On  January 9, 2017  I submitted a Public Records Request  through the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) Website  for a dozen or so documents that had been submitted for board hearings but never directly addressed and containing textual content with evidence that was never weighed.   Moreover, many of the documents provided direct evidence of crimes (no other is evidence needed).

All of these documents were provided  to Board counsel Deb Stoller.

 It has now been over two months and this shows how transparency is not just about shedding light on what is there but what is not there–transparency can also illuminate contrivances and lies.  If these documents existed then they would have provided them long ago and this is all coming to light as a result of Public Records Division staff enforcing new  Public Records Law and they should be applauded for their integrity, honesty and genuine concern.    In a culture of deference, impunity and apathy where giving allowances are the rule rather than the exception this agency deserves an A+ amidst a sea of D’s and F’s.

The majority of documents provided have illegible or missing dates.   Undated documents have no value.   Analyzing any dataset requires  that  data-points be annotated with reliable timestamps that signify when the textual content was created and this is especially important with records that accumulate over time. Documents with message content passed on to others must be annotated with reliable timestamps that signify when the textual content was received and acknowledged by the receiver.

The January 9, 2017 request specifically requested a copy of the documents from the “administrative record” compiled for the December 21, 2011  hearing but in response they returned the same documents provided December 15, 2011 but date stamped January 17, 2012  –nearly a month after the hearing.

---

 Take a look at the letter and all of the pages of the “litigation packet” as they are pristine.  No notations, initials, dates, scribbles or signatures.   So how were these documents “considered” at the December 21, 2011 board hearing?  At almost 50-pages did they all huddle around it or pass it around the room.

 In his cover letter RAO Dolan reiterates the ridiculous claim that  the date-stamp reflects when it was “bulk-scanned ” into the electronic archives and not when it was “presented to the board.”   What would be the purpose of putting timestamps on documents that have no meaning?   This is a bald faced lie and I want to call him on it.   Evidence presented for any hearing must be submitted and entered into the record before not after hearings. This is common sense but to put this to rest we can turn to the  2012  Manual for Conducting Administrative Adjudicatory Proceedings  which outlines how administrative proceedings are conducted  by professional boards.  It was also edited by AAG Quinan, the Managing Attorney of the Administrative Law, Government Bureau–the Department AAG Bertram is part of    The  “administrative record” is listed as one of the “basic principles” in chapter 1  and is second only to  “due process” M.G.L. c. 30A, § 11(8).    An administrative record must be compiled for every board hearing and indexed.   “The record is everything that is properly before the decision maker in rendering the decision.”

---

1 The Board’s staff has reviewed its records and confirmed this to be the case.

2 To be sure, and to put this matter to rest for the Court once and for all, the Board has retrieved from off­site storage those materials before the Board in December 2011. The documents that Dr. Langan claims were “suppressed” are in fact there—and this should not be surprising given the Board’s many orders since that time, all of which have disclaimed any reliance on the July 2011 PEth test.

3 The Board’s staff has confirmed this by reviewing its minutes and confirmed this to be the case.

---

It has now been confirmed that the only “materials”  that exist are the documents themselves  and they are dated January 17, 2012 and this does not confirm but refutes Bertram’s claims.   In sum not a single data-point exists to support this document was before the board on December 21, 2011.   Moreover, the document provides direct evidence of crimes (no other evidence is needed).

I have requested that Bertram either provide documentation to support his footnoted claims or reveal to the court the misrepresentations.   As a government attorney he is obligated to reveal falsehood and perjury and I requested he do so.  But instead of revealing  no materials from off-site exist to support his claims he notified the court of his misrepresentation that by “offsite storage” he meant “basement”

He mentioned nothing about these major misrepresentations and dug his heels in deeper claiming that board staff did indeed   “retrieve and review those documents” and claims his “footnote representation remains uncompromised.”    His footnote representations no longer remain uncompromised.  At this point I’d say they are pretty compromised–the false contrivances are in actual fact shattered.

The off-point Bertram letter can be seen here:   ( Attachment B (6) )   “Uncompromised is a poor choice of words Mr. Bertram as “shattered” or “demolished” would be more appropriate.
Bertram claimed agency level investigation confirmed documents were before the board in December of 2011