EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is from the Watchdog’s  journal entry of over half a life time ago.  It has not been altered, despite the embarrasing vanity of a young man.  I am told that the next day the New York Times carried a front page photograph from which I was  recognizable, presumably one that June Vance had taken and had been handed over to the Vatican authorities.  It was an inestimable honor to have been of service.

Sunday May 20. 1972 was our first day in Rome. I had unintentionally but carelessly affronted my mother-in-law June at the hotel breakfast table and my wife Terry and mother Hannah offered me condescending sympathy for my faux pas.

We had been traveling through France, Switzerland and now Italy together and until that morning I had evaded Mother’s suggestion that I take a bus tour with them. The tour races us through the streets of Rome stopping only briefly for others to take snapshots, and we all are happy when the bus parked before some relic shops on the fringe of the square before St. Peter’s Cathedral  so that we could escape to wander through the Basilica and see what we could of the Vatican City. Though my mother and I are Jewish, June a Christian Scientist, and Terry a Unitarian, we all looked forward to the prospect of seeing the Pope give his blessing at noon.

At my suggestion we first walked the length of St. Peters by the middle aisle so that we could get an overall concept and then returned to the front in preparation for viewing the chapels and art works that line the side aisles. June wandered over to the first chapel on the right which housed Michael Angelo’s famous Pietà, while I distracted myself, Terry and Mother by standing on the red circle near the front entrance on which Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope in 800 AD before the construction of the present St. Peters. Thirty five years old, the head of construction and management companies, owner of six apartment complexes in Central Pennsylvania, and father of three, my well-developed ego whispered in my ear that I was not unworthy to stand in Charlemagne’s place!

As I started to saunter toward the right aisle my attention was arrested by a flash followed by a man’s guttural cries and loud thuds. The spectators let out a moan as they stepped back in shock from in front of the first chapel.

I took a couple of steps to see through the crowd and saw a bearded man standing behind a large statue and swinging a sledge-type hand hammer while yelling to viewers. I turned to hand off my guide book to Mother or Terry, did not wish to waste the precious seconds to reach them and simply threw the book in their direction. No one in the throng had moved to stop this atrocious act and, as I ran up and swung my long legs and body over the banister that separated the viewers from the chapel, I studied the mad man, making sure that neither he nor any visible confederate had a gun (in which case I might well have changed the direction of my charge.) I ran up to the right side of the statue in preparation to grab his arm when he would aim his next blow. Since he was standing slightly to the right and behind the statue, he was in an impossible position to swing downward without having to risk being thrown by me from his higher perch. (Though never very athletic, I do stand six foot four inches tall, weigh 185 pounds, and jog a mile several days a week on our “farm.”)

But the assailant was not looking for a fight. Rather I was simply being used by him to turn to the second part of his pre-conceived drama as he quickly retreated upon my approach first to a thirty inch high pilaster to the right rear of the statue and then stepping up to the adjoining five foot pilaster which stood in the far right corner of the chapel. From there he shouted his rationalizations to the horrified crowd as I placed myself between the statue and him. As he was exhorting the crowd I felt the need to symbolically express my protest and, seeing a little plastic candy basket on the floor nearby, I stepped down momentarily, picked it up and futilely threw it up at him, harmlessly hitting him on the chest. By now several men had arrived and clawed at the madman’s ankles from below his perch. I had regained my elevated position between the madman and the Pieta. Several men yelled in Italian for the police who did not come. (We learned later that they had gone out into the square to prepare for the protection of the Pope at noon.) I thought it would be much better to allow the assailant to continue his speech making from his isolated and innocuous position until the police came rather than to pull him down and risk the crowd harming him. Nevertheless as others pulled at his ankles, I was caught up by the action and also helped pull him down but managed to catch him as he fell in my direction, absorbing most of his weight as his chest was caught between my left shoulder and my face, leaving me with the feeling of a bloody nose and an abrasion on the top of my nose which lasted several days. The crowd dragged him off as I ineffectively protested in loud English that they should not harm him.

As I surveyed the situation I saw the left hand of the Madonna lying intact as thought pleading from the floor. Scattered across the chapel were marble chips which several other men and I carefully collected and placed on the base of the statue. I carefully surveyed the area to make sure that everything appeared in order and that no one was pocketing souvenirs and then climbed out from the chapel. Men stood in front of the banister weeping as thought their children had been mangled before their eyes.

June had stood next to the assailant before he jumped over the banister into the chapel and had regained sufficient composure after the initial horror to take pictures on her simple camera which later that afternoon we turned over to Francesco Vacchini, a Vatican official and which, to date, have not yet been returned.

Terry had a shocked look on her face and tears running from her eyes and walked towards me clutching the arm of my diminutive mother. My wife had feared for my safety in that the flash and thuds had suggested a bombing and assassins.

I had no desire to await the reporters since I have shunned publicity all my business career, questioning the desirability of being readily recognized and fearing other’s envy and the exposure of the children to kidnapping. Those persons with whom I interact usually know who I am and treat me in a manner of commensurate with my achievements. Besides I am highly skilled in projecting to strangers the manner in which I expect to be treated.

As the significance of what had occurred sunk in as we attempted to resume our tour of the cathedral, I joked to my family- “If Catholics have been right all the time, while the rest of you are burning in hell I may will get a free pass into heaven.” The joke so caught my imagination that moments later, as I watched others dabbing their heads with holy water close to the scene of the recent disorder, I could not resist the urge- yes, me a confirmed agnostic with a Jewish background- to dab my forehead with the holy water lying in the fount of Bernini’s cherubs!

Every man must question his basic courage and decisiveness and I suspect that I have had reason to question my bravery and to consequently fantasize great acts more than most persons. It is gratifying beyond description to look back upon one’s cool and decisive response to an emergency and to subsequently bask in the adoration of one’s family. It also gave me an insight into what constitutes bravery.

A revelation to me from my experience is that most acts of perilous social service are probably performed by persons used to resolving problems, directing others and with a strong sense of self importance rather than by people who have less than normal fear.

As an example, I met a couple the following day who had been viewing the Pieta and they described to me how the assailant had jumped over the banister, ran up behind the statue, thrown off his cloak which knocked over the candelabra and, exposing the mallet, had commence his terrible attack on the Madonna. The gentleman who was apparently in his late forties and who came from Brooklyn said that his first thought was that it was “a demonstration to show that the statue was unbreakable”. Incredible? I think not.

Doubts and fears concerning whether he should act distorted the obvious reality. On the other hand, the years of being boss, of taking charge, of the gradual building of right to lead and decide caused me to unemotionally and calculatedly take the entire situation, evaluate the amount of risk (minimal risk for maximum results), and take proper action on four priorities as they became apparent: 1) Stop the damage to the statue; 2) Contain the madman until the police could arrive; 3) Try to protect the assailant from harm once he was neutralized; and 4) Pick up and protect the pieces from the statue so that it could be restored. I suspect that he men who lead the charges from the beaches into the enemy infested hills are those who are acting more from their habit of taking charge and their impatience with lack of decisive action rather than from motivations in common with individuals who perform dangerous acts to their persons such as tight rope walkers and test pilots.

After the Italian press (to the extent that my wife could glean from her limited Italian) seemed to indicate that the “foreign” tourists had stood immobile and that a woman had tried to sell her film to the highest bidder (June had given her film to the authorities), I finally went to talk to the Vatican representative of Il Tempo, a Roman newspaper. A former report from the London Times, Guglielmo Rospigliosi was gracious to make reference to my impressions in a follow up article the next day. According to Mr. Rospigliosi the assailant, Laszlo Toth, was a religious fanatic who thought it sacrilegious to portray God as having a mother and was only aiming his blows at the Madonna. Toth was a Hungarian who had most recently resided in Australia and repeatedly sought interviews with the Pope and apparently attacked the Pieta to publicize his beliefs.

In passing I mentioned that I had mistakenly assumed that the statue was made of plaster and that fine chips had flown in all directions and that the wrist and hand had appeared hollow. Mr. Rospigliosi excitedly related how two fingers had carelessly been broken from the hand a hundred years ago and that it had been drilled in order to make appropriate repairs which led to my momentary confusion of marble for plaster.

A favorite movie of mine is the western, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.” At the end Jimmy Stewart portrays an elderly statesmen in a moment of personal satisfaction with himself and enjoy great courtesies from a railroad conductor, as well he was entitled to having been a Congressman, Ambassador to England, and earlier and presently a Senator. His smugness is crushed when he realizes that the honors being rendered were strictly based upon the mistaken legend that Stewart had killed a desperado years before. As we had lunch after the Pieta episode in a neighborhood Italian restaurant not far from St. Peters, my Mother urged that I contact the papers and I resisted the strong impulse with the observation that after all of my building and business accomplishments and my aspirations for future successes, I would hate to be known by my acquaintances simply as the “man who saved the Pieta.”

AOL.COM: A federal judge declared the Obama administration’s health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that argued people cannot be required to buy health insurance.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed…  (more)

Article “Businesses on hook to pay U.S. for unemployment benefits” states:

“Pennsylvania has borrowed $3.1 billion from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits…

“Employers will pay about $35 per worker more this year and an additional $21 per employee next year in state and federal taxes to repay the loans. Business owners say that adds up.

“They say that means they’ll think twice about whether they can afford to hire employees or give workers raises…”

WATCHDOG: $35 per worker per year is a drop of the bucket compared to rising health care costs.  It isn’t unemployment benefits that prevent the hiring of workers; it’s the exorbitant (as much as $3 per hour) cost of health care under an inferior health care system that costs almost twice as much as other advanced nations and uniquely places the load on businesses.  “Medicare for everyone.”

From USA TODAY:

Half a century after the March of Dimes put the 20th century’s most feared childhood disease on the road to eradication, Bill Gates on Monday will declare polio his top priority and challenge world leaders to finish the job before the disease roars back.

“We are on the threshold of eliminating polio once and for all,” the Microsoft billionaire and philanthropist says in his 2011 annual letter, given in advance to USA TODAY and slated for public release in New York on Monday. In an interview, Gates warns, however, that outbreaks in Nigeria, Tajikistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo provide a “scary” reminder that decades of progress will be lost without sustained action.

India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan are now the only countries that have active transmission of the disease. Gates says the biggest threat to the success of the Global Polio Eradication initiative in those countries and elsewhere is a $720 million funding shortfall for this year and next. Given the stakes, Gates says he is putting the full weight of his influence on the line to rally world leaders to wipe out the disease…

Click here to read the full article.

FINANCIAL TIMES:  Appointing a former air force commander – like Mr Mubarak himself – as his new prime minister, and then naming his intelligence chief as his likely successor, is no cure for civic insurrection. The ageing pharaoh might as well try to blot out the sun with his finger. Egypt’s young rebels, who have raised the banner of freedom and insisted on his departure, are not risking their lives in order to see one set of generals replaced by another…

The Mubarak regime is at the centre of a network of regional strongmen the west has backed and bankrolled to secure stability in a neuralgic region, guaranteed oil supplies and the safety of Israel. As waves of democracy have burst over almost every other tyrant-plagued region in the past 30 years, the US and Europe have connived in an Arab exception – and Egypt is its exemplar.

The west has struck a Faustian bargain with Arab rulers, who have blackmailed them into believing that, but for them, the mullahs would be in charge. There is unquestionably a risk. Arab despots have destroyed political and institutional life, leaving their opponents little option but the mosque and the madrassa….  (more)

From the HUFFINGTON POST:

A tourist who was interviewed last night from Cairo spoke for millions of his fellow Americans when he said he couldn’t imagine living a country like Egypt. It is hard, isn’t it?

Imagine: A government run by and for the rich and powerful. Leaders who lecture others about “sacrifice” and deficits while cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy. A system so corrupt that rich executives can break the law without fear of being punished. Increasing poverty and hardship even as the stock market rises. And now, a nation caught between a broken political system and a populist movement that could be hijacked by religious extremists at any moment.

No wonder they’re upset! Why, we’d be marching in the streets too.

Here’s the reality: Income inequality is actually greater in the United States than it is in Egypt. Politicians here have close financial ties to big corporations, both personally and through their campaigns. Corporate lawbreakers often do go unpunished. Poverty and unemployment statistics for US minorities are surprisingly similar to Egypt’s…

Click here to read the full article.

An “In my opinion” column by James A. Henry entitled “Reaganomics was a failure” states:

“Reagan’s economic policies sent the federal deficit to never-before-seen levels. His tax cuts did nothing but expand the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class. The poverty rate during Reagan’s presidency actually rose. The great boom in American business and the economy that conservatives like to credit to Reagan actually came to fruition during the 1990s while Bill Clinton occupied the White House. 

“Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts had as much to do with the economic boom of the 1990s as the Philadelphia Phillies’ penny-pinching during the same decade had to do with the ballclub’s recent success. Absolutely nothing, despite what those advocating those policies may want us to believe…”

NEWSLANC:  Two wags of the tail for Mr. Henry.  Not only was President Ronald Reagans so called economic accomplishments a myth (in fact they produced huge deficits), his vaunted winning of the  Cold War is equally inaccurate.   President Jimmy Carter who preceeded Reagan kept an almost daily journal from which excerpts have been published as “White House Diaries.”   It is now apparent that in part due to very tough efforts taken by Carter against the Soviet Union in response to its invasion of Afghanistan and the ongoing dissolution of communist government control over Poland, that the days of the Soviet Union were numbered.   

How many recall how President Gerald Ford was laughed at when, in a debate with Carter, he included Poland as one of the nations in which the Soviet grip was being loosened?   He made a mistake; not because he was wrong but because what was taking place was top secret!   It made him a laughing stock and may have cost him the presidency, that along with the then unpopular but now lauded pardoning of Richard Nixon.

This is not to detract from the credit due Reagan and George H. W. Bush for the vision and sensitivity they demonstrated in their dealings with the  dissolution of the Soviet empire.

An article “Lancaster school’s bid to aid black students sparks claims of bias” reports:  

 “When Dominique Miller walked into his newly assigned homeroom at McCaskey East High School in Lancaster last month, his teacher asked if he and the other students noticed anything unusual.

“‘No females in the class’, one student said, while Miller, a 16-year-old junior, noticed something even more striking. ‘We’re all African Americans,’ he said…

 “The idea was simple – a homeroom mentoring program for underachieving African American students whose test scores were the lowest in the racially diverse school. Under the plan, students would be divided by race and gender and placed in homerooms with African American teachers, or mentors, for a six-minute start to the school day that focused on the importance of academic achievement and looking ahead to careers.”

WATCHDOG:   According to an article in the Sunday News, the School District of Lancaster is putting this program on hold, in part to avoid possible expensive litigation.  While we can understand the initial negative reaction to based upon past experiences with segregation, it seems that opponents are fighting past wars rather than dealing with current and future problems.

From President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 25:

“Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change…So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years—without adding to our deficit.”

A relatively high corporate federal tax rate does discourage investment in the USA by domestic and foreign investment.  Here is a chart of comparative rates:

• Australia: 30%, however some specialized entities are taxed at lower rates.^[12]
• Canada: Federal 11% or 18% plus provincial 1% to 16%. Note: the rates are additive.^[13]
• Hong Kong: 16.5%^[14]
• Ireland: 12.5% on trading (business) income, and 25% on nontrading income.^[15]
• New Zealand: 30%
• Singapore: 17% from 2010, however a partial exemption scheme may apply to new companies.^[16]
• United Kingdom: 21% to 28% for 2008–2010.^[17]
• United States: Federal 15% to 35%.^[18] States: 0% to 10%, deductible in computing

However the ‘subchapter s’ provision allows stockholders of qualifying corporations, those primarily with 99 or less stockholders, to avoid federal income taxes on the corporate levels but to simply treat dividends as a source of regular income, the same as  profits they might earn from running a business, up to a maximum of 35% per every added dollar over a certain amount.

Stockholders of standard corporations are taxed twice:  Once on the corporate level, and a second time on their personal federal income tax return.   However, there is a provision whereby the most tax they will have to pay on dividends is 15%, rather than a potential 35%.

Nevertheless, a wealthy individual could end up paying 35% plus 15% in combined taxes on income from corporate dividends as opposed as opposed to a wealthy individual investing in a ‘subchapter s’ corporation paying a maximum of 35%.

(Another factor, briefly described below, is capital gains taxes.  Sometimes corporation grow more valuable without technically creating profits, so their stock value goes up.  When their stock is sold, the profit is taxed at a maximum of 15%.  This ‘loop hole’ also would need to be taken into consideration in modifying current corporate income tax structure.)

If all corporations were treated under ‘subchapter s’ status, they would become far more attractive forms of investment by both USA and foreign investors.  A provision would be desirable to tax dividends to foreign investors with withholdings at the corporate level so that they would pay their fair share.  Whether the boost to investments in corporations plus closing of loop holes would offset the lower total taxes is an important question.

Below are excerpts from articles taken from Wikipedia. Additional information can be obtained through using the links to the actual articles.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Dividends

Many countries impose corporate tax or company tax on the income or capital of some types of legal entities. A similar tax may be imposed at state or lower levels. The taxes may also be referred to as income tax or capital tax. Entities treated as partnerships are generally not taxed at the entity level. Most countries tax all corporations doing business in the country on income from that country. Many countries tax all income of corporations organized in the country.

Company income subject to tax is often determined much like taxable income for individuals. Generally, the tax is imposed on net profits. In some jurisdictions, rules for taxing companies may differ significantly from rules for taxing individuals. Certain corporate acts, like reorganizations, may not be taxed. Some types of entities may be exempt from tax.

Many countries tax corporate entities on income and also tax the owners when the corporation pays a dividend. Where the owners are taxed, a withholding tax may be imposed. Generally, these taxes on owners are not referred to as corporate tax.

Examples of corporate tax rates for a few English-speaking countries include:

• Australia: 30%, however some specialized entities are taxed at lower rates.^[12]
• Canada: Federal 11% or 18% plus provincial 1% to 16%. Note: the rates are additive.^[13]
• Hong Kong: 16.5%^[14]
• Ireland: 12.5% on trading (business) income, and 25% on nontrading income.^[15]
• New Zealand: 30%
• Singapore: 17% from 2010, however a partial exemption scheme may apply to new companies.^[16]
• United Kingdom: 21% to 28% for 2008–2010.^[17]
• United States: Federal 15% to 35%.^[18] States: 0% to 10%, deductible in computing

Most systems that tax corporations also impose income tax on shareholders of corporations when earnings are distributed.[19] Such distribution of earnings is generally referred to as a dividend. The tax may be at reduced rates. For example, the United States provides for reduced amounts of tax on dividends received by individuals and by corporations.[20] By contrast, the United Kingdom provides for reduced amounts of tax only on dividends received by individuals.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax

An S corporation, for United States federal income tax purposes, is a corporation that makes a valid election to be taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation’s income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This concept is called single taxation; if the corporation is taxed as a C corporation, it will face double taxation, meaning both the corporation’s profits, and the shareholders’ dividends, will be taxed.

Qualification for S corporation status

In order to make an election to be treated as an S corporation, the following requirements must be met:

• Must be an eligible entity (a domestic corporation, or a limited liability company which has elected to be taxed as a corporation).
• Must have only one class of stock.
• Must not have more than 100 shareholders.^[1][2]
  • Spouses are automatically treated as a single shareholder. Families, defined as individuals descended from a common ancestor, plus spouses and former spouses of either the common ancestor or anyone lineally descended from that person, are considered a single shareholder as long as any family member elects such treatment.^[2]
• Shareholders must be U.S. citizens or residents, and must be natural persons, so corporate shareholders and partnerships are generally excluded. However, certain trusts, estates, and tax-exempt corporations, notably 501(c)(3) corporations, are permitted to be shareholders.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

Profits and losses must be allocated to shareholders proportionately to each one’s interest in the business. Under tax-cutting legislation passed in 2003, and extended by The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 until 2009, most ‘ordinary’ dividends are known as ‘qualifying’ dividends and are taxed at special low rates of 5% or 15%*. Qualified dividends are shown in box 1b of Form 1099-DIV.

http://www.usa-investment-tax.com/taxation_dividends.asp

This article is about Capital gains tax in the United States. For other countries, see Capital gains tax.

In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income. Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income (26 U.S.C. §1(h)). This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax. The amount an investor is taxed depends on both his or her tax bracket, and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor’s ordinary income tax rate, and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, which apply to assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains. In 2003, this rate was reduced to 15%, and to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. These reduced tax rates were passed with a sunset provision and are effective through 2010. On Dec 17, 2010, President Barack Obama signed a bill extending this to 2012.^[1] If they are not extended before the end of 2012, they will expire and revert to the rates in effect before 2003, which were generally 20%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

DRUG WAR CHRONICLES:  The Pain Relief Network (PRN) is no longer a burr under the saddle of DEA agents eager to second guess doctors or federal prosecutors out to make a name for themselves by prosecuting doctors for their medical decisions. PRN founder and leader Siobhan Reynolds announced December 29 that the group would no longer be an activist organization because “pressure from the US Department of Justice has made it impossible for us to function.” The organization’s web site continues as an educational and community forum.

Reynolds was referring to an open-ended grand jury investigation directed at PRN by Wichita US Attorney Tanya Treadway, who had been irked by the group’s fervent defense of pain medicine Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife Linda, who were convicted of drug trafficking offenses for prescribing high doses of opioid pain relievers to patients at their Kansas pain clinic.

Treadway first attempted to impose a gag order on Reynolds and PRN to prevent them from publicly discussing the case and the broader issues of pain control and the tensions between it the DEA’s effort to prevent the “improper” prescribing of opioid pain medications. That effort was thrown out by the trial judge.

Treadway then came back with a grand jury investigation seeking evidence of obstruction of justice for PRN’s advocacy, and issued subpoenas demanding all PRN records having anything to do with the case, including Reynolds’ phone and email records. Reynolds refused to comply and sought relief in the courts, but the organization was hit by $200 daily fines for each day it failed to turn over the records.

Reynolds and PRN lost in US district court and at the 10th US Circuit of Appeals, which, most unusually, sealed its opinion. The government-imposed secrecy surrounding the case has been criticized by groups including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which questioned why the court would “order the complete sealing of a record in which the facts are already publicly known and the traditional grounds for secrecy carry no force.” In a post on Reason.com (linked above), Jacob Sullum noted that an amicus brief filed by the Reason Foundation (publisher of Reason) and the Institute for Justice, based entirely on publicly-available information, was itself sealed by the court. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court last month refused to hear her appeal. (For more detailed coverage on these courthouse antics, see the PRN archive page here.) Broke and unable to obtain redress from the courts, PRN has called it a day.

That is too bad. Reynolds and PRN were tireless activists on behalf of pain patients dating back to her ex-husband’s search for relief from a debilitating condition. That search led them to Dr. Billy Hurwitz, a leading high-dose opioid pain reliever prescriber. But Hurwitz was himself prosecuted and convicted by the feds for his prescribing, kicking Reynolds and PRN into high gear.

PRN also worked other cases of doctors persecuted by the DEA and federal prosecutors over their opioid prescribing practices. Reynolds and PRN also played a key role in agitating around Richard Paey, the Florida pain patient sentenced to 25 years as a drug dealer for obtaining pain meds from multiple pharmacies. Paey was later pardoned by Gov. Charlie Crist, thanks in good part to PRN’s efforts.

PRN may be done as an activist organization, but the community of patients Reynolds organized is not going away. Reynold’s announcement indicated that they are looking at a possible new legal action in the Western District of Washington, but not under PRN’s auspices.