The Formal Complaint Against Alfredo Terrazas...
Friday, August 26th, 2005
The Formal Complaint Against State of California prosecutor Alfredo Terrazas, as prepared by the Progress in Medicine Foundation is organized into several parts:
(1) The first part is called "Were these Rules Meant to be Broken?" It lays out the California Bar Association rules for prosecutors, and details the rules Sinaiko supporters felt Terrazas broke, in detail - with Bar Opinions attached.
(2) The second part is called "Overview," and does just that.
(3) The third part is called "Background," and gives you just that.
(4) The fourth part is called "Introduction to list of Charges of Misconduct and Supporting Details."
(5) The fifth part is called "Details of the Charges," and is 52 pages long.
(6) The sixth part is called "Appendix A," and talks about the related research in the "Sinaiko" case.
(7) The seventh part is called "Appendix B" and talks about the "Samantha Simon letter." It refutes the entire letter, pointing out the outright lies Terrazas used in the Sinaiko case.
(8) The eighth part is the actual "Samantha Simon" letter. It is in PDF, so it will take several minutes to load. keep in mind that, in actuality, THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON AS "SAMANTHA SIMON, " and never was. The whole letter was "made up" from whole cloth - but was the basis for the whole prosecution against Robert Sinaiko. Shula Edlekind and I disgree on the source of the letter. She thinks it was written by a mysterious woman named Suzanne Northington, but I don't think so. I don't think Northington would have access to that much information. I suspect the letter was written by Terrazas himself, for Suzanne Northington, writing as "Samantha Simon."
Suzanne Northington was a woman whom Sinaiko had to get a "Restraining Order" against, after she started calling Sinaiko's eight year old son on the telephone. Somehow, Northington had gotten ALL of Sinaiko's telephone numbers at his home, including his son's number in his room.
(9) The ninth part is the so-called "expert witness" evaluation by Abba Terr MD. It is unusual in that normally an "expert" would be reviewing a patient chart, but Terr was reviewing the "Samantha Simon" letter, and the investigator's reports - no patient charts. He also was reviewing a lot of strange things "experts" aren't supposed to see, at all, according to the "rules" laid down by the medical board itself. As shown below:
Chapter VIII, the "Expert Reviewer Program" are the rules for "expert witnesses." Section six, about "bias," is quite revealing, for it says...
"In a deliberate effort not to bias expert witnesses, MBC's Enforcement Operations Manual instructs investigators, MCs, and DAGs to ensure that materials given to expert witnesses at the outset of their review do not contain information that might bias the expert (such as prior disciplinary action or malpractice history of the subject physician) or the opinion of any other physician who has reviewed the case. The manual directs investigators, MCs, and DIDO DAGs to ensure that the reports the CCU reviewer and district office medical consultant do not contain explicit opinions about whether the subject physician's conduct departed from the standard of care."