THE CASE FOR
RICHARD M. FLEMING PhD, MD, JD
The high cost of inventing disruptive technology.
Guilty As Charged?
A recent Pew study (2018), reviewed approximately 80,000 federal prosecutions and found just two percent went to trial. Up to 97% of federal criminal convictions are obtained through plea bargains - defendants pleading guilty - revoking their constitutional right to a trial - for assurance of a lesser penalty. There is a growing list, the National Registry of Exonerations, however, that exhibits conviction after conviction based on fabricated evidence, false testimony and outright refusal to consider proof of innocence. Each miscarriage of justice cited in this Registry was an element present in the 2009 case of The United States v. Richard M. Fleming.
If the felony indictments against Dr. Richard Fleming caused you to discount his contributions to medical research, this article will challenge your understanding of judicial gymnastics and institutional justice. Indeed, the Doctor pled guilty to charges, but without deeper investigation, you’d never know they were not the criminal charges of Medicare and mail fraud. No one can fault you for your wariness, and you wouldn’t be alone. Until recently - in this age of Michael Flynn, Russia Gate, and Manafort, plea deals have been the "gold standard" indicator of guilt.
But would your thinking change, if it were proven that thousands of individuals are wrongly convicted by a system often indifferent to innocence and judicial error? Devoid of accountability? That DC’s profit-laden “opportunities,” fronted by the yeast-like politically ambitious, often lead to the indictment of those who dare challenge the narrative? What if it could be proven that Dr. Richard Fleming was indicted not for criminal activity, but for trumped-up charges related to his disruptive discovery that benefited the patients and their medical team over industry profit? If our ultimate goal as a society is to advance the human condition equitably for all, then it is essential that we separate the science from the Big Pharma narrative and other institutional strongholds.
You now hold the gavel and are encouraged to investigate the following legal documents and details found largely outside the public purview. The picture presented here is not pleasant. Our government systems, once thought to protect us and seldom questioned, may in fact, be advocating surreptitiously for an other class, of which we, the general public, are not a part. How do we challenge this ruling elite to right the injustice? Certainly, pursuing the greater good requires that we not only ask the questions or support those who do, but demands that we admit that even a skeptic looks both ways before crossing the street.