| NOTICE: This is a PUBLIC SERVICE website designed to inform you of violations of the Veterinary Practice Act proven and alleged, by David Faulkner DVM Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners ~ ~ Texas State Bar, Animal Law Division | |||
| |||
| ...a victim of alleged VETERINARY NEGLIGENCE and PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ... | |||
                visit other web pages ~ just click the paw prints | |||
|
|
|
The Appeal
|
|
Below is my letter to the Executive Director of the Texas Vet Board requesting an appeal of their decision. Below my letter is select parts of his response.
4/18/08 "Attorney General Opinion" rules in favor of information record request made in
Bo Bo Bear's case click here to view, see update below. ~ ~
6~7~08 Attorney General's opinion ruling still has not been honored by the TSBVME
Update: Attorney General Opinion Request citing rules of Common Law of the United States
with issues of discrimination and favortisum: Read article below on page. . .
Under Consideration by Attorney General Of Texas :
This extremely old law / attorney general's opinion 1990 needs to be changed to protect the public interest and their animals. As it stands now, it protects the Board and shields the vet's wrong doing. It actually hides all records of a case. We, the (public) plaintiff, cannot defend what we cannot see in our cases presented. This even stops a plaintiff's attorney from viewing the investigative file (if you can afford an attorney). Thus, the reason for it's purpose is to protect the veterinarian.....and the Board, in their protection of the veterinarian. Their most powerful tool? Secrecy.
update; 9-27-08 : I have studied this old opinion in depth as I felt it was incorrect in structure. I now believe that it is this ~ when a law/opinion is written it cannot contradict it's self, which this one does ~ (c) states that the records are public records ~ with exception of (d) which states the investigation files are confidential ~ these are not defined, for one thing ~ for another it contradict s (c) because they are defined as records ~ according to the rules of law and enforcement of them, this is illegal in structure, and cannot be considered bonfiable in terms of presentation as an enforceable law ~ legislation will not be needed to change or delete it from the cited laws ~ only a correct opinion ~ this legal view was one of the submissions to the Attorney General for consideration, for his upcoming opinion on records.
Also "complainant, is defined as plaintiff, in all legal issues, not public" TBVME will no longer be able to hide records concerning the complainant with a correct ruling.
Open Records Decision # 683 ~ issued by Greg Abbott, Nov. 24th, 2009 ~ Read Opinion Here Appeal letter 4/23/07 Mr. Helmcamp, I am formally requesting to appeal the decision of the TSBVME in regards to the dismissal of my complaint # 06297, Bo Bo Bear vs David Faulkner. According to Rule 801.205(4), the Board must ensure that the person who filed the complaint has the opportunity to explain the allegations made in the complaint. According to Board Rule 575.27(c)(7) the investigator shall interview the complainant. At the present time, I have yet to be interviewed. Never contacted concerning one. Even e-mails to my investigator were answered by others as a rule, several of them a reminder that I had not been interviewed. This complaint is far from groundless, as proven in the submitted file. The violations of both the Practice Act and Rules of Professional Conduct are numerous. To simply dismiss this complaint suggests that relevant material submitted with the complaint was withheld, along with the x-rays, or not provided to the reviewing board member vets, or they simply did not review any of it. Since most are practicing vets with clinics, I'm sure their time is more valuable to them in their own practice. Perhaps they simply chose to protect one of their own. Was David Faulkner's response to the complaint a fictional account of events designed to cover absolute negligence and guilt? I, of course, would not know, as I was not permitted to defend the complaint since the Board refuses to allow the complainant the respondent vet?s response. But then, how else would he be protected from his accuser? Otherwise why all the secrecy concerning it ? Also, though I?ve asked the Board to assist, I have still yet to be informed if all records were received from him. Were the records also possibly restructured? If I cannot see them, I would not know. I do know the ones in my posession are. Faulkner has already proven that he is untrustworthy and unethical by his prior records. Mr. Helmcamp, you should be familiar with his prior records, as your name is listed as assistant attorney general who prosecuted him on two prior cases. Your career change is duly noted. I also requested records, and asked the Board to assist me in these efforts, from my expert witness. He is a practicing vet, whom I trusted, from a nearby community, I had a long office visit with last October. I am entitled to the records of this visit, while paying my bill upon leaving his clinic they were requested, several other attempts have been made to obtain them. I have yet to review them or even know what his response was to the Board. I do, however, have an e-mail from Peter Hartline that states his response was helpful. I would ask, "To whom?" I certainly cannot ascertain if it is the same response I received from him if I am not allowed to view his response to the Board and, as a result, know nothing of his conversation with the investigator. Is this another protection ploy ? Or, did he actually come forward as an ethical professional ? Through this process, I'm treated like a child not capable of reading, or understanding, while an adult holds the closed book, and seals the fate of my destroyed efforts. They hold the bigger toy, their position and the rules they invent, which they bend and twist to suit the situation. We, the public, are requested or demanded to "trust" on every issue. Why is the Board so distrusting of complainants? Might we find a discrepancy if we were allowed to see the investigative file? Actually reveal the truth. I spent almost two years in my efforts, a lot of time, stress, anguish, medication for sleeplessness, panic, and money to then not be allowed to defend this case in the final stages. My experience was a nightmare, one that will last a lifetime. To receive a short form letter from the Board issued to all complainants whose complaints are dismissed is an insult to my intelligence. Also, a dagger still in my heart is the loss of my assistance animal that is supposed to be protected by both state and federal laws that have been ignored during this whole process. A gross dereliction of duty is apparent on the part of the Board and the reviewing veterinarian Board members in all phases of this case. The Board?s first priority is to protect the public. I feel violated and abused, not protected. I wasn't even consulted. The accused vet is a grave and imminent danger to the public and is in full practice each day in the same manner as my experience with him. He is still violating the same rules that he was disciplined for previously, and will continue to do so, as will those who work for him. I receive stories each and every day about these activities. Can these people step forward? No, they are afraid. From my experiences, I understand that. While they and knowledged Vet's uphold the Code of Silence, or cowardness. Animals health or lives are the price. I request to be informed and heard by the Board that I had trusted to do their appointed job. I assumed that this was a state agency designed to protect the public and monitored by the Governor?s Office. I submitted a complaint for the protection of the public and the animals that are unfortunate enough to cross his path. There is no recourse for Bo Bo Bear, he is gone from this life.. I request to be able to defend my position in presenting the huge file of evidence for action to this Board. The facts are very evident. I look forward to your response. Sincerely Issued, Betty Garrity for Bo Bo Bear (who suffered death, by murder) Here are select parts of Helmcamp's response letter :
Dear Ms. Garrity: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your request to appeal the decision to close Bo Bo Bear's case, and to inform you that we will send this case to the President of the Board for a review and decision on your appeal as required by Board rules. ........ .......purpose in pursuing this matter is to prevent any other animal from being harmed by Dr. Faulkner....... All I can tell you is that this Board has public members, one of whom is at every case involving a standard of care issue. Each Board member is committed to ensuring the best quality veterinary care for the citizens and animals of this state. But, as I have learned, sometimes there is a bad result............. Sincerely, Dewey Helmcamp update; 4/24/08 The case was never viewed by The Board President
Comments from a friend who has also had to deal with this Vet Board after reading Mr. Helmcamp's response: "As for the public member, when the public member is an ATTORNEY, the public's best interests are hardly being represented. Those lawyers sit on that board for a reason - to help the other "professionals" protect the vets. As far as I am concerned, there is no public representation on the board. They might as well not have any public members at all. And with Helmcamp also being a lawyer, that means four lawyers (Helmcamp, Mathews, Reveley, and Diaz) are in direct support of whatever the board does. They will NEVER stand up for the public - their job is to legally cover for the board ". 7/07/07 ~ The State Vet Protection Board has once again boldly dismissed , the appeal was tossed without further study, and still no real consulting of presented facts or a simple interview of complainant, a big violation of their own rules. . . . ----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Garrity
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:47 AM
Subject: Case # 06297
Mr. Helmcamp, I at this time am requesting the re-opening of my case # 06297, this request is being made due to many errors of The Board during the process of my complaint. One of the more serious issues is the board's own rule 575.27 (c) (7) the investigator shall interview the complainant. Among many other errors, I was never interviewed. I am also requesting a different investigator should one be needed. After much research I personally see many flaws in the system used to handle case's submitted to the board for review, also many mis-quotes in interpretation of the rules supposed to govern the board. Please bear in mind also that these rules are not set laws, leading to interpretation as it fit's a situation. I have noted this in several cases I have access to. Which in my opinion does not make for fair judgement or treatment to the public who submits these concerns and complaints to an agency supposedly designed to protect them and their animals. The public is not educated in legal matters as a general rule. These taticts should not be used against them causing them confusion; to obtain a goal of some member's of the board who wish to defend the vet's practice and income. I am also asking to see the complete case if it is re-opened, as I will be acting as my own attorney in these matters and as "a common law" this request is valid. Also to insure that the file as submitted is in full context. I am still in possession of the x-ray's I tried to submit, also the drugs, and placebo's. Please refer this request to the proper channel required. Your assistance in these matters deeply appreciated. Respectfully Submitted, Betty Garrity ---- Original Message ----- From: Dewey Helmcamp
To: Betty Garrity
Cc: Pete Hartline ; Lee Mathews
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Case # 06297
Dear Mrs Garrity:
In response to your request to reopen your case, I regret that we are unable to do this. It has been thoroughly reviewed by a total of three veterinarians on initial review and on appeal. This review determined that your vet did not fail to meet the standard of care, and thus did not violate the Veterinary Practice Act.
While I sincerely regret the loss of Bo Bo Bear, there is simply nothing further I, the staff, or the Board can do.
Sincerely,
Dewy Helmcamp, Executive Director
* * *________________________________________* * *
I am of course refused any information or paperwork concerning either event though I am the plantiff attorney. Names of the Veterinarians ~ a copy of the review ~ how dare I ask for them. ( :
Well gee, how else can they protect each other ?
Betty Garrity 01/17/08 update; 4/24/08 Another pretence of investigation by The Board :
{ Bo's case was not reviewed by three veterinarians only the same two in both the orginal and appeal, nor was it viewed by The Board President . . . this violates their own published rules } Below is the "read request receipt" concerning my third request for the reviewing vet's names, was the case ever reviewed by anyone ? Usually on any request you are quoted this law as a final answer. This extremely old law / attorney general's opinion all information hidden permanantly concerning your case, of which you are the attorney...even a retained professional attorney cannot obtain anything !
It would appear nothing was ever submitted, no case exsist . . .... you have no rights.
Your message
To: dewey.helmcamp@tbvme.state.tx.us Subject: Request for reviewing vet's names Sent: 1/26/2008 9:22 AM was read on 1/29/2008 8:08 AM. Update: 04/18/08
Attorney General's office rules in favor of information request in Bo Bo Bear's case:
once again the Board by-passes their own rules several were ignored by the Board on this issue, (to see ruling click here ) "Attorney General Opinion". They also ignored their own proceedure when the same vet's review the original complaint as well as the appeal (or did they really, no actual ethical review would miss all the violations). The Board President is suppose to review appeals, who was at the time of the appeal, Robert Lastovica, DVM ... the reviewing veterinarians in both instances were, Bud E. Alldredge Jr. and Patrick M. Allen, hardly complying with their own system. Nor is it feasible to assume they would disagree with themselves, this insults simple intelligence. Also I found it strange that the letter/copy, I received today from the Board Office concerning this was to the attorney of the vet in question. I acting as my own attorney cannot obtain any information, without assistance from the AG's office, however the accused vet is sent all and kept updated automatically without request. This is a clear picture of Vet Protection again. (see response of Helmcamp above concerning appeal and Board president review).
Update: 5/17/08 TSBVME refuses again to honor AG's opinion, and as usual twisting and turning issues. ----- Original Message -----
From: Betty Garrity
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:38 AM
Subject: Case # 06297 Bo Bo Bear vs David Faulkner Good Morning Dewey, I am in receipt of your letter, also the letter from the AG's office concerning the names of the reviewing vet's in Bo Bo Bear's case. Though I am a bit confused as to why my copy from the Board office is actually addressing the accused Vet's attorney and not me, I did review it, since I requested the information. ~ You then requested the ruling to prevent me from obtaining this information, however the Attorney General office did not agree with you, this entitles me to the full disclosure. ~ My opinion is that it is incorrect, the reason I made this decision are based on other correspondence from your office, also e-mail's direct from you. One e-mail dated July 05-2007 7;46 AM states that the case was reviewed by a total of three veterinarians on initial review and appeal. Also another e-mail which states, my request to appeal the decision "will be sent to the President of The Board for a review and decision on your appeal as required by Board rules". However in you letter of April 14, 2008, which is actually to the vet's attorney, (not me) regarding the AG's opinion requiring release of the reviewing Vet's names, you site only two, the same two on the original and the appeal. Now, am I to actually believe that the same two vet's are going to disagree with their original opinion or even actually look at it, or disagree with themself....? This insults normal intelligence. Also why must I seek an AG's opinion on a detail that is already in the Board rules as available to me. Also, why is every detail and record available to the vet and his attorney automatically, however I acting as my own attorney in these matters am not allowed any. ? If the Board insist on pretending to be a legal office, they need also to be aware that there are also the laws of Texas to uphold in legal matters, not simply the rules they make up and interpert/twist to suit the situation. I must insist on knowing when the president of the Board, reviewed this case, according to your own rules. The AG's office will be made aware of these issues. In the meanwhile perhaps you would like to view the up-date on the web site of Bo Bo Bear, who is known internationally now, with his issues concerning the TBVME. Have a nice day, springtime is always a special time. Betty Garrity for Bo Bo Bear Request for Attorney General Opinion, which became Decision # 683 on Nov.24th 2009 signed by Greg Abbott ~ Attorney General of Texas. The TSBVME reaction "Panic" Read Opinion Here
Attorney General Opinion Request citing rules of Common Law of the United States
with issues of discrimination and favortisum
May 12th 2008
Dewey Helmcamp
TBVME
333 Guadalupe Street
Suite 3-810
Austin, Texas 78701 - 3942
Re: case # 06397 Dear Mr. Helmcamp, I have given great thought to the events surrounding the above numbered case. Considering many factors, I am requesting that you seek an Attorney General Opinion on the following in my behalf, as someone in authority committed to public protection and interest of a public office. I was expected to act as my own attorney in these proceedings, however I was never allowed any information, records, concerning anything. I was never interviewed, nor were those giving affidavits. Not at any time did anyone ask for the records of x-ray?s, medication and etc., which they were aware were in my possession, needed to properly review this case ; while in fact the accused Vet and attorney had access to every piece of information submitted, also much verbal contact concerning the case. They still are awarded this previlage on a continued basis by the board office, without request on every new issue. Under the rules of common law in any legal matter and any legal setting, be it court room or other, the plaintiffs attorney "being myself" is entitled to the same consideration under law. The Board apparently sets themselves as a legal authority in judgement, seeking Attorney General Opinions in their own behalf thus this automatically presents courtroom type proceedings. Rules of Professional Conduct of Texas will also verify this. We are a civil law country, as verified by the New York Convention 1958, civil law. Constitutional and administrative law govern the affairs of the state. Constitutional law concerns both the relationships between the executive, legislature and judiciary with the human rights or civil right, civil liberties of individuals against the state. Torts, sometimes called delicts, are civil wrongs. To have acted tortiously, one must have breached a duty to another person, or infringed some pre-existing legal right, presenting trust, evident in this case.
Human rights, civil rights and human rights law are important fields to guarantee everyone basic freedoms and entitlemants. These are laid down in codes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights.
I am requesting that you seek an Attorney General Opinion on these issues requesting I be allowed access to all records of this case as acting attorney. This request is not subject to public disclouser under the open records act article 6252-17a V.T.C.S section 9 (d) of article 8890 V.T.C.S in conjunction with sectiom 3 (a) (1) of the open record act, or section 9 (c) (d) that pertains to the general public, Re: The Attorney General Oionion L0 - 90 - 109 of December 28,1990, due to the fact I now and have been acting attorney in this case.
An attorney cannot defend their case presented under such circumstances, they cannot defend what they cannot see. The process now used would be considered discrimination of law under the laws governing the State of Texas, also those of the United States Code of Conduct of Law. This also would possibly go into a Breach of Trust considering when I first entered the system, I was considered a public citizen, who should have been protected according to The Compact of The State of Texas. Considering the background of the case I was at no time represented by the system/state office designed to do so, and became my own defence attorney. I appreciate your co-operation in this matter and the timely execution of my request. Respectfully Submitted, Betty Garrity Update: . . . . . . TBVME refuses to request Attorney General Opinion ....
hummm, well this of course might produce the truth, and that would certainly make it more difficult in their goal's of total Vet Protection ( :
(condenced e-mail from Board Director)
From: Dewey Helmcamp
To:Betty Garrity
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: ~ ~ Attorney General Opinion Request ~ ~
Dear Ms. Garrity,
I apologize for the tardiness of this response to your email below. I too have given a great deal of thought to this matter and to your request, and regretfully can not accede to your request to ask for an Attorney General's opinion.
Sincerely, Dewey Helmcamp
his referrel is actually to the Attorney General Request letter above
I'm sure this of course is in the interest of the public the TBVME is suppose to protect and assist . . .
Update: After much pressure and persistence from me he gracefully submitted the request in his own version . The problem with the final opinion, is that the " Complainant" must know it exist, also request this option. The Board will never volunteer this information. " Thanks Dewey"
----- Original Message -----
From: Betty Garrity
To: Dewey Helmcamp
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:25 PM
Subject: ~ Attorney General Opinion Request ~ Dewey,
Your reply was of course already anticipated. You know I would also like to see all the patient records, that I requested, myself (a violation of the vet ), Bo's file is full of violations. One has to but read.
I've never received the names of three veterinarians, only the same two for each review. I don't misapprehend any nature of the complaint process, it is outlined on Bo's site in detail. The Complainant is suppose to be protected and represented by The Board, I was not, as over 90% of the public is not, and became my own attorney. Never was I interviewed or any other of the procedure the process is suppose to evolve, nor were those who submitted signed affidavits. Exactly what did they base their review on, the Vet's account, "of course". This doesn't surprise me, I have knowledge of many cases one in particular concerning a horse that had 10 affidavits with the same results. I also am still in possession of x-ray's, med's, placebo's and etc. needed to properly review the case, I was not permitted to submitt. Also the matter of informed consent, record keeping and a page of listed violations by Faulkner never addressed..etc. In other words you never looked at Bo's file either. Also remember he is an assistance animal, whole new set of rules here.
It is apparent from many cases that this Board is only an extention of the TVMA who's aim it is to protect those of their own, and those who pay the fee's to support this office and nothing more. With under a 10% disciplinary record, usually stayed.
I assure you that I will find a way to obtain an AG's office opinion on these matter's, in the future, and you can bend it and twist it like you did the last one, but one day their office is also going to notice that. This is not a personal issue with me, but one in the interest of the Public Protection this Board is supose to represent and does not. The public is not simply going away. Betty Garrity
|
     Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign Bo Bo Bear  I couldn't tell Mom what they
were doing to me, I only speak Lhaso Aphso
and sing Christmas carols
I tried to be brave but the pain was horrible.
They knew how much they were hurting me and didn't care.
This Vet & his Staff are Monster's
Approximately 85% to 90%
of all veterinary complaints filed with State Boards are
as no violation found.
Many times there is overwhelming evidence supporting the negligence allegations, yet the State Boards dismiss anyway.
These Boards, that are charged with protecting the public, spend much more time protecting guilty veterinarians instead.
 "Murderers ...
very often start out by killing
and torturing animals as kids."
~ Robert K. Ressler,
Former FBI
Serial Killer Profiler ~
Many Vet's have
long records of
complaints filed against
them.
These complaints are
hidden
by The Board after being declared
"no violation found"!
by friends in the profession.
The public has a right
to be informed of these records, upon request. However they are blocked by this agency calling them confidential records of the Board using/twisting a very old law on record. Thank You For Visiting
Bo Bo Bear's
Website  Research Discovery Fact This isn't the first time that a complaint has been filed with the State Board against David Faulkner, DVM.
for the State's Disciplinary Records.
Of all the animals,
man is the only one that lies.
Mark Twain
Report AbuseThrough Their Eyes
The National Animal Abuse Registry website:
Bo Bo Bear
Assitance Animal  I commited no crime
unless Love is one
did I deserve to be murdered |
| NOTICE: This is a PUBLIC SERVICE website designed to inform you of violations of the Veterinary Practice Act both proven and alleged, by David Faulkner, DVM ~ Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners ~ ~ The Texas State Bar, Animal Law Division |
| Copyright ? 2006 ~ 2017 by Betty Garrity. For Bo Bo Bear. All rights reserved. |
|
Legal notice: The bobo-bear.org website, along with Betty Garrity, makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or fitness for a particular use of the information on this website. This information is ADVISORY ONLY and the user / website visitor assumes all liability and waives any and all claims or causes of action against this website, its hosts, designers, webmaster, and/or Betty Garrity for all uses of, and any reliance on, this information. The bobo-bear.org website, along with Betty Garrity, specifically disclaims any and all liability for any claims or damages that may result from providing the website or the information it contains, including any websites maintained by third parties and linked to and/or from the bobo-bear.org website. Links provided to other websites from the bobo-bear.org website is not an endorsement of the third party website or its content. This paragraph shall accompany all distributions of this information and is incorporated into this information for all purposes. |
Attorney General of Texas ~ ~ rules in favor of complainant concerning records ~ 
