Wednesday, January 22, 2020

LEGAL RAPE IN #MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION? SEEMS SO IN PRETRIAL ORDER 293, SIGNED AND AUTHORIZED BY JUDGE JOSPEH R. GOODWIN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

by Lana C. Keeton
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 – 2020  Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
Intellectual Property of Lana C. Keeton
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Volume III  Issue 1 January 22, 2020

LEGAL RAPE IN #MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION?
ASK JUDGE GOODWIN.
 HE SIGNED THE ORDER. 

Judge Joseph R. Goodwin 

SEEMS SO IN PRETRIAL ORDER 293, SIGNED AND AUTHORIZED BY
JUDGE JOSPEH R. GOODWIN,
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST 
VIRGINIA APRIL 11, 2018 ETHICON MDL-2327

 AND ASK HENRY GILBERT GARRARD III, CLAYTON CLARK, SCOTT LOVE, SHELLEY HUTSON, BRYAN AYLSTOCK, TOM CARTMELL, JOE RICE, FRED THOMPSON, JONATHAN ORENT, MARK MUELLER...THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DID!

MY OPINION: PRETRIAL ORDER 293 = LEGAL RAPE

PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY STEERING COMMITTEE
MAKES PELVIC SURGICAL MESH REMOVAL A REQUIREMENT TO BE PAID FROM THE PELVIC MESH SETTLEMENT FUNDS OF ETHICON/JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
MDL 02327 U.S. DISTRICT COURT, S.D. W.VA. under the authority of
JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, PRETRIAL ORDER 293, APRIL 11, 2018

PELVIC SURGICAL MESH REMOVAL IS A STRAWMAN
It is a COLLABORATION of Plaintiff & Corporate Defense Attorneys
to qualify to MOVE MONEY to THEMSELVES through a
IRS 468B QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND.

Synthetic Polypropylene Pelvic Surgical Mesh is a permanently implanted medical device.
It is NOT intended to be REMOVED.

PELVIC SURGICAL MESH REMOVAL IS A STRAWMAN!
30 REASONS WHY!
  1. No informed consent exists for any Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson pelvic surgical mesh to be implanted into any human.
  2. Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson pelvic surgical mesh implants are fraudulently on the market because Ethicon/J&J would only pay Dr. Ulf Ulmsten for clinical trials he performed pursuant to a written contract. Dr. Ulmsten signed the contract on February 13, 1997 agreeing all clinical trials would have good outcomes.
  3. There is no Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson protocol for removal of the pelvic surgical mesh in the instructions for use (IFU).
  4. There is no protocol for locating the Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson permanently implanted pelvic surgical mesh inside the body in the instructions for use (IFU).
  5. There is no known protocol recommended for pelvic surgical mesh removal by professional medical societies.
  6. Any and all pelvic surgical mesh removals are fishing expeditions and consequently, experimental surgical procedures.
  7. There are only a handful of qualified skilled surgeons in the U.S. who will attempt to do the surgical removal of pelvic mesh. Women travel from other countries for pelvic surgical mesh removal surgery in the U.S. because pelvic surgical mesh removal surgery is unavailable in their own countries.
  8. Insurance Companies deny coverage because the surgical mesh removal procedures are experimental.
  9. If the mesh injured patient does have insurance, will it pay for removal?
  10. Does the surgeon, if able to remove pelvic surgical mesh, accept that insurance?
  11. Mayo Clinic has a stated policy they will not treat pelvic mesh injuries if the woman patient is engaged in a lawsuit.
  12. The success and/or failure of pelvic surgical mesh removal depends on the skill of the surgeon and the overall health of each patient. Pelvic surgical mesh removal does not leave the patient uninjured because every time mesh is removed, it includes removing the patient’s own pelvic tissue which has grown into the interstices of the pelvic surgical mesh. Removing pelvic surgical mesh from the vagina is like cutting gum from hair.
  13. The constant inflammation from ongoing internal scarring is a permanent injury.
  14. Constant inflammation leads to autoimmune and other serious, potentially fatal diseases.
  15. Inflammation never ends as macrophages try to remove the polypropylene foreign body from the body.
  16. Macrophages develop into foreign body giant cells that try to digest and/or eject the pelvic surgical mesh from the body. It is impossible because of the size of the mesh itself.
  1. Small particles fall off the discontinuous loops of the edges of the pelvic surgical mesh. The particles are moved through the body in an effort to expel them from the body, exiting through the skin of all parts of the body.
  2. Most surgeons are not qualified to surgically remove surgical mesh.
  3. Most surgeons will not attempt surgical removal of mesh.
  4. As the native pelvic tissue weakens with the age of the patient, the surgical mesh does not weaken. Surgical mesh consequently moves through the body without any deterrent from the body’s own tissues.
  5. Deadly, life threatening infections from biofilms on the polypropylene surgical mesh that are antibiotic resistant, kill women over time.
  6. PTSD post traumatic stress disorder
  7. Inability to urinate
  8. Inability to defecate
  9. Inability to have sex
  10. Can not work
  11. Can not walk
  12. PAINFUL in office trimmings of delicate pelvic tissue to remove pieces & parts of pelvic surgical mesh without anesthesia are recommended by the Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson so pelvic surgical mesh removals will not be counted as a surgical procedure in the hospital.
  13. ANY pelvic surgical mesh removal removes healthy pelvic and/or vaginal tissue that has grown into the interstices of the mesh causing additional injury(ies) to the already existing injury(ies) from initial implantation.
  14.  The FINANCIAL COSTS of pelvic surgical mesh implantation is relatively low compared to the exorbitant costs of pelvic surgical mesh removal, frequently leaving the mesh injured patient in financial ruin.
DID ETHICON MDL 02327 WEST VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS STEERING COMMITTEE MAKE ANY OBJECTION TO RITUAL MESH REMOVAL MUTILATION OF 13,000 WOMEN ORDERED BY JUDGE JOSEPH GOODWIN PTO 293 APRIL 11, 2018?


WILL CORRUPT PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS BE THE
DEATH OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION?
Why do I ask these questions?

Because of various civil lawsuits against Pelvic Mesh Plaintiff’s Attorneys, CLAYTON CLARK, SCOTT LOVE and SHELLEY HUTSON, CLARK, LOVE HUTSON alleging legal malpractice and criminal indictments for fraud against a Urogynecologist, DR. CHRISTOPHER WALKER, Orlando, Florida, and a Medical Funder, WESLEY BLAKE BARBER, Detroit, Michigan by the Department of Justice.

Very Serious Stuff.

MY PERSONAL OPINION –
THE MASSIVE PELVIC MESH MDL’S HAVE BECOME A DISASTER.
1.      Outright Theft from Plaintiffs by Forced Consent to Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Pretrial Order 293, Ethicon MDL 02327.
2.      Violation of Plaintiff’s Rights to Due Process under the 5th and/or 14th Amendments
3.      Potential Mental Disorders of Plaintiff’s Attorneys in Power over all the Pelvic Mesh MDL’s Non-Steering Committee Plaintiffs Attorneys.
4.      Rampant Willful Blindness, a criminal state of mind as defined by the Supreme Court,  throughout the Multidistrict Litigations in the Federal Court System has drawn the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives, who passed HR 985 in February of 2017.    And the U.S. Senate where Senator Charles Grassley introduced legislation S. 2815 To Increase Transparency and Oversight of 3rd Party Litigation Funding, on May 10, 2018.
And the Department of Justice filing charges on May 24, 2019 against “Wesley Blake Barber, 49, of Detroit, Michigan, the owner of Surgical Assistance Inc. and Medical Funding Consultants LLC, and Christopher Walker, M.D., 49, of Orlando, Florida, and owner of MedSurg Holdings LLC, in an indictment filed in the Eastern District of New York with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and one count of violating the Travel Act.
5.      Gaslightingis used to manipulate Mesh Injured Plaintiff Clients, who are isolated, warned not to communicate anything to anyone about their lawsuit and easily abused by their own attorney because of their lack of knowledge of the law. Gaslighting is “a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.”
Usage: “Sociopaths and narcissists frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing.”
6.      Outright Theft of Plaintiffs Settlement Money by Attorneys Manipulation and Abuse of  Qualified Settlement Funds under IRS 468 B where there is no forensic accounting.
7.      Double dipping of cases. Are settlements paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs Attorneys, who don’t equitably distribute those IRS 468 B settlement funds to their own Plaintiff Clients, then placing the very same case on the docket again? QSF’s are ripe for Plaintiff Abuse.



MARK R. MUELLER, left, MUELLER LAW, 
AUSTIN, TX, and HENRY GILBERT GARRARD III,                                             right, BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD & 
ASHLEY PC, ATHENS, GA



      










It is a tragic state of affairs when trust is placed in the laws of the United States and in our Court System and in attorneys who violate their fiduciary duty to prey on innocent injured Plaintiff Clients. Fortunately some Attorneys are now filing legal malpractice lawsuits against those Attorneys exposing those who abused their very own Plaintiff Clients, in State and Federal Court. 
Regards,
Lana C. Keeton
© 2005 – 2020 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
Intellectual Property of Lana C. Keeton.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant . Expert Witness . Device Expert . Patient Advocate
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139

THIS COURT HOUSE BELONGS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS SEEKING JUSTICE!



No comments: