text:
Please subscribe to Autism Investigated
Dr. Wakefield Says All Findings Against Him Are Overturned
August 9, 2016 11:37 am \ 57 Comments \ Jake Crosby
In a July 29th interview with Toronto's Newstalk 1010 radio, exonerated British doctor Andrew Wakefield stated that all the findings against him by the UK General Medical Council were overturned four years ago – a fact Autism Investigated has been reporting for months. He went further to say that if he was able to pay for his appeal, he would be entitled to practice medicine again in an interview that came out just months after he said he would give "very, very serious consideration" to having his license restored. Within days of the radio interview, panic ensued within the vaccine industry.
Writing for the website of the pharma-funded, vaccine-promoting Every Child By Two group, retired epidemiologist Joel Harrison authored a 17-page long rant entitled, "Andrew Wakefield Has Never Been 'Exonerated': Why Justice Mitting's Decision in the Professor John Walker-Smith Case Does Not Apply to Wakefield," that concluded, "Andrew Wakefield himself was not, and given the overwhelming evidence against him, NEVER WILL BE EXONERATED." Harrison tried to support the allegation that Wakefield was conducting unethical research by quoting the judge's decision out of context, even though that allegation rested on findings the judge had overturned in his own ruling.
Whatever Harrison and others might say, there are simply no official findings left to justify Wakefield's de-licensure or subsequent retraction of any of his published papers. In a signed letter to Autism Investigated, the General Medical Council stated that it would consider Wakefield's application for re-licensure and "any further supporting evidence" he provides. Harrison and co. are undoubtedly nervous that Wakefield could get his license back, and rightly so.
Addendum: The audio track has been removed. Autism Investigated has made inquiries to the radio station about its removal and will keep you informed of any updates.
Posted in: Fraud, Science \ Tagged: andrew wakefield, autism, dr. andrew wakefield, ecbt, every child by two, general medical council, gmc, joel harrison, john walker-smith, justice mitting, medical license, mmr, newstalk 1010, re-licensure, restoration, ryan doyle, shot of prevention, vaccines, vaxxed, vaxxed: from cover-up to catastrophe
57 Thoughts on "Dr. Wakefield Says All Findings Against Him Are Overturned"
Rebecca Fisher on August 9, 2016 at 2:48 pm said:
Wakefield is lying again. He has not, in any way, been exonerated, or found innocent. Which part of Joel Harrison's in-depth discussion do you take issue with? Even if you discount any evidence provided by Brian Deer or Dorit Reiss (neither of whom you will accept as trustworthy or credible, despite the evidence to the contrary), his discussion of the actual text of the Walker-Smith decision makes it perfectly clear that Wakefield was not exonerated, his findings were not validated and his paper should not be restored.
Or, to put it another way, which (non-Deer or Reiss referring) parts of his discussion do you find to be inaccurate?
Jake Crosby on August 9, 2016 at 4:45 pm said:
Simply saying Wakefield's "intention" was to do research does not prove he conducted unethical research, the basis for which was the claim that his research project and the Lancet paper were somehow one in the same. As Justice Mitting ruled, they were not.
Rebecca Fisher on August 10, 2016 at 7:18 am said:
No, no he doesn't say that. And that's irrelevant in any case. The case was about Walker-Smith, not Wakefield. Throughout the judgement, Mitting makes clear the many differences between Wakefield's position and that of Walker-Smith. You have to be a very special kind of deluded to think that the W-S verdict in any way exonerates Wakefield. Rather, it does the opposite – it shows how Walker-Smith was deceived by Wakefield.
I, for one, can't wait for Wakefield to try and exonerate himself, and get his license to practice back. There will be popcorn a-plenty if he ever does. (He won't, of course, because he knows precisely what would happen. He needs to pretend that he could (but won't for some spurious reason – not being able to afford it (hah!) or somesuch) in order to keep the dollars flowing in from the faithful.)
Jake Crosby on August 10, 2016 at 3:52 pm said:
"it shows how Walker-Smith was deceived by Wakefield." – Complete nonsense.
"I, for one, can't wait for Wakefield to try and exonerate himself" – No, you don't. Clearly, ECBT doesn't either.
Wendy Stephen on August 10, 2016 at 5:04 pm said:
It wasn't just Mitting who stressed the differences between Professor Walker Smith's position and that of Andrew Wakefield. On 18th February 2012, at the time of his appeal, Professor Walker Smith himself put this message up on the facebook page set up by Cryshame.
"I hope my supporters understand that charges related to MMR did not feature in my case. My case was related to entirely different issues to those that concerned Dr Wakefield but obviously very similar indeed to the issues faced by Professor Murch. They focused fundamentally concerning whether I was investigating the children for clinical need ie. to find out what was wrong with them or for pure research to investigate Wakefield's hypothesis. Every investigative procedure I ordered was to find out what was wrong with the children. The judge clearly understands the issue I just hope that he will come to a decision that lets right be done. Best wishes John"
While true that Wakefield had separate counts of dishonesty ruled against him, those hinged on the findings against Walker-Smith being true; they weren't.
Please explain how proven counts of dishonesty against Wakefield such as that listed at item 4 of the Findings of Fact (copied below) for example, "hinged on the findings against Walker -Smith being true"
4b Your conduct as set out a paragraph 4a.i. was (i) Dishonest
Found Proved
The panel is satisfied that this action was dishonest judged by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. It is further satisfied that you knew that some or most of the funds would not be used for the reasons you had stated because you had agreed a process with Mr Barr by which children would be selected for the study from those who had already been investigated at the Royal Free Hospital and who would therefore been funded by the NHS.
Jake Crosby on August 11, 2016 at 12:57 am said:
The legal aid funds were not used for the investigations in the Lancet paper because the judge overturned the findings that it was part of the litigation-funded project.
No he didn't.
And even if he did, do you think that makes it OK?
Wendy Stephen on August 11, 2016 at 9:25 am said:
Your response doesn't start to address my question. You previously asserted that the validity of "separate" charges of dishonesty found against Wakefield hinged on the findings against Walker Smith being true (which you said weren't true).
I asked you to please explain in respect of one example of Wakefield having a charge of dishonesty proven against him from the Findings of Fact, how that particular outcome was dependent on the findings against Walker Smith being true. In short, how would any aspect of Professor Walkers Smith's case alter the finding against Wakefield, which was that he knew that some or most of the funds would be used for purposes other than what he had stated, having entered into a "process" with the litigation lawyer, Richard Barr whereby children would be selected for a study from those who had previously been investigated at the RFH under NHS funding.
I answered your question, and I won't allow you to hijack this thread as a forum for you to repeat yourself. So before you take the time to write another comment here, think about whether it would contribute anything new to the discussion. Because yours does not.
Rebecca Fisher on August 11, 2016 at 3:36 pm said:
Jake, Below is just a small snippet of the original judgement. None of this relates in any way to Walker-Smith. Anything that exonerated Walker-Smith has nothing to do with any of this. And as you know, there's lots, lots more.
The money provided by the Legal Aid Board was not needed forthe items listed at paragraphs 3.d.i. and ii. above, which were fundedby the NHS;
Admitted and found proved
'4. a. You,i. failed to cause the Legal Aid Board to be informed thatinvestigations represented by the clinicians as being clinicallyindicated would be covered by NHS funding,
The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to disclose to theLAB, via Mr Barr, that clinically indicated investigationswould be funded by the NHS, and that, despite havingopportunities to do so, you failed in that duty.
ii. caused or permitted the money supplied by the Legal AidBoard to be used for purposes other than those for which yousaid it was needed and for which it had been granted,
Found proved in relation to the second instalment of£25,000.The Panel is content that the first instalment of £25,000 was used for the purposes for which it was granted.The Panel is convinced by documentary, and your own evidence, that you used the second instalment for, amongst other things, research staff wages, not the items listed in3.d.i and 3.d.ii.
b. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 4.a.i. was,
7 i. dishonest,
The Panel is satisfied that this action, was dishonest,judged by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. It is further satisfied that you knew that some or most of the funds would not be used for the reasons you had stated, because you had agreed a process with Mr Barrby which children would be selected for the study from those who had already been investigated at the Royal Free Hospital and who would have therefore been funded by the NHS.
ii. misleading,
c. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 4.a.ii. was a misuse of public funds and was,i. dishonest,
Found not proved
The Panel is satisfied that the funds claimed were used in the furtherance of the research and not for your personal gain. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel is not satisfied so that it is sure that both limbs of the test for dishonesty have been made out.
ii. in breach of your duty when managing finances, to ensure that the funds are used for the purpose for which the ywere intended,
The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to, but did not,use the funds for the purposes previously stated.
iii. in breach of your duty to account for funds you did not need to the donor of those funds;
The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to account accurately to the LAB for the funds provided, but even in your "interim report to the Legal Aid Board" of January 1999 you did not explain how the investigations on the children had been funded.
"158. …The [GMC] panel's finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall."
-The GMC findings you cite were based on the lie that 172-96 applied to the Lancet paper – it didn't.
The text I've quoted has to do with misuse of, and dishonest acquisition of funds. Nothing to do with the children.
So who would the doctors perform those investigations on? Themselves?
L Dry on June 16, 2018 at 2:39 am said:
Eric so they struck him off as he's shit with money , not because his research was flawed. A technically in funding rather than the actual did MMR cause autism.
Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. The specific allegations i listed above were to do with Wakefield's (not Walker-Smith's) financial misdeeds. They were not about anyone's misdeeds in the actual treatment of children. There are plenty examples of that, obviously, but the allegations I posted were specifically Wakefield, had nothing to do with Walker-Smith (who didn't deal with the money side), and hence cannot possibly have been overturned in anyone's mind after the Walker-Smith verdict.
Jake Crosby on August 12, 2016 at 7:38 am said:
I know what you're trying to claim, and you're wrong. For the umpteenth time: The findings that Wakefield was dishonest to LAB about funds and misused them – as with the allegations about the conduct towards the children – hinged on the bogus claim of conflating the paper with the LAB-funded project.
Jake Crosby on June 16, 2018 at 3:07 am said:
He wasn't shit with money either, The Lancet paper had nothing to do with that funded project.
Kathy Palmer on August 10, 2016 at 12:00 am said:
Rebecca, You did not listen to this interview or watch VAXXED the movie. You need to be educated on the truth. You are probably a pharma shill.
Vaxxed has nothing to do with Wakefield's being struck off. I keep being told it has nothing to do with Wakefield, that it's all about William Thompson. Or is that not the case?
In one of the featured interviews on the Vaxxed website, Wakefield discusses how the findings against him were wrong.
So is the whole Vaxxed project about him, or about the CDC?
It is primarily about the CDC, which frankly is what this whole issue is about anyway.
No. Your post is entitled "Dr. Wakefield Says All Findings Against Him Are Overturned". This is nothing to do with the CDC. This is all about Wakefield. It's always all about Wakefield.
Jake Crosby on August 11, 2016 at 10:14 pm said:
lol the vast majority of AI's posts are about CDC, not Wakefield.
ivet on August 10, 2016 at 10:34 am said:
WOW! you sound desperate!
Melinda Hollis on August 12, 2016 at 7:38 pm said:
And this is because you have scientific evidence that it shouldn't be reinstated? Because you yourself are a medical professional, a scientist who can debunk his study?
Neal on August 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm said:
What a bunch of nonsense you are spewing.
Vaccine makers lied about Wakefield, and used their vast resources to prop up the lie. Now their story is coming apart. Their lies about the MMR vaccine have piled up, too! We have a straight out confession of that from one of the CDC's top officials.
Its as simple as that. Your rants can't save you anymore. Get over it.
Eddie Unwind on August 10, 2016 at 2:29 am said:
It seems that Joel Harrison chose Resentful Idiots as the place to espouse his views. RI got what it deserved there – Joel's entries are invariably of almost essay- length. Yet they can't get rid of him because of his stance and 'credentials'.
Wakefield states it plainly that he would not choose to vaccinate if he had a child nowadays – I admire his being straightforward about it. The interviewer was quick to cast him as antivaccine on that one, but it's become a tiresome tactic. Given the fact of relative non-liability – not to mention that, owing to the current unease regarding vaccine safety, the vaccine industry will do anything to avoid appearing as though it's taking a backward step, such as recalling a vaccine – Wakefield's caution is completely understandable. I am the same – very skeptical and cautious about the current vaccine schedule.
Ronald Gibson on August 10, 2016 at 7:50 am said:
For those interested in reading the GMC charge sheet against Wakefield, and the Walker-Smith Court decision, here are the links so that you may make up your own mind as I believe it is time we stop buying into the opinion of others before reading the facts, or letting others do the thinking for us: http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2010/01/day28/GMC_Charge_sheet.pdf, and http://www.eastwoodslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Walker-Smith.pdf
Thanks Ronald.
Steve Smith on August 14, 2016 at 7:30 am said:
Thanks for the links, that is valuable info 🙂
Peter B on April 18, 2019 at 1:51 am said:
Already done. The high court judge found faulty logic, faulty reasoning and erroneous conclusions in the GMC ruling. Accordingly, that rules out all of their "found proved" bullshit.
W Marchant on August 10, 2016 at 11:57 am said:
Does this mean that Brian Deer will have to return his Award he received for his lies ? I am sure he deserves the award as being Asshole of the Year and should be allowed to keep that Certificate.
The terms on which he won his first such award should tell us all we need to know about how those awards are given out.
Nothing to do with Wakefield's striking off or the retraction of his paper has been overturned. This is why he is still struck off, and the paper stays retracted. He won't apply for his license back, because he knows he hasn't a cat in hell's chance of getting it back. Neither, I imagine, would he want it; being supported by the anti-vax community seems to pay rather better.
He remains struck off because he is still in the early stages of getting his license back, and his paper remains retracted to protect the editor's job. The ombudsman couldn't even give a clear reason why the paper remains retracted.
"He won't apply for his license back" – You wish.
Let's have a bet, shall we Jake? Ten US dollars – to the charity of your or my choice – says he won't formally apply for his license back by the end of 2017.
Will you put your money where your mouth is?
lol no.
OK. I'll give you until 2018. Or do you not have the courage of your convictions?
Wakefield will never apply for his license back, because he (and you) know he'd never get it. (Or if he applied, he'd abandon the process halfway through for some imaginary reason, then play the martyr and conspiracy cards.)
You're hallucinating if you still think I will take that seriously.
crank dawg on October 28, 2017 at 2:49 pm said:
Wow. I thought you were a true believer, Jake.
But, it seems that Rebecca Fisher just called you out and you folded. Kinda like all the anti-vaxxers when it comes to making decisions about the lives of children.
I haven't had one anti-vaxxer in my clinic stick to their deluded guns after asking them would you rather bet on your kid being 'fine' or catching Polio, or Measles, or Varicella Meningitis?
They fold, just like you did, when their child is staring them in the face and the specter of death is tangibly extending his reach to the innocent on the exam table.
For the anti-vaxxers, you ought to remember, doctors are not the lap-dogs of big pharma. We are servants of Thanatos, Anubis, the Reaper, the god of death. We hear his call and feel his chill breath upon our necks every day. Our job is to prolong life, so that it is sweetest when our master severs the soul from the body. Innocent life is devoid of such succor.
You disrupt the great cycle with your anti-vaxxer quackery.
Hans Litten on August 11, 2016 at 3:54 pm said:
You think you will be employed in this arena until 2017 – 2018 ?
(paid Pharma Harma opposition & apologist for Hg-enocide)
Very optimistic on your part I'd say , given the appalling job you do .
Jos on September 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm said:
Funny………..where to next after a career terrorising innocent people on the internet……….
I haven't been here in many months and ole Rebecca is chiming away …..Yawn:)
Sheri on August 10, 2016 at 7:08 pm said:
Important to note (and research for yourself) that Walker -Smith spent over a half a million on legal fees fighting the fraudulent claims against him. Most people don't have that sort of money. Wakefield did not.
Besides, nobody could have predicted how a court would rule on the disciplinary panel's findings.
Yes he did. Or if he didn't then, he does now.
Only having it then was when it mattered.
cam on August 12, 2016 at 6:02 pm said:
It might be helpful to read what Dr. Wakefield has said about this issue of Legal Aid Board funding: "Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. A LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent."
Lawrence on August 14, 2016 at 9:17 pm said:
So, where do you land on this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/robert-de-niro-compares-donald-trump-taxi-driver-character-he-n630136?cid=sm_fb
It's disappointing. I like Robert De Niro and respect him a lot – not just for his vaccine comments, but in general as well. He's very talented.
Hollywood seems to be pretty unanimous in its support of Crooked Hillary, and De Niro's no exception.
Pingback: Nico LaHood, Ditch The Dems and Board The Trump Train! - Autism Investigated
Pingback: The Lancet Acknowledges Dr. Andrew Wakefield Is Cleared
Dennis Picknett on January 15, 2017 at 3:45 pm said:
Whatever the details of the GMC ruling the following is plain to see:
1. Andrew Wakefield is a genuine compassionate person concerned about Autism and it's causes. He's not faking that.
2.The findings of the retracted paper are not in question: Yes, there are unique bowel dysfuction associated with Autism and MMR is causally implicated (Dr William Thompson of the CDC admits to this and many children have been compensated for Neuro-developmental damage).
3. The only outright fraud came from the easily disproven allegations and twisted cherry picking of Brian Deer.
4.There is a very real epidemic of Autism and no worthwhile studies to disprove an association with vaccines (the existing studies trumpeted as 'disproof' are either fraudulent or incapable of detecting the quite small signal from the link).
5. The climate of career-fear over being 'Wakefielded' stops proper objective research into the vaccine/autism association.
Do anti-vaxxers believe that Polio is real? Do they think it's made up or not a threat anymore?
Is Polio seen as a moon landing hoax or a fake holocaust hoax?
Measles, mumps, rubella? Are these fake as well?
If pity the parents with children with autism, but what is the rate of autism caused by vaccines?
What is the rate of mortal complications from non-vaccinated disease?
I would choose autism of my kids death. If you child is autistic, you can still love your child. Hug them, kiss them. Having your kid DIE from complications of these diseases is catastrophic.
Pingback: Joel Harrison's Selective Paranoia: Autism Investigated's Editor Made Up MPH Degree, But Dr. Montanari's Attacker Was Just "Some Nut Case" - Autism Investigated
Leave a Reply to Eddie Unwind Cancel reply
Jake Crosby, MPH, Publishes a Letter in Annals of Internal Medicine
Glaxo-Funded Vaccine Defender in BMJ Helped Spark Opioid Epidemic
California Governor Gavin Newsom Signs SB276 Into Statewide Law
August is National Immunization Victims and Injuries Awareness Month!
CHELSEA'S REVENGE FOR 2016: Vimeo To Censor Vaccine Injury Videos
RIP Jeremy – Age 19, Vaccine Victim and Son of a Longtime Follower
GARDINER'S REVENGE: Disgraced ex-NYT Reporter Erased HuffPo Vaccine Injury Stories
Hannah Poling's Father Breaks Silence to Promote Libertarian and Conservative Ethics
David Kirby Speaks Out About Huffington Post Vaccine Injury Censorship
The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read
© Copyright 2020 - Autism Investigated
Prana Theme by DesignOrbital ⋅ WordPress


text:
Meet Jeanna Sulzer – Kiss Country's Latest Caught in the Act Award Recipient
Bristol Published: December 29, 2022
User Provided
Each week, Gary and Bristol shine the light on one of our local residents who help to make Kiss Country the greatest place in the world to live, and this week, our recipient is Jeanna Sulzer.
When I saw this week's nomination letter, which was submitted by Francey Harris, I just knew we had to get in contact with Jeanna. There's something special about a person who does good deeds and wants no recognition for them.
Just take a look at her nomination:
Jeanna is a prime example of that quiet friend that's watching from afar and then acts on the need. She wants no recognition for her good and selfless deeds. Jeanna loves with all she has and shares anything and everything unconditionally. Jeanna has a heart of gold and if she knows of a need or thinks of a need she will deliver on it very discreetly. A year and a half ago my husband was home on hospice. It was just a matter of time, so some of our children and their littles were staying with us in our home. One evening someone opened the door to go outside and caught Jeanna unloading groceries on our porch. Noone had asked her to do this. She was trying to not get caught but well it happened. She said she figured with all the littles we could use extra breakfast foods and a supply of beverages.
Jeanna always has her plate full helping out numerous family members and friends and never complains. Doing all this while running her small business!
She once told me that God had it all in His plan for her, so she tells Him, "bring it on Lord and let's see what we can do!"
I truly admire and respect this sweet lady and don't know of anyone more deserving.
Thank you for being so amazing, Jeanna! And because you've been "Caught in the Act," the gang at Silver Star has a $100 gift certificate for you and you're also getting a gift card good for a Tubb's X-treme King Cake just in time for Mardi Gras!
Click here to nominate someone for the Caught In The Act Award
Take a listen to the phone call we made to Jeanna to let her know that she was this week's Kiss Country Caught in the Act Award recipient.
Former Recipients of the Kiss Country Caught in the Act Award
The 10 Best Places to Day Drink in Shreveport-Bossier City
Warning: Here are the Top 10 Most Stolen Vehicles in Louisiana
Filed Under: caught in the act, jeanna sulzer
Categories: Featured, Gary & Bristol, Videos
Aaron Wallace Is This Week's Caught in the Act Recipient
Amber Bradford Is This Week's Caught in the Act Recipient
Chase Hartley Is This Week's Caught in the Act Recipient
Angela Baker Is This Week's Caught in the Act Recipient
Vickie Bickham Is Latest to Be Caught in the Act
Jared Garland Is This Week's Caught in the Act Recipient
Dwayne Ramsey Is This Week's Caught in the Act Recipient
Meet Theresa Haigler – Kiss Country's Latest Caught in the Act Award Recipient
Alicia Lockhart Gets This Week's Caught in the Act Award

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Real Estate Fraud & White Collar Crime in Costa Rica
Big scams involving real estate, investments, contract bribery, and banking are rampant in Costa Rica, but do not typically affect tourists.
However if you're thinking about moving there know that the U.S. department of State rated Costa Rica as one of the worst places in the world for protecting the legal rights and interests of foreign residents and expats.
If you're thinking about moving to or investing in Costa Rica you should educate yourself very carefully, hire a lawyer and hire an accountant. Then hire a private detective to do a background check on the lawyer and accountant before the lawyer and accountant check into any financial dealings you're considering.
Real estate scams, Ponzi and pyramid schemes – you name it and it's going full blast in Costa Rica. Gambling is legal in Costa Rica and it's a prime location for internet companies operating offshore gambling sites providing illegal online gaming in the U.S. Recent prosecutions in the U.S. haven't even made a dent.
Banking laws are lax and immense amounts of money are laundered and hidden in the system. Back in 2009, the banks themselves got into the fraud business when a Mexican chain stole billions of dollars from the Costa Rican people by offering high rates of return on savings accounts, collecting the deposits then simply closing their doors.
Corruption in Costa Rica
Preventing Theft
National Parks & Reserves Under Siege
Unexpected Expatriate
Crime Tips for Photo, Video & Content Pros in Costa Rica
Con Artists and Rip-offs in Costa Rica
Violent Crime in Costa Rica
Terrorism in Costa Rica
What If You're a Victim?
Justice in Costa Rica
Crime Against Costa Ricans


[Nehemiah 1] God's chosen people were called to witness against idolatry, but too often they themselves succumbed and became idolaters. God sent them to Babylon, the fountainhead of idolatry, to take the "gold cure." They returned repudiating idolatry. Their restoration was incomplete, however. They were not free from this time on until the time of the Roman Empire. The New Testament opened with them under the rule of Rome.
Three men played important roles in the rebuilding of Jerusalem. There was Zerubbabel, the prince, who represented the political side. Then there was Ezra, the priest, and finally Nehemiah, the layman. The king, the priest, and the prophet actually failed to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and cleanse the temple, so God raised up Nehemiah, whom we designate a layman…. We need men like Nehemiah.
Nehemiah believed in watching and working. He also believed in working and praying. Watch and pray, or work and pray, are the words that characterize this man. He had a good government job in Persia. He was cupbearer to the king. He was a good, moral, honest man. He could have remained in Persia, but if he had, he would not have been in the record of God. We would never have heard of him.
J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, © 1981 by J. Vernon McGee.


text:
Justia Dockets & Filings Eighth Circuit Arkansas Eastern District Rhodes et al v. Kroger Co et al Filing 23
Rhodes et al v. Kroger Co et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion to Remand to State Court. This action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/24/2015. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION KYLE RHODES, individually and as plaintiff class representative; WESLEY ATWOOD, individually and as plaintiff class representative; and SAMANTHA HUDON, individually and as plaintiff class representative v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:15CV000312 JLH KROGER CO.; ANDREA TYSON; and PATRICK SCHERREY DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Kyle Rhodes, Wesley Atwood, and Samantha Hudon brought this putative class action on behalf of customers of 32 Arkansas Kroger stores in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, against Kroger Co. and two of its Arkansas district managers, Andrea Tyson and Patrick Scherrey. Kroger offers discounts to customers who apply for and use a Kroger Plus Card. These discounts are not available to customers who do not have a Kroger Plus Card. Further, one day a week Kroger offers Kroger Card customers over age 55 an additional discount of five percent. The plaintiffs contend that Kroger's actions violate Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-501(a)(2),1 which makes it unlawful for any person or corporation willfully to fail to grant any purchaser of a manufactured product a discount that is granted to other purchasers of like quantities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek between $200 and $1,000 for each purchase, which represents the civil penalty provided in Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-501(b)(1). 1 In several places the complaint references "Act 183." Act 183 of 1903 is codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-501. The complaint alleges that Tyson and Scherrey are district managers of approximately 14 and 18 Arkansas Kroger stores, respectively, and that they were responsible for the discount programs and compliance with Arkansas law. The defendants removed the action, arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), confers jurisdiction upon this Court to hear the case. In the alternative, the defendants contend that the district managers are fraudulently joined, so this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand to the state court based on the local controversy exception; and they deny that the district managers are fraudulently joined. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to remand is granted. I. Congress enacted CAFA in 2005 so that federal courts could preside over interstate cases of national importance. Westerfield v. Indep. Processing, LLC, 621 F.3d 819, 822 (8th Cir. 2010). CAFA grants federal jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 in the aggregate, any class member and any defendant are citizens of different states, and there are at least 100 class members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The burden is on the removing party to establish that these requirements are met. Westerfield, 621 F.3d at 823. Kroger is an Ohio corporation. See Document #1 at 4. The named plaintiffs are citizens of Arkansas. Document #2 at 2-3. Therefore, CAFA's minimum diversity requirement is met. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). The remaining requirements also are met, as the plaintiffs concede. Document #10 at 2. Once the party seeking removal establishes the requirements for CAFA jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the party seeking remand to establish an exception. Westerfield, 621 F.3d at 822-23. 2 Here, the plaintiffs allege that the local controversy exception applies. The relevant portion of CAFA provides: A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph (2)-(A)(i) over a class action in which– (I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed; (II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant-(aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class; (bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and (cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and (III) principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and (ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons; or (B) two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4). This "is a narrow exception that was carefully drafted to ensure that it does not become a jurisdictional loophole." SEN. REP. NO. 109-14 at 39 (2005). Doubt as to whether the exception applies is resolved against the party seeking remand. Westerfield, 621 F.3d at 823. It is undisputed that all of the injuries occurred in Arkansas and that no other class asserting the same or similar facts has been filed in the past three years. See Document #1 at 9-10; Document 3 #9 at 1. The issues therefore concern whether the requirements of section 1332(d)(4)(A)(I) and (II)(aa) and (bb) are met. The first issue is whether more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of Arkansas. The Eighth Circuit has held that plaintiffs can prove this requirement by affidavit or statistically significant surveys or by redefining the class as only local citizens. Hood v. Glister-Mary Lee Corp., 785 F.3d 263, 266 (8th Cir. 2015). The proposed class here is limited to customers of 32 Arkansas Kroger stores. The plaintiffs have submitted the affidavits of two marketing experts who state that in light of the nature of the items sold at Kroger and the location of the stores, the percentage of the shoppers who are Arkansas citizens far exceeds two-thirds. Document #9-1 & 2. The defendants argue that the affidavits are inadequate because they do not address the issue of what percent of shoppers had no Kroger Card, but the complaint defines the class to include all persons age 18 or older who were customers of the 32 Kroger stores during the three years preceding the filing of the complaint.2 Document #2 at 16 ¶ 93. Even if the class is limited to customers who were denied a discount, the class would include all customers age 55 and under inasmuch as customers above that age have been allowed a discount not available to younger customers, and there is no doubt that more than two-thirds of these potential class members are citizens of Arkansas. In addition, to invoke the local controversy exception, the plaintiff must name a local defendant "from whom significant relief is sought" and "whose alleged conduct forms a significant 2 The plaintiffs do not explain how the class can include all customers of the 32 Kroger stores. Presumably, that class definition is based on the allegation in the complaint that the Kroger Card policies "coerce customers to give defendants their personal information so that Kroger [can] track personal purchases and build a valuable database and marketing tool." Document #2 at 6 ¶ 21. No claim for relief is alleged, however, for this alleged economic coercion. 4 basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(II)(aa) and (bb). "CAFA itself does not describe the type or character of conduct that would form a 'significant basis' of plaintiffs' claims or define the term 'significant relief.'" Woods v. Standard Ins. Co., 771 F.3d 1257, 1265 (10th Cir. 2014). And unlike the two-thirds citizenship requirement, the Eighth Circuit has not defined the scope of the significant defendant requirement. See Hood, 785 F.3d at 266. In Westerfield, however, it adopted the Third Circuit's interpretation that "[w]hether the [in-state] defendant's alleged conduct is significant cannot be decided without comparing it to the alleged conduct of all the Defendants . . ." Westerfield, 621 F.3d at 825 (quoting Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 157 (3rd Cir. 2009)). The Tenth Circuit, following general principals of statutory interpretation, looked to Congress' purpose in enacting CAFA to discern the meanings of "significant basis" and "significant relief." Woods, 771 F.3d at 1265. The court interpreted the terms strictly "so that plaintiffs and their attorneys may not defeat CAFA jurisdiction by routinely naming at least one state citizen as a defendant, irrespective of whether that defendant is actually a primary focus of the litigation." Id. Such an interpretation comports with Congress' intention that the local controversy exception be "narrow" and with the Eighth Circuit's holding that doubts must be resolved against the party seeking remand. See Westerfield, 621 F.3d at 823; SEN. REP. NO. 109-14, at 39 (2005).3 3 The Senate Judiciary Committee report on the significant defendant requirement, cited by the defendants and by the Tenth Circuit, provides an example applicable in this case. Woods, 771 F.3d at 1266; Document #18 at 6 (citing SEN. REP. No. 109-14, at 39 (2005)). In that example, the plaintiffs alleged that a foreign insurance company misrepresented its policies but named a local agent of the company as a defendant, claiming application of the local controversy exception. But according to the report, this local agent would only have contact with some of the class members and would not be a person from whom significant relief was sought by the entire class. Rather, the 5 The complaint alleges: 41. The [district managers] are and were in charge of and responsible for their Stores' discounting, rebating and compliance with Arkansas law . . . . *** 43. The [district managers] are and were in charge of and responsible for directly and indirectly controlling their Stores' practices and procedures affecting sales, pricing, discounting, and rebating of manufactured products at the Arkansas Kroger Stores they managed and which are the subject of this Complaint. 44. . . . the [district managers] were officers, directors, employees, or other persons who were employed to act on behalf of Kroger. 45. With respect to the factual and other allegations of this complaint, the [district managers] were agents or officers of Kroger who had duties of such responsibility that the [district managers] conduct reasonably may be assumed to represent the policy of Kroger. 46. . . . The [district managers] were engaged in the sale of manufactured products individually and as agents of Kroger . . . . *** 49. The [district managers] performed or caused to be performed all of their Stores' violations of Act 183 which are the subject of this Complaint. 50. The [district managers] willfully refused or failed to allow or caused the willful refusal or failure to allow Plaintiffs all rebates and discounts which they and their stores granted to other purchasers, for cash, of like quantities of . . . manufactured products. Document #2 at 9-10. With the notice of removal the defendants filed affidavits from Tyson and Scherrey stating: 3. Decisions about the discounted prices associated with the use of the Kroger Card loyalty program are made by Kroger's corporate office. 4. I have no discretion in overriding pricing from Kroger's corporate office with respect to the prices associated with the Kroger Card loyalty program. insurance company would be from whom significant relief was sought. And because the local agent would have been an "isolated role player in the alleged scheme implemented by the insurance company," the agent's alleged conduct would not be a significant basis for the claims asserted. 6 5. I have no decision-making power with respect to pricing discounts pursuant to the Kroger Card loyalty program. 6. The stores for which I act as district manager must use the discounted prices associated with the use of the Kroger card loyalty program which are mandated by Kroger's corporate office. 7. I have no discretion in overriding pricing from Kroger's corporate office with respect to the prices associated with the senior discount which is associated with the Kroger Card loyalty program. 8. I have no decision-making power with respect to the amount of discounting offered to seniors which is associated with the Kroger Card loyalty program. Document #1 at 208-11. These affidavits directly contradict the allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleges that the district managers control prices and discounts in the stores under their management; the affidavits say that the discounted prices are set by the corporate office and that the district managers have no discretion over them. According to the complaint, the alleged conduct of the district managers would form a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims because the district managers made the pricing decisions about which the plaintiffs complain. See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-501(a)(2) (making it "unlawful for any person . . . to . . . [w]illfully . . . fail to allow to any person . . . discounts granted by them to other purchasers . . . ." But, according to the affidavits, decisions about discounted prices were made by Kroger's corporate office and the district managers had no discretion to override them. If that is true, the conduct of the district managers would not be a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims; indeed, it would be difficult to see how the district managers could have any liability under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-501(a)(2) if they had no authority over the discounts because they could not have willfully refused to allow the plaintiffs the discounts granted to other customers. 7 The plaintiffs argue that the Court must restrict its analysis to the complaint in deciding whether "significant relief is sought" from the district managers and whether the "alleged conduct" of the district managers forms a "significant basis" for the plaintiffs' claims. Document #10 at 1115. The Eighth Circuit has not decided whether evidence outside the complaint may be considered. Some courts have considered evidence extrinsic to the complaint without expressly addressing the issue of whether it was proper to do so. Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1167 (11th Cir. 2006); Summerhill v. Terminix, Inc., No. 4:08CV00659 GTE, 2008 WL 4809448 at *3 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 30, 2008); Green v. SuperShuttle Int'l, Inc., No. 09-2129 ADM/JJG, 2010 WL 419964, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2010); Casey v. Int'l Paper Co., No. 3:07CV421/RV/MD, 2008 WL 8854569, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2008). But the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held that districts courts may not look beyond the allegations in the complaint in making these determinations. Coleman v. Estes Exp. Lines, Inc., 631 F.3d 1010, 1015-17 (9th Cir. 2011); Coffey v. Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold, 581 F.3d 1240, 1244-45 (10th Cir. 2009). In Coffey, the defendants contended that the local defendant had no assets to satisfy a judgment, so it could not be considered a defendant from whom "significant relief" was sought. Coffey, 581 F.3d at 1244. The Tenth Circuit rejected that argument: The statutory language is unambiguous, and a "defendant from whom significant relief is sought" does not mean a "defendant from whom significant relief may be obtained." There is nothing in the language of the statute that indicates Congress intended district courts to wade into the factual swamp of assessing the financial viability of a defendant as part of this preliminary consideration[.] Id. at 1245. Coleman presented the same issue as Coffey but also an additional issue. In Coleman, the plaintiffs were employees of a California entity, Estes West, which was wholly owned by a Virginia 8 entity, Estes Express. The plaintiffs commenced an action in a California state court alleging that Estes West and Estes Express violated California's wage and hour laws. The defendants removed the action to federal court under CAFA, and the plaintiffs moved to remand to state court based on the local controversy exception. The defendants opposed remand arguing, first, that Estes West had insufficient funds to satisfy a judgment and therefore was not a defendant from whom significant relief was sought, and, second, that Estes Express had almost complete control over the operations of Estes West so that Estes West's alleged conduct did not form a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed class. Coleman, 631 F.3d at 1012-14. Here, the defendants have submitted affidavits that directly contradict plaintiffs' allegations regarding the conduct of the local defendants. These affidavits, if true, establish that the conduct of the local defendants is not a significant basis for the claims alleged in the complaint. Neither in Coffey nor in Coleman did the defendants contradict the allegations in the complaint. The analysis in both of those cases assumed that the allegations in the complaint were true; the arguments went to the issue of whether the Court could consider facts regarding the local defendants that actually were unrelated to whether significant relief was sought from them or their conduct formed a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims. In Coffey and in Coleman the defendants argued that the local defendants lacked the resources to pay a judgment. That fact, even if true, was irrelevant to the question of whether significant relief was sought from them. In Coleman, Estes West was the entity that employed the plaintiffs and it was the entity that allegedly violated California's wage and hour laws, so, even if it was following orders from Estes Express, its conduct was still a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims. Id. at 1020. It is not apparent in either case that the court needed to reach the issue of whether to consider evidence outside the complaint to rule on the issues. 9 The rationale in Coleman, however, was not that Estes Express' control of the operations of Estes East was irrelevant. Instead, the decision in Coleman was based largely on the conclusion that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, a district court may not look outside the complaint to determine whether the alleged conduct of the local defendant forms a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims or whether the proposed class seeks significant relief from the local defendant. The court explained: We begin with the words of the statute. United States v. Nader, 542 F.3d 713, 717 (9th Cir. 2008). "When the words of a statute are unambiguous . . . this first canon is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete." Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 117 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). We hold that CAFA's language unambiguously directs the district court to look only to the complaint in deciding whether the criteria set forth in § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa) and (bb) are satisfied. The first criterion is whether "significant relief is sought " from a defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the suit is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa) (emphasis added). The word "sought" focuses attention on the plaintiff's claim for relief—that is, on what is "sought" in the complaint—rather than on what may or may not be proved by evidence. The second criterion is whether the defendant's " alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class." Id. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb) (emphasis added). Like the word "sought," the word "alleged" makes clear that the second criterion is based on what is alleged in the complaint rather than on what may or may not be proved by evidence. There is a revealing contrast between the language in subsections (aa) and (bb) and the language in subsection (cc). All three subsections specify criteria that must be satisfied before the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies. Subsection (cc) requires that the defendant from whom relief is sought and whose alleged conduct is at issue be a defendant "who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed." Id. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(cc) (emphasis added). Unlike the words "sought" and "alleged," used in subsections (aa) and (bb), the word "is," used in subsection (cc), indicates that an actual fact must be established. Id. at 1015. The court also explained: 10 [F]actual determinations under subsections (aa) and (bb) are likely to be more expensive and time-consuming than factual determinations of citizenship and amount-in-controversy. Congress was particularly concerned that subject matter jurisdiction determinations be made quickly under CAFA. A party must seek permission from the court of appeals to bring an appeal from a district court's remand decision under CAFA, and such permission is granted sparingly. Coleman [v. Estes Express], 627 F.3d [1096] at 1100 [(9th Cir. 2010)]; Coll. of Dental Surgeons of P.R. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 585 F.3d 33, 37-39 (1st Cir. 2009). Then, if permission is granted, the court of appeals is required to render its decision in sixty days. See 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2). * * * A factual determination whether the "alleged conduct" of the local defendant "forms a significant basis for the claims asserted" by plaintiffs under subsection (bb) is particularly likely to be expensive and time-consuming. Such a determination necessarily implicates the merits of the case. We see nothing in CAFA that indicates a congressional intention to turn a jurisdictional determination concerning the local defendant's "alleged conduct" into a mini-trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claims. Id. at 1016. It would not be true, as the Ninth Circuit seems to assume, that looking beyond the complaint to determine whether the conduct of a local defendant forms a significant basis for the plaintiffs' claims necessarily would turn into a mini-trial on the merits. In some cases discovery demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact; and discovery focused on narrow jurisdictional issues need not be expensive or time-consuming. Even if the facts are disputed, resolution of the dispute need not always be expensive and time-consuming. Here, a modest amount of discovery likely would establish conclusively whether the Kroger Card discounts are decided by Kroger's corporate office or by the district managers. If in fact the discounts are decided by the Kroger corporate office and the district managers have no authority to vary from those corporate decisions, refusing to look beyond the complaint could result in remand of this action to state court based on false allegations. 11 Still, Congress wrote the statute, and the courts do not have the privilege of re-writing it. The critical statutory term is "alleged conduct," not "actual conduct." Therefore, in determining whether the district managers are persons "whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed class," the Court will not look beyond the complaint. Based solely on the complaint, the alleged conduct of the district managers forms a significant basis for the claims of the proposed class. The remaining issue is whether the class seeks "significant relief" from the district managers. For the reasons explained by the Ninth Circuit in Coleman, that issue will be decided based on the allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleges that "the [district managers] are independently and jointly and severally liable for all conduct violating Act 183 which they performed or directly or indirectly caused to be performed in the name of Kroger" and that "the [district managers] are personally liable for all sums payable . . . ." Document #2 at 10 ¶¶ 47-48. Assuming that the alleged conduct of the district managers forms a significant basis for the claims of the proposed class, one of the district managers potentially could be liable for greater than fifty percent of the total amount sought by the class. By any commonsense standard, significant relief is sought from at least one of the district managers, which is all that CAFA requires. Cf. Kaufman v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 076160 (MLC), 2010 WL 2674130, at *6 (D.N.J. June 30, 2010) (holding that the proposed class sought significant relief from the local defendant which would have been responsible for 13% of the insurance policies at issue and 44% of all of the claims paid out by the defendants). Finally, even if the local controversy exception does apply under CAFA, the defendants argue that removal was proper under ordinary principles of diversity jurisdiction because Kroger is a citizen of a different state from the named plaintiffs, the district managers were fraudulently 12 joined, and the amount in controversy for the claims of each plaintiff exceeds $75,000. In the Eighth Circuit, "if there is a 'colorable' cause of action – that is, if the state law might impose liability on the resident defendant under the facts alleged – then there is no fraudulent joinder." Filla v. Norfolk So. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in the original). Here, as explained above, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, state law might impose liability on the district managers. Therefore, the district managers are not fraudulently joined, which means that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. CONCLUSION The Court has reluctantly concluded that this case must be remanded. As a matter of statutory interpretation, determining whether the requirements of section 1332(d)(4)(A)(II)(aa) and (bb) are met may not be based on evidence outside of the complaint. Based solely on the complaint, "significant relief is sought by members of the proposed class" from the district managers, and the "alleged conduct" of the district managers "forms a significant basis for the claims of the proposed plaintiff class." The Court's reluctance to reach this conclusion is two-fold. First, restricting the analysis to the "alleged conduct" in the complaint is fraught with the risk of creating a jurisdictional loophole that will transform the local controversy exception from a narrow exception to a broad one, contrary to the apparent intent of Congress. See SEN. REP. NO. 109-14 at 39 (2005). Secondly, and most importantly, the requirement of looking at the "alleged conduct" rather than the "actual conduct" may necessitate turning a blind eye to the truth when the truth could be easily ascertained and might even be undisputed after a bit of discovery. Even so, the statute says what it says, not what a court thinks it ought to say. 13 The plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED. Document #9. This action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2015. __________________________________ J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14


Greeting from New Mexico Postcard, available at Legends' General Store.
New Mexico Legends was the first "chapter" of Legends of America because of my love of the Moreno Valley area of New Mexico.
Spending every summer in the Moreno Valley with my grandparents, I fell in love with the majestic peaks, peaceful silences, and rich history. I vividly remember huddling around the potbelly stove in my grandparents' old miner's cabin in Idlewild, watching papa prepare his tackle box to on his way to Eagle Nest Lake and grandma cooking breakfast on the cast iron stove.
Grandma was always taking us to see the sites of the area, from Elizabethtown, to drinking the cool waters from the log at Clear Creek, watching the construction crews when Angel Fire was being built, and exploring the old Klondike Mine in Idlewild, where my sister (shame on her) carved her name into the wall in 1967. This publication is truly a labor of love and a tribute to my deceased grandparents, Ben and Irene Foster of Stinett, Texas.
A nostalgia buff from birth, grandma perpetuated that interest and I've always known that I longed to learn more about the history of this beautiful valley and to share my enthusiasm with all of you that are fortunate to live there and visit.
High Country Legends features stories on the Maxwell Land Grant, Clay Allison, Eagle Nest Lake, Elizabethtown, Day Trips, and much, much more. The content focuses on New Mexico's rich history and features many Vintage Photographs.
Enjoy the Land of Enchantment!
The 1830's San Francisco Church in Golden is one of the most photographed sites along the Turquoise Trail. Photo by Kathy Weiser-Alexander. Click for prints, downloads and products.
Little has changed at the Taos Pueblo in the last century. Kathy Weiser-Alexander, 2008. Click for prints, downloads and products.
Las Vegas, New Mexico today, Kathy Weiser-Alexander.
Old Company House, Madrid, New Mexico. Photo by Kathy Weiser-Alexander.


Joe graduated from the University of Calgary medical school in 2008 and completed family practice residency in Vancouver in 2010. He also obtained a Masters of Health Sciences in community medicine and epidemiology at UBC in 2015.
Joe's practice interests include primary mental health care services and pediatric medicine.
Joe is married with 2 small children. He enjoys an active lifestyle including competing in marathons, kayaking, biking and skiing.
The doctors each have a standard schedule that is the basis for [YOUR CLINIC NAME] hours. Doctors may choose to alter their hours at their own discretion, providing the other doctors and staff with as much notice as possible.
The booking schedule itself is found in [the clinic EMR], which reflects any requested changes from the standard schedule on a day-to-day basis.
This schedule is an example that was built in MS Excel format.
(Alternatives: Physicians (list names) are all shareholders in [YOUR CLINIC NAME] and operate under a shareholder agreement. Each physician collected their own fees and pays a portion of clinic expenses according to terms of the shareholder agreement).
All other clinicians practicing at [YOUR CLINIC NAME], have a contract that states roles, responsibilities and rate of pay. Physicians are paid based on a percentage fees collected for their services. Each physician billing under MSP will complete an assignment of payment form so that [YOUR CLINIC NAME] can collect fees from MSP, ICBC, WSBC etc.
Sample contracts developed by the Division of Family Practice can be found at this link.
The [Practice Manager] is responsible for maintaining all clinician contracts.
When the doctors are away from the clinic for holidays or other absences, they often arrange for a qualified physician (called a 'locum') to provide relief coverage.
Shareholder physicians establish locum arrangements under a private arrangement between themselves and the locum.
All Locum physicians employed at [YOUR CLINIC NAME] have a contract with their employing physician stating the responsibilities of the locum and the employing physician, the duration of the locum, and the rate of pay. It is the responsibility of the employing physician to maintain the locum contract.
Sample strategies to recruit and maintain locum arrangement and sample contracts and be found in the Division of Family Practice Recruitment & Retention Toolkit at this link.
The Rural General Practitioner Locum Program (RGPLP) helps rural general practitioners (GPs) secure subsidized periods of leave from their practices for purposes such as Continuing Medical Education (CME) and vacation.
Please see the policy and process about accessing this program at the following link.
Many Divisions of Family Practice have developed tools to assist with clinician recruiting. Many tools can be found on this page.
Please see the Practice Toolkit Update Log to view the latest updates.
To be notified of any toolkit updates, please sign up here.
Need to ask a question about the Family Practice Toolkit? Please send us an email.
Have some feedback for us about the Family Practice Toolkit? Complete this feedback form.


We've had a bit of a slow day today as we have one very poorly baby! After pretty much zero sleep last night, I decided to forgo the normal chores this morning and do some baking instead! A great way to cheer oneself up and instantly fill the house with beautiful smells of home-cooked goodness. Even Noah cheered up at the sight of something good baking in the oven.
I decided to make some golden syrup cookies which were so simple to do, a child could literally throw this mix together and get it right.
I used 125g butter, 1/4 cups caster sugar, 2 tablespoons golden syrup, 3/4 cup self-raising flour.
To make the mix I creamed the butter and sugar and then added the remaining ingredients making sure to sieve the flour.
Next, I made teaspoon sized balls of cookie batter and placed them on greased baking trays, leaving plenty of space between each ball.
I then baked them in the oven at 180C for about 10-15 mins. After they turned a beautiful golden brown colour, I took the trays out, used cookie cutters to perfect the shape of each cookie and then placed them on a wire rack to harden and cool.
I was having a play around with different ways to display the cookies and opted for a piece of lace (the same lace we used around our wedding cakes actually!) I then tied the cookies up with a neat bow. This would make such a cute party or wedding favour idea as it looks so good, tastes delicious and is so cost effective for large batches!