11.15.2003
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines
they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls
of those who live under tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The government's drug-reform policy is driven by a fundamentalist Christian
sense of morality that sees any of these illegal substances used as evil!"
-- John Sperling, Arizona billionaire to Time magazine.
"Drug control is a thin pretext, and getting thinner, to
increase police powers and to brand dissent as criminal."
-- William S. Burroughs
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights
of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in
power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison
I DO NOT trust police.
Anyone who will cage a
human for using a plant
IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED!
They fail the litmus test.
-- anonymous
"I smoke two joints in the morning, I smoke two joints at night
I smoke two joints in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright"
-- The Toyes, "Two Joints"
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
The "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" grants and specifically guarantees
immunity relating to physicians from the law is as follows;
"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."
Here again is another persecution of another physician of California. This is not unlike my
previous post regarding Dr. Tod Mikuriya. The agencies that we placed in the position to
uphold the law are shown once again to be the forces of abuses, manipulations and fabri-
cations! We in the state of California passed a monumental law known as Proposition 215
"The Compassionate Use Act" on November 5, 1996. The chief law enforcement
officer is "our" Attorney General - Bill Lockyer.
Since passing the law over seven years ago, there has been no implementation of note
statewide. A lawless condition has been festering in our state that is extremely harmful to
the chronically ill patients, caregivers, physicians and their families as a result of no uniform
guidelines issued from our attorney general. Worse yet is his inability to face the federal
government and the Justice Department plus the DEA agencies. It is not new in California
for patients, medical doctors and caregivers to be jailed or harassed by the entrenched
errant policies of the federal government.
Even though worldwide, many countries have altered their positions towards the use of
cannabis, especially in medical health uses. The impact of our own governments approach
is nothing more than Job Security and medieval. Numerous studies only confirm the advo-
cacy of medical marijuana and throughout history; the uses of marijuana [cannabis, hemp,
hashish] have endured and proved vital to the Earth and mankind.
We continue to give our law enforcement the power to enforce law and here in is the diffi-
culty. The Attorney General of California has yet to follow the prescribed constitutional
protocols to institute the "Compassionate Use Act" of November 1996. He turned a
blind eye to the abuses put on the chronic ill and physicians by law enforcement. He has
issued no uniform guidelines, training for law enforcement or public education in respect to
the application of medical marijuana statutes, and has not met the federal intrusions to the
California clinics, patients, caregivers, physicians and all of their families. When has Bill
Lockyer gone to court and confronted this area of law that would involve jurisdiction and
the rights of the state of California?
During the trial of Ed Rosenthal, PhD. a deputy of the city of Oakland, except for a letter to
the presiding judge, we in California have not seen him do his constitutional duty. When
WAMM [Wo/men Alliance for Medical Marijuana] of Santa Cruz was assaulted by the
DEA, he also wrote a letter. The list of California patients, caregivers and physicians who
have been or are attacked by federal as well as state agencies is nothing less than a cor-
rupt situation and is criminal.
We can only plead with all to support these courageous people and ask for implementation
of our already existing law the Compassionate Use Act" of November 1996.
Please consider signing the petitions listed after this very revealing story.
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine
will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of
men and deny equal privileges to others: The Constitution of this Republic should make a
special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.”
-- Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Most patients are seriously or very seriously ill. Their “health, safety, and welfare” has been targeted by this action against Dr. Eidelman, an action full of perjury, bad faith, and false innuendo.
The New England Journal of Medicine, (January 30, 1997 -- Volume 336, Number 5), in an editorial entitled "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana," stated:
"Some physicians will have the courage to challenge the continued proscription of marijuana for the sick."
The physicians who have been targeted by the Medical Board should be awarded for their courage, not punished for some obscure or alleged transgression, nor subjected to undercover/entrapment procedures.
In the whole process of the accusation and suspension of Dr. Eidelman, the Medical Board has shown NO interest for the rights, health, or safety of Dr. Eidelman’s patients. The Medical Board has failed in its duty to protect medical marijuana patients, most of whom are very seriously ill.
William S. Eidelman, M.D., had his license suspended by the Medical Board without a hearing almost a year ago, under allegations of violating rules and regulations in his recommendations of marijuana, but in essence, giving out Compassionate Use Act recommendations too easily to four undercover police officers posing as patients.
Dr. Eidelman’s suspension was based solely on his consultations with these undercover police officers. These officers portrayed Dr. Eidelman’s practice as one of giving away fraudulent medical marijuana approvals. Yet the Medical Board has brought forth no patient where it is claimed the patients don’t have a legitimate disease. In fact, Dr. Eidelman’s practice consisted of legitimate patients.
The police departments and police officers involved in the complaints against Dr. Eidelman are biased medical marijuana in general, with a personal vendetta against him and his patients. One Patient, Noel Spark, was convicted of growing three marijuana plants. The charges had been dropped with this admonition: “We’re going after your doctor, and when we get him, we’ll put back the charges.” The charges were re-filed one week before Dr. Eidelman’s suspension. One of Dr. Eidelman’s undercover accusers was a policeman from that jurisdiction. The jury felt that even though Mr. Spark was obviously in severe pain, due to the doctor’s suspension, they had to find him guilty. Police officers from the other two jurisdictions accusing Dr. Eidelman came the long distance to testify against Dr. Eidelman and Mr. Spark, who had only three marijuana plants and ten years of miserable pain both physical and emotional. It was to prevent this type of travesty of law that the people included section 11362.5 (c), protecting the physician to protect the patient, the citizen.
Robbie Ciolli leader of the undercover sting that led to Dr. Eidelman’s suspension, was quoted in the Victorville Daily Press, 12/16/02, “It’s (Prop 215) forcing district attorneys, police and law enforcement agencies to make up their own rules,” said Detective Robbie Ciolli, a member of the Sheriff’s Marijuana Eradication Team.
The rules Mr. Ciolli, his team, and the investigators for the Medical Board, and the Attorney General’s office, made up in entrapment of Dr. Eidelman are not in line with the laws they are sworn to enforce, ie Health and Safety Code section 11362.5, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
All the police officers accusing Dr. Eidelman are members of CNOA, a police organization that states publicly that medical marijuana is a fraud (see www.cnoa.org). Thus, their prejudice is that all medical recommendations are bogus. The sworn statements in the affidavit filed by Robbie Ciolli, if investigated, show fabrications and grossly illegal and unconscionable police actions against a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient (for details, see www.DrEidelman.com/story.htm). They had no “probable cause” for the enforcement action against Dr. Eidelman.
The investigator for the Medical Board who accompanied Mr. Ciolli and the team to Dr. Eidelman’s office gave a sworn statement that there was no examination table or medical equipment of any kind, thus it was impossible for Dr. Eidelman to really be practicing medicine. In fact, Dr. Eidelman’s examination/treatment table was in a separate room, impossible to miss (other equipment was in a drawer). The investigator for the Medical Board lied in sworn testimony. This same lie was given in sworn testimony by Mr. Ciolli and other undercover team members. This was part of the pattern using lies and twisted facts to show the worst light possible on Dr. Eidelman, to make the suspension sound like it was warranted (which it wasn’t). At the second suspension non-hearing, Administrative Law Judge Carol Magnuson was informed by Dr. Eidelman, in writing, of the perjured testimony by essentially all the accusers. She let it pass without comment, continuing the suspension.
Judge Magnuson ruled that Dr. Eidelman’s behavior with the undercover officers showed he was not furthering the purpose of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and thus does not deserve the immunity of section 11362.5 (c). Although legally his immunity it total, and does not depend on “furthering the purpose,” in fact, his practice was totally in support of this Act, and of rights given by this act to citizens of the state of California. Only a prejudiced and mean-spirited prosecution by the Medical Board and the Attorney General’s office could argue that Dr. Eidelman did not deserve the immunity granted by section 11362.5 (c).
Dr. Eidelman has testified in court, written letters of support, and spoke on the telephone countless times in successful efforts to protect his patients from jail or punishment. Dr. Eidelman has been very important in the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Both deputy Attorney General Dhillon and Investigator Salcedo of the Medical Board told Dr. Eidelman that they had received many calls over a long period of time complaining about Dr. Eidelman and requesting that they stop him from giving medical marijuana approvals. The Medical Board and Attorney General’s office finally caved to the pressure, and cooperated with the rogue San Bernadino officers.
The number of physicians under investigation or punishment relative to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is small, between five and ten, these physicians are caring for more than ten thousand patients, citizens of the state of California.
The purpose of the section 11362.5 (c) was to protect patients from political acts against the doctor. When the doctor loses his/her license or the ability to recommend marijuana for medical purposes, the patients lose their rights to use medical marijuana. The current attacks by the Medical Board on physicians involved with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are what the people of the state of California were trying to prevent by section 11362.5 (c). The Medical Board's actions have also created an environment in which other physicians are afraid to help their legitimate patients comply with the law.
Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 (c) reads, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied rights or privileges, for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.”
In all the accusations and punishments involving California physicians, their medical marijuana patients have been ignored as if they didn't exist.
Dr. Eidelman’s hearing that is coming up in February before the medical board regarding your dispensing physician recommendations for medical marijuana.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. This has has not yet been told in open court or to any concerned party. Now it is being told. If I were swearing under penalty of perjury, I would say all the same things. My attorneys have written and presented the legal arguments they believed were permitted by the highly structured judicial process. This is simply my tale of what really happened, regarding my suspension..
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. They never did mention what the danger was.
I have been a physician licensed by the state of California since 1976 (27 years). 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-magnetic 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.
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 will 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.
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 has never taken one step in support of the People of the state of California who passed this initiative.
Besides the fact that I am immune by the Compassionate Use Act itself, “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," the entire proceeding against me is so full of bad faith on the part of the CNOA officers and the Medical Board, that the whole action deserves to be completely dismissed, forthwith, now. Given the complicity of the Medical Board in bringing this action, all further accusations against me should be dismissed, and I should be returned my license with all privileges immediately.
Thanks for reading all this.
William S. Eidelman, M.D.
Contact Dr. Eidelman -
Dr. Eidelman's Website
email: William@DrEidelman.com.
phone: 310-803-5457.
mail: 2785-E Pacific Coast Hwy, #268, Torrance CA 90505
PETITIONS of SUPPORT:
PETITION TO THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
From Patients, Caregivers, and Friends of William S. Eidelman, M.D.
“Please Follow the Law: Give Dr. Eidelman Back His License and Drop All Accusations.”
PETITION TO THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
From Patients, Caregivers, and Friends
“We Are Asking the Medical Board: Please Follow the Law - Don't Take Away Our Doctors.”
