Tad, As you know, Tad, I am writing this letter in response to your email from 2 days ago. I was a bit shocked MQAC had yet again jumped protocol. It was very upsetting to me, and continues to be upsetting to me as you may tell by the time I am writing this letter (1:47 AM). MQAC has a clear procedure to handle accusations against providers. The crucial step is to give the accused a chance to respond prior to the filing of formal and public charges. I misunderstood that this was the stage we were in. Apparently not. I have subsequently realized that they merely went strait to the filing of charges against me without giving me a chance to respond, and further they sought to spike the ball by releasing the charges to the press. Unfortunately, this is not unusual behavior for scandal prone institutions like MQAC and the Attorney General’s departments. They are following what can currently be described as the Weinstien/Michigan State/USC playbook of allegedly attacking and destroying their critics and accusers. As you are aware, during my last run in with MQAC, I showed that they had altered and suborned alteration of the medical records. Clearly, our defense strategy, involved, amongst a vigorous defense of my record, highlighting these malfeasances. As such the case was “suspended.” In that I had a pressing family crisis to deal with (my daughter’s illness), I chose not to sue, or pursue, their criminality further. I chose this course against the advice of several of my allies, all of whom pointed out that if I don’t attack them back, they would continue their criminal ways against me and others. For this, I am truly guilty, but as you know I had pressing serious family matters, to which, I had to attend. A few months later (2/2017), MQAC asked a list of all my patients and picked what they thought were the 10 or 12 worse cases to review. I did not hear anything further until May 14th when my attorney sent me notice of MQAC’s, what I believed, was a proposal of charges. As you are aware, there is a playbook on how scandals should be handled. If they are not handled in this manner, they indicate culpability and complicit behavior on the part of the institutions and personnel at play. The 2 methods of handling scandals are either to hire the most formidable and uncompromising accuser (known as the Snyder method – after Michigan governor Rick Snyder hiring Marc Edwards in the face of the Flint Water scandal) and giving that person broad powers and responsibility. Failing someone to step into that role (as would be the case here), or to even further ensure the appearance of fairness, one hires, at arms length and expeditiously, an unquestionably fair and unquestionably independent outside law firm, to confidentially receive and evaluate further accusations of impropriety against one’s own institution and then make a very public announcement to all stakeholders, and to the public, of a full detail of the scandal and invite them to report ANY questionable behavior, confidentially, to the law firm and then seek to correct all verified accusations promptly (known as the Eaglebrook method – after a scandal involving that school, in which it suffered virtually no blowback from an incident involving one of its former teachers). The incorrect method, is to further attack ones accusers, and bury the complaint as MQAC and the AGs office did, and continues to do. We have all seen how this process turns out. From the Catholic Church, to Phillips Exeter Academy, to Weinstien and company, to Michigan State, to now USC, the natural tendency of institutions is to protect their own and to vilify their accusers. At best these institutions quietly retire the malefactor, at worst, they continue to employ them as both the Weinstien Company and Catholic Church allegedly did. This is understandable given human nature to believe oneself good and diligent, and similarly to want to believe in the goodness of those you choose to work with, and socialize. Clearly anyone who attacks them and, by extension, you, is crazy, or worse, regardless of the hard evidence they bring forward. This tendency is unfortunately blinding and leads to strong conformational bias. It takes strong people to buck this trend. Clearly MQAC, the AGs office, and the Governor’s office, having all been apprised of record alteration scandal, are not made of such people. As you personally know, I have been open and disclosive of my MQAC problems to everyone involved. As you are aware I tried to call you a few weeks ago, to give you a heads up. I have spoken and written to you against my attorney’s guidance during the last case and, now, this case. I further disclosed the, what I thought were, accusations and not a formal statement of charges, immediately to my practices partners and office manager, as well as the hospital. I further disclosed it to the KCMS and its president (although I did so hesitantly, in that I do not wish to be a source of division within, what is generally, a very commodious medical community). It is my opinion that the trust of those around me, in me, is more important than winning the case. My office manager, seeking to protect the Kitsap Medical Group, immediately investigated all the charges outlined in the complaint. In very short order, she found nearly all them without merit and completely against what was clearly typed in the medical record that MQAC had. In one case, MQAC accused me of not exploring why an indigent patient could not get transportation to see specialists, I documented in the typed record, which MQAC had, not only that he could not afford transportation, but that my office staff was working on getting him a bus pass. On a further case, they accused me of not sending a diabetic patient to an ophthalmologist, despite there being a note in the chart, which MQAC had, from Dr Holdren. By my rough estimate, about 90% of the accusations were extremely similar with clear evidence contradicting their charges clearly and unambiguously in the typed medical record. Our office manager saw this and went from concerned that I was not practicing correctly, to elated that the charges were completely without merit, to finally frustrated and aggravated at either the complete incompetence and gross negligence of the board members of MQAC, Melanie DeLeon, and Kristin Brewer, all of whom signed off on the case, or worse, and my belief, their actively complicit behavior in these highly unethical actions. It should be noted here that MQAC acts as both prosecutor and jury on all of its cases. Why do I believe that MQAC and the AGs office engaged in a serially criminal enterprise? It goes to the pattern of their conduct. In each step they have failed to follow the law, proper procedure, and best practices. From burying the record alteration scandal, to only “suspending” my previous case (in order to keep me in check), to not once, but twice (the previous MQAC case and this one), bypassing the normal procedure of allowing me to respond to complaints and new complaints prior to filing charges, to failing to openly and forthrightly confronting an alteration of records by one if its most prominent members, to flooding the zone (better known and “Aaron Schwartzing” or more relevant to this AGs office “Wenatcheeing” (a common tactic amongst unethical prosecutors to intimidate innocent people into settling) me with multiple petty accusations to drain my resources), to limiting to me to 2 weeks (May 14th – 29th) to respond to these new accusations which they took over 15 months to compile, MQAC and the AGs office has acted expediently, illegally, and unethically, rather than in the public trust. This expedient, if not criminal, behavior calls into question not only my case but all of MQACs, and the AGs office’s, previous actions, for it betrays a tolerance for, if not a culture of, corruption. Tad, in closing, I am not sure I, or even MQAC or the AGs office is the real story here. I think the real story is where is the FBI, whose number one stated mission is to fight corruption in public officials. The reason the FBI has this as their priority is that we all realize that our wealth, safety, and cohesion are all based on trust. As Frances Fukiyama has pointed out, high trust societies are much safer and wealthier than low trust societies. When officials in our government act illegally and maliciously, they undermine our society, our wealth, and us. Again, Tad, thank you for the chance to respond. You do have my phone number, if you have further questions, or need any clarification. Bill