To transcribe or not to transcribe- That is the question ?
Human Justice and its version of Truth have journeyed on the same evolutionary path as the art of transcription and have on many occasions throughout the history of man wandered off that questionably righteous path.
The ‘art’some might argue leaves it open to individual creation and interpretation but the hope and belief of humanity is based on the absolute conviction that it is a science and one which follows the rules, methodology and conclusions of a rigorously honest and at the very least seemingly rational process.
The fact, therefore, that critical parts of the 23 transcripts in the case of New Jersey V Dr.Richard Kaul, Docket Number---- have been willfully altered and some allegedly lost might be an initially overwhelming thought to comprehend as the implications and consequences attack the ‘belief’ that most people have in the legal system which is, in my opinion, a term improperly aligned with the word Justice. It is the same experience that children have when they stumble upon the truth about Santa Claus and then depending on their cultural heritage the Easter Bunny. But eventually they accept it as fact, question their parents about honesty and integrity, develop a healthy sense of skepticism and move on.
April 2nd 2012- The New Jersey Medical Board files a ‘verified’ complaint full of fictitious easter bunny type allegations aiming to suspend my medical licence and abusing their most favoured catch-all phrase ‘imminent danger’ which means absolutely nothing but which allows them to arbitrarily prosecute cases just almost exactly in the manner of the prosecutors general during the salem witch hunts. The political opportunism and rousing of the public with inflammatory rhetoric that occurred in case number docket in April 2012 was an exercise taken out of the infamous events in MA and more recently the tinkering with justice during the McCarthy era.
June 13th 2012- There is a full hearing before the ‘medical board’ in Trenton, the site of another great battle of Independence and one which levered to turn the tide of the Revolutionary War. I arrive at The Richard Hughes Justice Complex at 9am, pass successfully through security and take the escalator to the first floor where at 915am I meet my attorney, Robert Conroy, in the coffee shop and am informed that he has brought his own transcriptionist as in his words ‘they have a habit of playing with the transcripts’. I had never heard of such conduct in legal proceedings but it struck me as significant although its relevance to my case would not become apparent till August 2013. The hearing commences at 10am and concludes at 6pm and is reported interestingly and only by Susan Livio for the New Jersey Star Ledger who describes the hearing as ‘tense’ with a quote from Robert Conroy that ‘"the medical board wants to get Dr. Kaul’s license by hook or by crook," and attempted to obtain a comment from me as I walked out of the hearing in complete disgust wondering where Santa Claus lived. It goes without saying I said nothing.
April 9th 2013- the hearing before Administrative Law Judge, The Honourable Howard Solomon commences at 33 Washington Street, Newark, New Jersey with the state represented by deputy attorney general, Doreen Hafner, Esq and Charles Shaw, Esq representing my interests. Judge Solomon spends the first 2 days admonishing Ms.Hanfer and culling the 22,000 documents with she had armed herself and which I am sure in her mind was intended to distract and intimidate. It did not work.
April 11th-May 2nd 2013- Dr.Gregory Przybylski is one of the so called experts retained by and paid for with the taxes belonging to the people of New Jersey. His testimony commences and the words of Robert Conroy are ringing in my ears’they have a habit of playing with the transcripts’and so I retain my own transcriptionist who attends these critical dates with the most critical being that of May 2nd when Przybylski is cross examined by Charles Shaw, Esq and is forced to admit that NO STANDARDS currently exist for the training required for the performance of minimally invasive spine surgery, an admission that pulls the lynch pin out of the states case against me leading to the collapse of their legal house of cards and therefore their case in its entirety. The significance of this moment in court is fully appreciated by Doreen Hafner, Esq who turns beet red and whose left hand starts twitching nervously. This forensic cross examination had exposed the fundamental weakness of the main plank of their argument which centered on their false allegation that I was not properly trained and their cases ending miscalculation that their own expert would provide the words for the fracturing of the plank never entered their legal or strategic considerations. In courtroom 7 at 33 Washington Street, Newark, NJ in front of Judge Howard Solomon on fateful day of May 2nd sat a senior journalist by the name of Walter Eisner who had flown in from Minneapolis to report for Orthopedics This Week, the largest global orthopedic trade publication, and who subsequently published the seminal article ‘Spine on Trial’ which unequivocally reported the moment, word for word, when Dr.Gregory Przybylski admitted that NO STANDARDS currently exist for the training required for the performance of minimally invasive spine surgery.
‘A perfect storm’indeed. What are the chances of having the both an independent court reporter and senior orthopedic journalist in court on the day of the cross examination of the state’s star witness and his subsequent surrendering, admittedly under the probing pressure of an incisive cross examination, of the flag of truth.
There were many points at which the case should have been dismissed with May 2nd establishing itself as The Spine Turf Wars equivalent of the signing date signing of the Declaration of Independence.
August 2013- During a meeting in Manhattan between a local investigative journalist and the individual responsible for implementing my communications strategy it becomes evident that there is a significant discrepancy between on the one hand, the independent transcription of may 2nd and the Spine on Trial article and on the other, seemingly less truthful, hand the court transcription which is the only one that would have existed had it not been for the fact that I scheduled an Independent Transcriptionist. Fate.
This article is written on September 10th 2013 five days before the deadline for what is referred to in the state of New Jersey as the post trial submissions which are briefs from The Plaintiff- The New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners- and The Respondent- Dr.Richard Arjun Kaul- that Judge Howard Solomon reviews in addition to his own contemporaneously written hand notes to in order to render his final written decision and verdict on November 5th 3013. There are 23 transcripts in this legal matter- Docket Number BDS- and thus far only 9 have been provided by the court scheduled transcription service which it is important to state is an independent business contracted by the court but whose business significantly centers around work provided by the state of New Jersey. Suspicions have been raised many times about the authenticity of their transcribing particularly when testimony does not go the way the state expects or wants as happened on May 2nd with Dr.Gregory Przybylksi. There has not, until now, been the evidence to prove these suspicions and the realization by the state of New Jersey and the transcribing service, J.H. Buhren that the noose of truth is closing in explains their reluctance and refusal to provide the 16 outstanding transcripts which also include testimony from world renowned minimally invasive spine expert, Professor Solomon Kamson, who testified for Dr.Kaul during which he referred twice to Dr.Kaul as an ícon’.
September 2013- Multiple calls have been made and voice messages left by multiple interested parties to J.H.Buhren requesting transcripts with no response or the balance of any of the transcripts sent despite the September 15th deadline and most likely if one understands their business relationship with the state of New Jersey.
Why indeed would they want to jeapordise their main source of income for the sake of truth?
The answer to the question posed at the commencement of this article is:
But the next question which this episode and article raise in an obviously rhetoric manner is:
With or Without Truth?
That is the Question