
You altered emails that appear on the internet. You claim that I am a
criminal, but you refuse to tell me the crime. It is illegal to falsely call
someone a criminal.
Your threats are serious, and are being investigated
I have talked to police departments in more than one jurisdiction who are
investigating you for your threats.
Stop threatening doctors jobs
SSI exist to protect doctors jobs. You are anti-SSI. You are a brownshirt
sent to disrupt our group and take it over with lies.
Please, stop misleading SSI members.
Deal with the facts, stop doctoring evidence, stop plagiarizing,
intimidating, extorting, falsifying. You lost the vote, and you are no longer
an officer, so stop telling people what to do.
I offered to debate you, based on facts. You declined. You forfeit. Stop
bothering us.
Your game is over. Give it up.
xviii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “I”
-----Original Message-----
From: floreslawfirm.com [mailto:jaflores0756@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:23 AM
To: kathryn serkes; BLAKE MOORE; Gil Mileikowsky ,M.D.
Cc: Jim Murtagh; Ralph Bard; Safaa Hakim; Lokesh B. Vuyyuru; Larry Poliner;
arthur shorr; Bernstein PhD; Clark Baker; Saundra counce; Disamodha
Amarasinghe; Dr George E Holmes; george.holmes.phd Holmes; gil mileikowsky;
Henry Butler; joe flores; Josephine Carol Cicchini; John Raviotta; Jon
Scheinman; Roland Chalifoux; Patrick Campbell; Patrick Campbell; Saundra
Counce RN; Shirley Pigott; Janet Parker; Terry Bennett; Terry Bennett MD New
Hampshire; William Hinnant; Daniel DiBona; John Andrew Hallberg; Daniel Seth
Paley; Betty Lew Anderson; Anthony Colantonio; Wood Deming; Tom Devine;
Carmen Holmes; Madhavan Pisharodi; Bernie Robinson; Helen Salsbury; Richard
Schneider; Kathryn Serkes; Tim Goosby; Janette Parker; lyle Griffith; Karl
Stecher
Subject: Re: possible resolution?
Yes. I have a great deal of respect for the members of SSI but I do not wish
to receive these types of e-mails.
Respectfully,
Joe Flores
xix
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “J”
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph Bard
To: Roland Chalifoux
Cc: 'Ralph Bard' ; 'george.holmes.phd Holmes' ; NETDOC37@aol.com ; 'Saundra
Counce RN'
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: Jim Murtagh membership
I know that there are currently some issues between you and Jim, I have
advised him that I believe the emails he is sending to you to be incorrect on
some matters especially the vote, which is not yet completed. I have told Jim
that we must conduct the vote in a proper manner regardless of the
malfeasance and improper acts of Clark. Of course, as of this time, you have
not told me that Clark is lying when he told me that the bard voted 3-1 to
exclude me from SSI. He has made other malicious and untrue comments, and
thus I asked that he be expelled from the membership. I am writing to discuss
the membership status of Jim Murtagh. I am aware that he resigned. He also
paid dues and states that he rejoined. Quite simply the situation in my view
is this. If he resigned, then asked to rejoin and paid his dues after the
resignation, and these dues were accepted by George then he is a member. The
previous resignation is rescinded. I am not sure of the time line. If Jim
resigned and then rejoined, submitted his dues payment and this payment was
accepted, he is a member. On the other hand if he paid his dues and then
later resigned, he is a prospective member. In that case he must be refused
membership by a vote of the Board. Due to a conflict of interest I would
suggest that Clark and you must recuse yourselves. This would leave the vote
to Saundra, George and Bill. If the Board by a majority decides to accept Jim
back, the screening process is complete and Jim is again a member. If the
Board votes to exclude Jim, then he has the right to a hearing. The bylaws
spell out again how this will be conducted and how a hearing panel is formed.
Due process must apply throughout. The second situation only applies if his
dues were accepted before he resigned. Based on the information that Jim gave
me, the first situation applies. In other words I would respectfully submit
that Jim is a member of SSI if I understand the timeline properly. Of course,
even if he is a member, he can still be denied membership, but he must be
given his due process protections. Quite frankly after the actions of Clark
the entire SSI has minimal credibility. As of this date, the Board with the
exception of one member is still ratifying the outrageous statements of Clark
Baker. Of course you have to Tuesday to disavow Clark, at which time
additional action will be taken. Even if Jim is a member, you are under no
requirement to talk to him. Please let me know your feelings on this matter.
I have excluded Clark from this email as he misrepresents facts and takes
unilateral action that is unprofessional and a violation of the bylaws as
well as fermenting dissention. Thanks
Ralph M. Bard, MD, JD
Attorney at Law
General Surgeon (ret)
307 Kingsridge Blvd.
Tullahoma, TN 37388
xx
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “K”
From: Ralph Bard [mailto:rmbard@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:07 PM
To: (SSI Membership)
Subject: RE: Semmelweis Society International New Active Member login
www.semmelweis.org 8-13-08
Please find attached my request for a hearing in accordance with the bylaws.
I am sending this to all members so that there is no question that I am
challenging the illegal and improper actions of the Board members by
conducting secret meetings and discharging members without due process. I
want to insure that should the question later come up, there is no doubt that
I timely asked for a hearing. This does no mean that I concur that that the
actions taken against me are proper. In fact, I would suggest that the
actions of the Board are reprehensible. I am asking for a hearing in
accordance with the bylaws. Please see the attached letter. Thank you for
your attention. I am certain that Clark Baker will send me another email
meant to harass, intimidate and threaten me. He has already threatened me
with a complaint to the Tennessee Bar Association. I expect one again, even
though this email and attached letter only asks for my due process rights. In
the interests of disclosure, if I do receive a letter from Clark or any Board
members that says anything other than to respond to my requests to prepare
for the hearing, I will publish this letter to the membership as well so that
each of you may make your own evaluation as to whether his actions or mine
are contrary to the principles of SSI.
Ralph M. Bard, MD, JD
Attorney at Law
General Surgeon (ret)
307 Kingsridge Blvd.
Tullahoma, TN 37388
xxi
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “L”
August 14, 2008
Roland Chalifaux, DO
President - Semmelweis Society International
105 Green Valley Lane
McMurray, PA 15317
BY email and Certified Mail
Dear Dr. Chalifaux: (SIC)
Having considered my options, I cannot allow the Semmelweis Society International, Inc. (SSI) to be
destroyed. I see no option but to request a hearing in accordance with the bylaws of SSI. I thus withdraw
any suggestion of resignation or leaving the society. I admit that the actions of Clark Baker made me
angry because I have little tolerance for bullying, intimidation or threats. Thus, as a former member who
has been denied membership, I am asserting my right of hearing in accordance with the SSI bylaws
Article III, section 3 i, which states in part “Any Member refused membership has the right to an appeal
of three Members of the Semmelweis society selected one by the Board, one by the potentially excluded
Member and one Member agreed to by both, with due process protections. These are to be established by
the Board and are to be consistent with the due process requirements supported in general by the
Semmelweis Society.”
We will have a dilemma, however; because I would submit that the actions of the Board having a closed
meeting and conducting the actions that they did in secret is contrary to the very essence of the intention
of SSI and its principles. Thus, in accordance with the due process requirements I am putting the Board
on notice that I intend to call the entire Board as witnesses. In addition because of the actions of the
Board, they will be designated as hostile witnesses. Thus, to further make myself clear, I will be calling
Roland Chalifaux, Saundra Counce, Clark Baker, George Holmes, and Terry Bennett as hostile witnesses.
I will also be calling other witnesses as experts in due process and proper procedures, as well as fact
witnesses but will wait to name these witnesses until after I know who will testify on the Board’s behalf
to defend the actions against me, as is permitted in standard due process. Other witnesses are yet to be
named, but I will provide their names in time for the hearing.
Of course, since I would submit that under the circumstances, the Board is clearly adverse as they took
the action, which I am alleging was improper, they cannot sit as members of the hearing panel. In
addition, witnesses cannot also be judges in this matter. Other SSI members will have to be selected as
hearing panel members. I would request that the selections of the Board be disclosed to me as quickly as
possible, so that I may likewise submit my names to the Board. As stated in the bylaws, I will select a
member for the hearing panel; the Board will select one and one we have to agree on one. If you would
submit the names of various members for my review I will try to agree on one. I might suggest that
Professor Ullberg be the panel member that we both agree on. Since you state that he advised you to
terminate my membership, I don’t see how you could object to his position on the panel as both the
chairperson and the member on which we both agree. Nevertheless, I will await your response on this
matter.
xxii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
I would like a specific and detailed written presentation of all allegations on which the Board based its
termination of my membership in the SSI. Please tell me what the Board alleges that I did, when I did it
and the reason that the Board felt that the only solution was to terminate my membership. I would
request that there be no vague allegations that I did something wrong over several weeks. As required in
most due process procedures, I would submit that I have the absolute right to know exactly what
allegations I will have to defend. Clark Baker said that I was incompetent. This was ratified by the Board
as they have not objected to this comment in any way. Please tell me exactly how I was incompetent,
including the specific details, the day or days that this occurred and the expert witness in law who
supports this statement made several times. Also tell me who I gave incompetent advice to. Please also
tell me the basis that Clark Baker threatened to tell my previous clients that I am incompetent. Clark
Baker said that I have a conflict of interest. This was ratified by the Board as they have not objected to this
comment in any way. Please tell me exactly how I have a conflict of interest, including the specific details,
the day or days that this occurred and the expert witness in law who supports this statement made
several times. Clark Baker said that I have caused severe damage to SSI. This was ratified by the Board as
they have not objected to this comment in any way. Please tell me exactly how I have caused severe
damage to SSI, including the specific details, the day or days that this occurred and the witnesses ether
fact or experts in law who support this statement made several times. We all agree that summary
suspension, which this was, requires that imminent danger be caused to SSI by my actions. This was
ratified by the Board as they have not objected to this comment in any way. Please tell me exactly how I
have caused imminent danger to SSI and why expulsion by secret meeting of 3 of 5 Board Members was
the only course that could be taken as opposed to some other less drastic action. Clark Baker has said that
the damage I did to SSI would take several months to repair. This was ratified by the Board as they have
not objected to this comment in any way. Please tell me exactly how I have caused damage that would
take several months to repair to SSI, including the specific details, the day or days that this occurred and
the witnesses ether fact or experts in law who support this statement made several times. Clark Baker has
said that I would not be allowed to have a hearing, but only after several months, though one was
requested almost immediately. This was ratified by the Board as they have not objected to this comment
in any way. Please tell me exactly why I am not entitled to a hearing for several months, including the
basis for this statement and the witnesses, ether fact or experts in law who support this statement. Please
provide the specific Tennessee laws that permit the actions that the Board took. Learned treatises are not
permitted in TN as evidence except to impeach an expert witness, therefore presenting the book that
Clark Baker has repeatedly referred to as evidence is actually incompetent in the State of Tennessee.
Please provide a copy of all pages of this book that that may be used for possible impeachment. Please
provide all exhibits to my office at the address below.
As discovery I will request that all emails that were sent by the Board and Clark Baker in particular be
produced at the hearing as exhibits. I will also request from the hearing panel the normal negative
inference should these exhibits be withheld. I would also like as exhibits the complaints that Clark Baker
has prepared against me for presentation to the Tennessee Bar and/or Board of Professional
Responsibility. I would also ask the he produce the alleged criminal complaints that he has prepared
and/or submitted regarding any member of SSI. I need these for the purposes of credibility regarding
Clark Baker. I am sure that everyone realizes that credibility is always material in any hearing. Likewise, I
would request the emails of all Board members related to this matter including emails to me, or any other
member of SSI whether directly or peripherally addressing my termination from the society. I would
appreciate these at least 2 weeks before my hearing to allow me to prepare. Please include all emails
between the Board members. Please send copies of these to my office as well.
xxiii
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
As notice, I will ask for the Rule especially regarding all Board members and any witnesses they may
present.
I obviously need to know when and where the hearing will be conducted. I would expect this to be done
in a reasonable time. I will pay the costs for my witnesses to appear. I will expect the SSI to absorb all of
the costs of the hearing location, and the transportation of all of their witnesses including all the Board
members to the hearing location.
If there are any questions, or you have any response other than to ask who my hearing panel member
will be, please let me know. I will be awaiting your response to my letter. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely:
Ralph M. Bard, MD, JD
Attorney at Law
General Surgeon
307 Kingsridge Blvd.
Tullahoma, TN 37388
xxiv
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “M”
Bank of America Resolution
DEFENSE “N”
Apollo Hosting Resolution
DEFENSE “O”
ItsYourDomain (IYD) Resolution
DEFENSE “P”
SSI Corporate documents (PDF)
DEFENSE “Q”
Domain Change Request – letter (PDF)
DEFENSE “R”
ISP Transfer Request letter (PDF)
DEFENSE “S”
Donald Counce Declaration
DEFENSE “T”
Saundra Counce Declaration
DEFENSE “U”
Bard Medical Hearing
DEFENSE “V”
SSI Corporate History
DEFENSE “W”
LAPD Report 08-0619018
DEFENSE “X”
Terry Bennett Declaration
xxv
DEFENSE EXHIBITS
DOCKET NO. 08-430
DEFENSE “Y”
SSI Investigation
DEFENSE “Z”
Ralph Bard Emails
DEFENSE “AA”
Blake Moore Emails
DEFENSE “AB”
Kuritzky Emails
DEFENSE “AC”
Murtagh Emails
DEFENSE “AD”
Vuyyuru Emails
xxvi