JUDGE MICHAEL PASTOR AND THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA : THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THEM
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ., M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, California 90061
(805) 901-2693
November 2, 2011
(Current and renewed date)
February 28, 2011
(Original date)
The following is the federal criminal-civil rights Complaint that was filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, CA against Superior Court judge Michael Pastor and the Medical Board of California (MBC) on January 24, 2011. The Complaint speaks for itself, but I believe it demonstrates why judge Pastor cannot preside over Dr. Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial without violating Murray's constitutional due process and other rights. If the U.S. Constitution has any meaning at all, and if judge Pastor and the Superior Court of California has any respect at all for the Constitution, there must be a new judge assigned to preside over Dr. Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial in March(now rescheduled for September of this year), in order to protect, inter alia, Murray's right to a fair trial.
The Complaint:
COMPLAINT REPORT
Method of Reporting: I will respond to this Report by addressing Questions #1
and #2 and responding to them regarding the named individual and/or organization, Superior Court Judge Michael E. Pastor and the Medical Board of California.
1. Name of individuals that I believe committed a federal crime: Judge Michael E. Pastor and the Medical Board of California.
#1. What federal crime do you believe has been committed?
ANS: I believe the crimes of conspiracy against rights, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 241 and deprivation of rights under color of law, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 242 were committed by both judge Michael Pastor and the Medical Board of California against Dr. Conrad Murray, directly, and against myself, Laurack D. Bray, and other similarly-situated Black male professionals , especially doctors and lawyers, indirectly.
#2. Explain in detail what you know about the crime, including when and where it occurred, what you have heard and observed and when you heard and observed it, what others have told you (include their names) and what other evidence may exist.
ANS: I know that there was a preliminary hearing conducted regarding the charge of manslaughter against one Dr. Conrad Murray, involving the death of singer Michael Jackson, on or about June 14, 2010 through January 11, 2011 or thereabout. And I know, from newspaper accounts, the internet, and the Superior Court docket, especially Minute Orders, that at the end of the preliminary hearing that Judge Pastor ordered, as part of the conditions of bail, that Dr. Murray’s medical license be suspended. “His privilege and right to practice medicine in this state now is suspended by this court.” “Dr. Murray is to immediately cease and desist from practicing medicine in the State of California.” Preliminary Hearing Docket, Minute Order. Exhibit #1 herein. I know that in addition to suspending Dr. Murray’s medical license in California, that judge Pastor also ordered that “Dr. Murray and his legal counsel are to notify within the next twenty-four hours the appropoate (sic) state medical licensing agencies in any other state where Dr. Murray currently is licensed to practice medicine. They are to be notified of the existence of this cease and desist order and suspension order within the next 24 hours. And Dr. Murray and his counsel are to provide requisite proof to this Court of such notification within the next 48 hours. That notification is to be provided to nay and all medical licensing agencies where Dr. Murray currently is licensed, includind (sic), but not limited to, the states of Texas and Nevada.” Id. Further, “Dr. Murray is not to practice medicine in any other jurisdiction unless he is lawfully licensed to so practice.” Id.
I know that judge Pastor based his decision to suspend Dr. Murray’s medical license on at least the following : “The Court finds that there exists good cause founded on changed circumstances in this case relating to the proceedings before this court, namely, the evidence presented the at preliminary hearing, in order to justify changed circumstances and the additional conditions inposed (sic)”. Id.
And, I know that at Dr. Murray’s arraignment, Superior Court Judge Keith L. Schwartz, after entertaining the motion and recommendation by the state licensing agency (Medical Board of California) ordered the following medical practice restrictions: “The Defendant may not use any anesthetic agent, specifically propofol, nor prescribe it, and do not administer any other heavy sedative medications that should generally be administered by any anesthesiologist. The defendant may not sedate people personally. This order is to cover the State of California, Texas, Nevada, Hawaii and anywhere else the defendant may be currently licensed in the United States.” See Exhibit #2. Moreover, upon information and belief, after judge Pastor ordered the suspension of Dr. Murray’s medical license, he denied a stay of his order to allow Dr. Murray to appeal his decision (“Pastor said he was acting in the interest of public safety and refused to stay the ruling for an appeal,” Associated Press, “Michael Jackson doctor Conrad Murray to Stand Trial”, January 12, 2011).
Finally, Dr. Murray is black.
With the above in mind, I will now set forth my allegations of federal criminal conduct resulting from the suspension of Dr. Murray’s medical license and the denial of a stay in order to appeal that order. I will also show how I am personally affected by judge Pastor’s actions and/or what connection his actions have to a previously filed action of mine.
Section 241 states, in part, “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress. . .or intimidate any person in any State. . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. . . (they) shall be fined. . .or imprisoned. . . .”
Here, I allege the conspiracy is at least between the Medical Board of California (“MBC”) and judge Pastor to knowingly deny Dr. Murray his due process rights.
The MBC likely wanted to suspend Dr. Murray’s medical license for whatever reasons, including public safety, but it knew that it could not do so without providing him with a due process hearing. And, the due process hearing would have to be scheduled and heard beyond the time of the preliminary hearing and the subsequent manslaughter trial. But, the Board did not want to wait and provide Dr. Murray with a proper hearing and, instead, tried to substitute the preliminary hearing for a due process hearing. The MBC initially moved Judge Schwartz for suspension relief, but judge Schwartz would only order “reasonable” relief, that would provide the public some protection, but would not deny Dr. Murray his due process rights, see infra.
However, a preliminary hearing cannot substitute for a due process hearing because the Defendant , at the preliminary hearing, is not required to put on a defense, and Murray chose to exercise that right and did not put on a defense. And, without a defense (if Murray has one, and I believe he does), there cannot be a due process hearing. The sole purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to require the defendant to undergo a due process trial . The MBC could not hold a “preliminary hearing” (without allowing Murray to put on a defense) and deprive Murray of his license without violating due process. And, the Superior Court could not do so either.
So, when the MBC persuaded judge Pastor to order a suspension of Dr. Murray’s medical license without Dr. Murray putting on a defense at the preliminary hearing (“Compounding Murray’s losses in Court, the judge also granted a request by the California Medical Board to suspend his license to practice medicine in California”, Associated Press, supra; and “The California Medical Board has also pushed for Murray’s California license to be revoked until the pending criminal proceedings are conducted”, ABC 7 KABC-TV, Los Angeles, June 6, 2010), the MBC knew that it was asking the judge to violate Dr. Murray’s due process rights; and when judge Pastor accepted the MBC’s persuasion and agreed, for whatever reasons, to suspend Dr. Murray’s license, he knew the same, notwithstanding the evidence produced at the hearing. Therefore, I charge that the MBC and judge Pastor, whether directly or indirectly, conspired to deny Dr. Murray his constitutional due process right to a fair hearing and/or trial before his license was suspended.
Section 242 states, in part, “Whoever, under color of any law. . . willfully subjects any person in any state. . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pain, or penalties. . . by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined. . . or imprisoned. . . .” Pursuant to Section 242, I allege that there are layers of due process and other constitutional violations evolving from the actions of the MBC and judge Pastor in suspending Dr. Murray’s medical license. First of all, the suspension of Dr. Murray’s medical license is clearly a punishment, pain, or penalty . It is just one of the possible punishments that might be meted out after a due process hearing or trial with a finding of liability or guilt. However, here, Dr. Murray was tried, convicted, and sentenced without a due process hearing or trial. Second, once Dr. Murray was arrested, he was cloaked with a presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” by a jury. Dr. Murray was deprived of this presumption by judge Pastor’s punishment or suspension of his license. This represents a further due process violation. Third, and most critical and significant, Dr. Murray was deprived of his medical practice and means of earning a living without due process of law. Further, not only does Dr. Murray suffer, but his patients also suffer. This is monumental. And, this violation was exascerbated by judge Pastor denying a stay, which assures the deprivation. Fourth, judge Pastor couched the suspension decision as a condition of bail, but the purpose of bail is to assure a defendant’s appearance at trial. How can suspending Dr. Murray’s medical license assure his appearance at trial? Indeed, it would tend to have just the opposite effect---providing him a reason and incentive to want to flee, since he can no longer earn a living, support his family, attend to his patients, pay his attorneys, etc. The suspension was likely labeled a condition of bail because the Court clearly has jurisdiction over the bail decision, while it appears that the suspension decision would lie with the MBC, which , if true, would mean that judge Pastor was acting without authority in issuing the suspension at the preliminary hearing stage (but, he certainly could do so after trial and a finding of guilt ).
Dr. Murray was also denied equal protection of the law. Compare the criminal trial surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith. While the former white doctors of Smith (male and female) were charged with the felony of “conspiring to prescribe controlled substances to an addict,” there were no requests, to my knowledge, by the MBC to suspend their licenses during the trial, and the judge did not order a suspension in the name of public safety. Even though, according to Fox News . com and the Associated Press, “Prosecutors. . . called a pharmacist who testified the amount of drugs Eroshevich requested for Smith at one point would have amounted to pharmaceutical suicide.” “The pharmacist refused to fill the request. . . .” The Smith doctors’ licenses were neither suspended nor seriously restricted, based on my knowledge and belief, even though they were accused of criminal conduct contributing to or related to, in some way, the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
Finally, the suspension of Dr. Murray’s medical license seriously infringes on his constitutional right to counsel by his being denied the funds to pay his attorneys for his upcoming criminal manslaughter trial. Compare the case of Rep. Charles Rangle, who stated that he had paid his attorneys nearly $2 million dollars prior to the actual hearing for which he most needed their services, and by the time his ethics hearing was due to be held, he couldn’t afford the additional fees. And, he wasn’t deprived of the ability to earn a living or income from his profession or occupation prior to his scheduled hearing. Why haven’t Dr. Murray’s attorneys automatically appealed judge Pastor’s suspension order and sought a stay in the appellate court ? Could it be because of no foreseeable source of payment for the work? If the attorneys have done so, you may disregard the question.
Finally, I come to the focal point of my connection to the Dr. Murray case, which helped prompt me to file this Complaint. I am alleging in this Complaint that judge Pastor’s unconstitutional conduct causing the deprivation of Dr. Murray’s medical license and his medical practice is a pattern of conduct demonstrated by the Superior Court of California (and some of its judges) against black male professionals, especially doctors and lawyers. I am a Black male federal attorney and I assert that I was affected by and included in that pattern of conduct. That pattern of conduct is for Superior Court judges to unconstitutionally cause the deprivation of the professional practices of black male professionals---in Dr. Murray’s case, it is a medical practice---and thereafter, to deny a stay of execution of the deprivation decision pending an appeal, without a due process hearing of the stay request. In my case, the stay was denied without a request for one. I need not go into the details of my case here because this office has the details, which are included in my (and my clients’) June, 2007 criminal complaint filed in this office against multiple individuals . Suffice it to say that it involved an unlawful detainer jury trial which took place in the Superior Court of Ventura County, California, whereby I was unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of my home-law office and law practice by the actions of the presiding judge, Steven Hintz. And, the deprivation was continued by unlawful acts of other Ventura County judges acting in an appellate capacity. After a judgment had been rendered against me (that included the deprivation of my home-law office and practice) , and, even though I had not asked for a stay, judge Hintz, in open court stated that he would not grant me a stay. Although I have sought and fought to re-possess my same law office (because for several reasons, I care for this particular office) for over seven (7) years (since it was unconstitutionally taken) I have yet to do so. And, I haven’t been able to obtain another office. So , Dr. Murray’s case directly supports mine, and provides corroboration for my position that what happened in my case is not an isolated incident.
I conclude this Complaint by stating that my basic complaint allegations are that the MBC and judge Pastor conspired to violate Dr. Murray’s constitutional rights to due process of law in suspending his medical license without a due process hearing or a trial, and they acted to deprive him of several constitutional rights, including liberty and property rights, under color of law and based on his race or color. I further allege that the acts perpetrated against Dr. Murray, as a Black male, are part of a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by the Superior Court of California directed at professional Black males with the intent to put them out of business, in violation of the Constitution.
I cannot speak for Dr. Murray with respect to any relief he may seek as a result of this complaint, but I continue to seek restitution, including injunctive relief requiring the return of my law office in Ventura, California. I believe any relief, for both Dr. Murray and me, should be borne by the judges, the respective counties (Los Angeles and Ventura, respectively), and the State of California (for the MBC) .
As an aside, this Complaint is based solely on the suspension of Dr. Murray’s medical license. It does not and does not purport to extend in anyway to the merits of Dr. Murray’s manslaughter trial. That matter must be resolved by a Superior Court jury. I am a fan of Michael Jackson, always have been and always will be. Indeed, Michael is my favorite male vocalist or singer of all time. And, Whitney Houston is my favorite female vocalist. But, this Complaint has nothing to do with Michael’s death or its cause, it only addresses Dr. Murray’s due process and other constitutional rights regarding his license suspension.
