Dr. Gleason

After four years of fighting the Department of Justice, Peter C. Gleason, MD was successful on January 29, 2010. Dr. Gleason received no fine and was placed on probation for a "single misdemeanor with no-intent" (1 year) by the court. Dr. Gleason would like to thank his New York Attorney Michael Weil, Esq, the WLF, his family, friends, and colleagues for their support; triumphing over the excessive behavior of a federal prosecutor.

 

Good. Can we drop the psycho compliance alert level now? Bring it down to orange please.

 

THAT IS AWESOME I am very happy to hear about it. He was the target of a power hungry prosecutor and was passionate about helping people. A little quirky...but a good man. It's unbelievable though that this whole thing was started by one rep (SL) who all of a sudden... had "morals"???? I'd be willing to bet that she doesn't even think about the many, many lives she destroyed.

All in all I'm glad it's over for Dr. Gleason and wish him only the best!

 

I heard he wants to be a speaker for Fibro

 

Let's hope that fellow Jazz rep Al Caronia wins his appeal, too. Our democracy is at stake.

 

classic. get the wire taps ready......

 

Bill's wire got him killed

 

You're a fucking horrible person. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. Motherfucker.

 

guilty?

 

Did Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Officers ever find out what happened to Bill?

 

he's in trouble and roliing over on Jazz to make a deal

 

Jazz could have avoided a felony charges and $20 milllion fine if the FDA had done its job in 2005. The FDA could have sent Jazz a warning letter instead of encouraging a money-hungry, whistleblowing low-life to hurt the company and employees. The conspiracy, between the FDA and DOJ’s appointed employees, was to chase the money rather than serve Justice.

FDA ad chief says drugmaker warnings double

Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON

Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:51pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings to drugmakers and others for questionable drug promotion has nearly doubled since President Barack Obama took office a year ago, a top FDA official said on Friday.

HEALTH
The agency sent 41 enforcement letters in 2009 compared with 21 letters in 2008, Thomas Abrams, head of the FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communication, told Reuters.

It has sent nine letters in January -- a pace that is expected to continue in 2010, he said in an interview.

"We're trying to get the point across to industry that we want them to comply with the law because it affects public health," Abrams said. "If you don't comply with the law, we are going to take action. We are not going to tolerate having consumers or healthcare professionals misled."

The increase comes amid a pledge by Obama's pick to lead the FDA, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, to step up overall enforcement and oversight of drugmakers, device manufacturers and other companies it regulates.

FDA's advertising division, known as DDMAC, is charged with reviewing marketing material that drugmakers use to promote their products to consumers and health professionals alike. His staff monitors everything from television ads and websites to conference posters and brochures.

Abrams said the division has streamlined its procedures to get warning letters out more quickly.

"We are inspired by Dr. Hamburg's enforcement initiative and have taken it to heart," he said. "I personally am thrilled with it."

Still, he added that his unit tries to work with companies before they use a promotion to avoid misleading messages in the first place. While drugmakers can voluntarily have FDA staff review marketing materials before they are used, companies must submit the promotions to the FDA when they are made public.

If advertisements fail to list a drug's risks or overstate the benefits, the agency can issue a warning. Most of the time, FDA works with companies to resolve the problem, but it does have the authority to impose fines and other penalties.

Drugmakers seem to be getting the message and so far have given the FDA "good feedback," Abrams said.

 

beat to death with golf clubs at the carefree resort in arizona minutes after winning the rep of the year award. a wire is a powerful thing.

 

STATEPRESS.COM

Editorial: Tribune tribunal
By:
Editorial Board
Published On:
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

If your life is threatened in an emergency, you want to have faith that local law enforcement will be able to get to the scene quickly.

If you’re the victim of a violent crime, you want to have faith that local law enforcement will investigate thoroughly.

You want to have faith that your tax dollars are being spent in a way that best serves and protects you — but how do you know it’s happening?

Last year Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin, reporters for the East Valley Tribune, wrote a five-part investigative series on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s illegal immigration enforcement — and how the crackdown on illegal immigrants affects the rest of the state.

“[The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] often neglected regular law enforcement work during its hurried evolution into an immigration enforcement operation,” the series asserted.
Arpaio’s methods resulted in slower emergency response times, fewer arrests and excessive overtime expenses, according to the Tribune’s reporting.

Scary stuff, right?

Regardless of what your personal opinions of Sheriff Joe or his methods are, the value of the investigative work done by these East Valley Tribune reporters on a limited budget was profound. The writing and reporting was thorough and accurate. It deserved to be read.

And it was — just not by enough Valley residents to keep the newspaper afloat.
But the Pulitzer committee did read the investigative series. They thought it worthy of winning the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting.

That award should have boded well for the paper. It didn’t.

Ironically, in the same year the newspaper reached the pinnacle of journalistic achievement, it will go out of print. The East Valley Tribune is set to close its doors at the end of December, citing economic hardships. This shutdown essentially leaves the Valley with only one major daily newspaper, The Arizona Republic.

For ASU journalism students, this is just another in a series of blows to the job market, but what does it mean for students studying history, education or any of the numerous majors at the University?

For one, it means your options for news sources in the Valley are getting slimmer.
The Arizona Republic isn’t winning any Pulitzers, but it has a monopoly on the Phoenix-area media market, for all intents and purposes. While we respect that newspaper, having only one major news source is no good for anyone. Invariably it means important stories will fall through the cracks, and there will be fewer checks and balances on the people in power.

“It’s a sad day when a newspaper dies, particularly a paper like the Tribune that has been such an aggressive watchdog of government,” said Steve Doig, a journalism professor at ASU in an interview with The Arizona Republic Monday.

“The Tribune’s Pulitzer underscores the importance of its work. The only winners here are the crooks and incompetents who will escape the spotlight of shame because there will be fewer reporters watching them.”

It costs money — a lot of money — to run a news source that reports in-depth, investigative stories.

Some fault must lie in an inability to make Internet news sites profitable, but successful journalism takes more than a Web site. It takes readers.

And if unearthing radical drops in law enforcement reliability won’t make a newspaper interesting, what will? A news site can only run so many Lindsay Lohan stories before losing credibility as an organization, no matter how many hits they get.

The success, in a business sense, of newspapers depends on the tribunal of public opinion, but how can a newspaper successfully serve the public if that public won’t let it?

 

Since they removed my post, I'll re-post it.

Gleason was successful at pleading guilty. Congratulations. He's thankful to his lawyer for that?

Pleading guilty to a misdemeanor gets you probation for a year. No magic there.

"No-intent" simply means the government didn't have to prove that element - because intent isn't an element of that offense.

And if you want to punish the prosecutor, the guys you should be focused on are the congressional staffers who wrote the bill that required the prosecutors to pursue the case - they have no choice. Where are those staffers today? According to the media, they are running a qui tam mill, making money off the very law they created.

 

I am sure Dr. Gleason will be "taking care of business" with a lot of folks.

 

civil and corporate litigation

 

Agreeing to be found guilty of anything is loss for the defendent, unless he was guilty of more. This tells me that the Dr got scared of a more serious finding, and agreed to plead guilty to avoid it. The prosecutor let him walk after admitting guilt. If you is to celebrate that fact, then this company has no hope of a bright future

 

If you read "The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice" by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton, you will understand what happened to the good doctor-speaker and a brand-new Jazz Rep. Have these government employees no shame?

Everyone of these political-hack-holdovers should be replaced by our President.

 

Bill

dot...wire..blunt force trama..trust fund...sherriff...desert night