Natural Medicine
Nutrition, Bio-Energy, Herbs, Cannabis (as per Prop 215)
Chelation and Intravenous Nutrient Therapies,  Spiritual Medicine

Suspension of My License:  What Actually Happened,
by William S. Eidelman, M.D.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana for medical purposes." California State Law, Health and Safety Code 11265.5(c).

This is my side of the story of my suspension by the Medical Board. 

My medical license was suspended on May 28, 2002, following 4 visits by undercover police officers, one in the presence of investigators from the Medical Board.  They alleged that I gave out medical marijuana recommendations without going through the full "medical workup," and thus I violated the Medical Practices Act. They claimed I gave away fraudulent medical marijuana approvals.  Further, they claimed that I represented such an extreme danger to the public that they could take away my license without a hearing.  The danger was possibly missing a serious illness by not doing a full enough workup!

I have been a physician licensed by the state of California since 1976 (26 years at the time of the suspension).  During this time I have collected a unique and effective arsenal of therapies useful against many conditions.  I have become a consultant in alternative or natural medicine, meaning that people came to me specifically for this reason.  They are not looking for conventional "standard-of-care," which has failed them to one degree or another.  They are looking for nutrition, for phytochemical/botanical medicine, for bio-electromagnetic therapy, for meditation, and for other useful and unusual information related to diagnosis and treatment that I possess and utilized every day, until the suspension (and since reinstatement).

Following the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, patients began coming to me because I understood the medical value of cannabis (a botanical), and was willing to give approvals to patients who had legitimate medical conditions for which cannabis was beneficial (as stated in the law).

The majority of the patients coming to me suffered serious illnesses or serious pain from past traumas (often having had surgery).  Some reported their doctors just wouldn’t talk about cannabis use, others said their doctors approved of it verbally, but refused to write the letter, thus running the risk (they feared) of having to defend their license over it, or having to fight with the DEA (even though Conant v Walters is currently in the physician’s favor regarding the federal authorities).  Most patients bring their medical records, as I always request.  Sometimes people don’t have or can’t get the records.

The Enforcement Division of the Medical Board was surely aware of this situation, as was the deputy Attorney General and as must be anyone observing the scene.  It has been extremely difficult to find a physician willing to give Compassionate Use Act approvals.  Patients seeking a doctor would eventually come to know of me by word of mouth, or perhaps by researching the internet.  Many referrals to me came from other physicians who were themselves afraid to write the approvals.  

While most individuals seeking cannabis were extremely ill, some individuals with lesser severity of illness came, who reported cannabis beneficial medically.  Because the Compassionate Use Act does not specify that the illness must be serious, these individuals qualify. 

Anyone who has ever visited my office and asked, “Do you accept referrals?” or “Can I send you new patients?” always heard my response, “Only if they have a legitimate medical problem.” 

Patients who come to me can and will testify that I take a good medical history, and indeed many can tell that I am frequently able to help them understand what other doctors told them, or what the doctors didn’t tell them but should have.  Sometimes I am able to come to the root of a problem that no other doctor has reached.  In summary, while my approach is not conventional, my practice is the practice of medicine, done in my own unique way.  The “experts” of the Medical Board have no way to understand my practice, and no right to judge it.  The “experts” are limited by the very ideas that patients come to me to escape.  That’s why they call what I do “alternative medicine.”

The presentation of the Medical Board in this accusation and suspension makes it sound like all my patients are like the four undercover agents, and that I do nothing but give out letters to people who are not ill, and that I am in no way practicing medicine.  Hence, they claim I don’t have the immunity guaranteed by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana for medical purposes.”).  This portrait of my practice couldn’t be farther from the truth. 

The majority of my patients are seriously or very seriously ill.  Their “health, safety, and welfare” has been targeted by this action against me, an action full of perjury, bad faith, and false innuendo.

By and by, my patients had encounters with law enforcement officials.  These and other officials made large numbers of phone calls to the Medical Board (according to medical board investigator Sylvia Salcedo) and to the Attorney General’s office (as told by Deputy Attorney General Rajpal Dhillon to me and my attorney).  These conversations involved complaints from the officers that Dr. Eidelman was giving out medical marijuana letters.   The Medical Board’s position was they have to have evidence of wrongdoing before they can move against me. 

Members of the California Narcotics Officers Association, who are the ones bringing forth the only complaints in the current action, are part of a group that accepts the fraudulent Federal position (FDA, DEA, Congress, see attachment 2) that insists that marijuana has no medical value.  According to CNOA’s website position paper, “There is no justification for using marijuana as a medicine.”  Therefore, the assumption of those sworn to uphold the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is that the law is a fraud.  Their actions show absolute disrespect for the law, including the section that says “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to patients for medical purposes.”

Clearly all of these officers are biased.  All their “evidence” should not be allowed in, as it is all biased.  The Medical Board also shows itself to be biased by bringing these “complainants” along with no other patient for whom they could say I gave a letter to without medical necessity.

CNOA members in the San Bernadino Sheriff’s office (in this accusation) have been involved in a pattern of harassment of my patients, patients who in fact are very ill, patients who are ready to testify. 

Some of my patients in Kern County were also being harassed by CNOA members there.  Legitimate patients who were arrested with cannabis for personal medical use, with a letter, were eventually allowed to go free.  One such patient, Noel Spark, was told, and would testify, that the deputy DA said, “Charges are dropped for now, but we are going after Dr. Eidelman, and when we get him, charges will be reinstated.”  In fact, approximately two weeks prior to my suspension, the charges were reinstated.  The DA knew at the time she made the statement that one of the officers on the case had visited me undercover, and that other such actions were taking place. 

At the actual trial, which took place shortly after my suspension, the same undercover officers from San Bernadino and Santa Monica took three days to go to another county two to four hours away (depending on traffic) to testify against my recommendation to a patient who was caught with three plants.  Mr. Spark was found guilty.  No doubt an analysis of the transcripts will indicate perjury on the part of the San Bernadino and Santa Monica officers.

Mr. Spark finally won on appeal, but only after spending 5 months in prison.

At the same time the San Bernadino narcotics officers raided my office in Santa Monica, the same Santa Monica narcotics officers raided a nearby Cannabis Buyer’s Club.  They communicated by telephone in my presence.  While the sight of police departments working together normally is good, in this case, they are working together to try to destroy me, and by so doing, a thousand or more people are no longer protected by Proposition 215.  In this case, there is serious evidence to consider a RICO action, and at least Conspiracy to take away my rights, and also the rights of the patients to have a valid approval and generally, to “secure the Blessings of liberty.”

Entrapment

This case, on its face, is clearly an attempt by a group of individuals working together to find or create information through entrapment to take away my license and thus to take away the protection to my patients given by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

I am being accused of giving medical recommendations for marijuana without medical necessity.  In fact, I never gave medical marijuana recommendations to patients without medical conditions.  No individual aside from the conspirators have been brought forth who received a medical marijuana approval without medical conditions.  No individual has been brought forth who said I give approvals to those without medical conditions.  Indeed, I can and will bring witnesses who will say that when they asked me if they can refer other people, I always said, “Only if they have a legitimate medical problem.”  Such testimonies will also include that this statement is said sincerely, without a wink or some other gesture indicating that the statement is insincere.

Because there was no evidence that I have ever written a fraudulent approval letter, and because the San Bernadino Narcotics Officers wanted evidence to use against me, and wanted a legal excuse to search my office, Robbie Ciolli made an affidavit making a series of allegations that would allow a search warrant. 

First, Mr. Ciolli swears that in a conversation with Sylvia Salcedo, investigator for the Medical Board based in Cerritos, Ms. Salcedo told him, “There was a report from a San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club that two patients with letters from Dr. Eidelman appeared to have no medical problem.”  No names or dates were attached to this allegation.  The normal procedure with cannabis clubs is to call the physician writing the approval for documentation and sometimes to request the diagnosis.  If patients seemed to be not ill, such a comment would likely have been made to me directly. I never received any call from a San Francisco Cannabis Club with a complaint about a patient not seeming ill.  Without knowing the names of the complainant to Sylvia Salcedo, or the names of the two patients, so that indeed it could be determined that these patients had no legitimate medical conditions, it is false innuendo at best.  Surely, if someone called the Medical Board to make a complaint, the names of the two patients would be taken, records subpoenaed, and those individuals would be part of this accusation.

The second entry in the affidavit was one of the undercover officers in the current accusation, Michael French aka Danny Cheney.  He was initially sent in to Dr. Eidelman when there was no actual evidence suggesting Dr. Eidelman wrote fraudulent approvals (there is still no such evidence).

The third entry in the affidavit claimed that “Wayne Hobbs sold methamphetamine to an undercover officer.”  Wayne Hobbs is a patient of Dr. Eidelman.  Even if it were true that Wayne Hobbs sold methamphetamine to an undercover officer, that still has no relevance to Dr. Eidelman.  However, the story itself is instructive of the nature of the officers making the complaint against Dr. Eidelman, and warrants a full explanation.

Wayne Hobbs is a 32 year-old quadriplegic.  He has a spinal cord injury at the cervical level, and cannot move his arms or hands or legs or feet.  He is completely helpless, and suffers from the chronic pain, muscle spasms, and other conditions common to quadriplegics.  A young, attractive, female undercover agent (somewhat representative of the Patty entrappers) came to Hobbs house.  Mr. Hobbs, of course, requires caretakers, and has numerous people coming and going regularly who take care of him.  Under his guidance, using his knowledge and understanding, his caretakers have been helping him grow medical marijuana for his own treatment.  As part of his perfectly legal cultivation of marijuana, he has been growing and studying the effects on himself of different strains of marijuana.  It is widely recognized that different strains of cannabis, with different combinations of the various active bio-chemicals, have different physiological and psychological effects.  Mr. Hobbs is somewhat of an expert on this.

The attractive female undercover officer told Mr. Hobbs that she was addicted to methamphetamine and needed a fix.  She wanted Mr. Hobbs to sell her some of this drug, and if he would, she would provide sexual favors for him.  The request was just verbally communicated, the undercover agent gestured with her entire body in a way that communicated more than words.  Being a 32 year old male, quadriplegic, he became excited by the manner in which she made these offers (Mr. Hobbs will testify to the details, if and when necessary).  Mr. Hobbs, who did not use or approve of methamphetamines, knew that a caregiver had some in her purse, though she was not at the moment in the house.  Wanting to help the attractive young woman, he asked someone else to give the woman the little amount from the purse.  The undercover agent responded, “Thanks, but I need more.  You’ve got to sell me some.”  And she made clear in words and in actions the sexual nature of the upcoming reward.  Mr. Hobbs, thinking perhaps someone he knew could bring some methamphetamine by, and he could get his reward, he said, “Come back in two hours.”  The undercover officer returned two hours later, with a team of San Bernadino officers, expecting to arrest Mr. Hobbs in the sting.  Mr. Hobbs never obtained the methamphetamine.  Instead, when the police arrived, he was being given a bath.  He was forced to remain in the bathwater for an hour and half while police did what they did.  Again, Mr. Hobbs will tell the story under oath, along with other witnesses.

This story can at least be described as slimy.  It certainly is no justification to believe a crime was being committed in my office, as Mr. Ciolli swore under penalty of perjury. 

Mr. Hobbs will also testify that after a judge’s approval for him to use, possess, and grow marijuana pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, these same officers have raided his house on numerous occasions, stole his perfectly legal medical marijuana plants and medicine, without ever filing any charges.  More accusations will be brought against Mr. Ciolli, including another quadriplegic whose medicine was taken away and his medical approval letter, written by me, was taken away with the remark, “Dr. Eidelman is no longer a doctor, and the law is no longer the law (referring to Proposition 215).  This was days before the current ALJ ruling was issued.”

The final statement on Mr. Ciolli’s affidavit given under penalty of perjury was the supposed statement of Glenn Schmidt, a patient of mine and witness to the above events involving Wayne Hobbs.  Mr. Schmidt is quoted as telling an undercover officer that I gave out fraudulent marijuana approval letters.  In fact, Mr. Schmidt is ready to testify that he never made any such statement.  Mr. Schmidt himself has chronic pain from well-documented arthritis.

Thus, it can be seen in Mr. Ciolli’s affidavit that he had evidence a crime was being committed in my office was completely in bad faith.

The police agents acted together with the medical board, to entrap me without having sufficient reason or probable cause to believe that I fraudulently gave out marijuana approvals. 

Given this obviously biased attack, the administrative law judge backed the accusers. The Judge said, “The likelihood that permitting Respondent (Dr. Eidelman) to continue to engage in the practice of Medicine will endanger the public health, safety or welfare outweighs the likelihood of injury to Respondent resulting from issuing the order.” 

No concern is expressed for my more-than-2000 patients, who regularly contact me for advice and treatment regarding their conditions.  Further, no doubt, the Medical Board is aware that all three police jurisdictions involved in this accusation have had prosecutions of my patients.  These agencies have hoped that with my license suspended, they can successfully prosecute these patients, putting them in prison or otherwise taking away their Constitutionally protected liberties and freedoms, and particularly the freedom given through the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The Medical Board doubtless is aware of these facts.

The idea of protecting the public in this case is pure and total hypocrisy.  This case is nothing more than an attack on legitimate medical marijuana patients by a group who does not accept the law they are sworn to enforce, and a medical enforcement agency that, until then, had not taken one step in support of the People of the state of California who passed this initiative. 

Addendum:  In the actual hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, the Medical Board did not bring Mr. Ciolli in to testify.  Mr. Hobbs was too ill to testify, as his health deteriorated following the abuse by Ciolli and his team.

William S. Eidelman, M.D.