I . Where the plaintiffs fundamental right to medical treatment is violated under
conflict of laws, unsettled area of law statutes and guidelines * pursuant to • l)
CFR 42 § 2.61-2.67, 2) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et
seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701, et seq., 3) the Affordable Care
Act, 42 U.S.C. §18116* et seq, 4) the Nuremberg Code §§4 and 44 Code of the
Geneva Convention, 5) Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations (JCAHO) ''pain as the 5th Vital Sign, " 6) EMTALA ( Emergency
Treatment and Labor Act) laws, 6) the Controlled Substance Act (CSA 802 (56)(c))
7) the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (Data 2000) under SAMSHA, 8) PROP
(Physicians For Responsible Opioid Prescribing) guidelines, 9) the 2016 CDC
Guidelines and the proposed July 2021 revised guidelines , 10) the pharmacist 's
corresponding responsibility under CFR 1306.04 (a) where dispensing of a
prescription ratifying the validity of that prescription for controlled substances, 11)
health insurance pre-authorization services of medications, 12) Pharmacy Benefit
Programs ( PBM) formularies, 13) THE June 16 2020 AMA Letter to the CDC and
the American Medical Association Drug Task Force studies, and 14) the 2019
HHS " Best Practices - Pain Management Guidelines - is there a basis for the use
of strict scrutiny standard for judicial review , regarding the release of
information and affidavits - supporting the search and seizure of PDMP and
medical records?

II. Where the state has a legitimate interest in reducing overdose drug deaths, does
a private entity, such as BCBSMMIC or Qlarant, acting as agents of the state under
the color of law, is the use of false medical records, false state of Michigan driver 's
license, false social security number, false documents, to coordinate the
incarceration of non-white physicians, is that conduct related to a compelling
government interest?

Where the plaintiff's fundamental right to medical treatment is violated