I AM OFF TO SAN ANTONIO ON JANUARY 16, 2026, TO SEE THE BEST IN HIS FIELD

I do not mind one bit how much the Medicare is going to cost me.  I will work it out.

My mindset is the end diagnosis will be benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), although the Free % PSA indicates it is not BPH.  These labs can be misleading.  But to be safe when someone has a PSA at 18.4, and Free PSA at 19, you do the biopsy to rule out, not confirm cancer.

On the 16th I will be driving at night to get back in time for a hearing in federal court on the 17th wherein Judge Olvera may rule on fully briefed pending motions to include the Motion to Remand.  One opposing attorney came at me mischaracterizing my opposition to the hearing because he wants a continuance.  The main purpose of the hearing is to allow Judge Olvera to rule on pending motions and put the parties to prepare for trial.

If Judge Overa dismisses the COB from the lawsuit; it is automatically remanded to state court because he will have lost his only basis for federal jurisdiction. 

The Texas Supreme Court is not happy.  I am pursuing the contempt.  The law is black and white.  Will Judge Olvera protect his jurisdiction from the Texas Supreme Court? 

Okay I have to get back to finishing my response to the COB motion to dismiss.  I will file it in the morning.

 

IRAN SUPREME LEADER IS DEAD, BUT THE ANALYSTS HAVE WHAT IS NEXT WRONG

Let's be real, the military has the guns, not the religious leaders. The military has to know their time is over if they back another radical Supreme Leader.

There is also the factor, the military knows no Supreme Leader would have the backing of the people.

Military leaders never want to let power go.  To a military leader in Iran, they know Trump prefers to keep them in power than chance them being an opposition force.

If there is a regime change it will not be another radical Supreme Leader.  Oh, I guess you can say maybe for a month or two before it collapses.  The new leader will be more secular and have the backing of the military establishment.  Trump and Israel would support such a leader. 

If this happens, the geopolitics in the region will change fast to the detriment of all the rogue forces Iran has backed for decades. This will make Trump the winner. 

 

MY RIGHT EAR WAS DRAINED OF ABOUT 2 1/2 INCHES INTO A CULTURE TUBE TO BE SENT OUT

This will not be like last time where neglect resulted in a 5-week hospital stay. This doctor may be the only one I trust at this time in the LRGV.

Until the culture comes back, we have no idea the source of the infection.  He also removed the tube.  The ear hurts, but I already of antibiotic drops in the ear.  I will continue with the same drops which finally resolved the problem last time.

I am very happy I am now with Medicare.  It will cost me but mean better healthcare.  If I need a formal ear doctor, I have one ready to go at Methodist Stone Oak in SA.  He does not take VA, but he will take my Medicare.

A friend asked me why I am paying so much.  A $111 is not a lot.  I am willing to pay an extra $50 a month for unlimited care anywhere in the US.  If I need a doctor in NY or San Diego, my insurance will pay.  I also have $50 thousand coverage when I travel internationally.  

 

THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE SIX DOCTORS HAVING TO REFUND PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES

If you read the post in the Herald, no doctor has been charged with criminal conduct.  Why? it was a billing problem which was caused by equally responsible doctor's staff and staff at Medicare, Medicaid, and TRIWEST. 

Just yesterday, while praising the urologist the VA assigned to me, I noted the staff is a nightmare.  To be sure the doctors need to be held accountable for the mistakes of their billing staff. But also note doctors do not prepare the billing to the various public and private insurance companies.

I will not name the doctor I use to see but stopped because his staff was a nightmare.  I spend years making good money advising doctors on liability problems to include billing mistakes.

The doctor I know is brilliant.  When my late brother-in-law was in ICU at Valley Baptist, he saved him.  The ICU staff were ignoring the lab work, and this doctor stepped in and had a word with the ICU nurses.

This doctor is brilliant and no one will ever convince me he was part of this mess.  In fact, I equally blame Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for what happened. 

You will note TRIWEST [VA] is not included.

As I have noted I see how much the doctor bills and how much they get paid.  Routinely, I see simple procedures tied to the treatment wherein the VA denies the claim.  The office managers express their frustration.  

I left this doctor after his office manager refused to release my medical records to Brooks Army Medical Center.  The agreement with the VA is medical records are to be released at no cost, if general records.  Once Brook Army Medical Center gave up on getting the records they dropped me as a patient. The doctor did nothing wrong, it was his staff.

CONTEXT: Doctors have to rely on their office manager to manage the non-medical staff.  Unfortunately, billing has become so complex. The coders are no longer qualified. They are not getting the training they need.  And what happened to these 6 doctors is the result.  But there is certainly no intended fraud by the doctors.

WHY MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND TRIWEST ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE

If the DOJ press release is correct, Medicare, Medicaid and TRIWEST paid for services not justified because the doctor's medical notes did not say why the simple test was performed.  If Medicare requires justification for the procedure, and justification is not in the record, why did Medicare pay for it?

The Medicare, Medicaid, and TRIWEST clerks were no more competent than the coders working for the doctors.

And this my friends is why no one was charged with criminal fraud.

Please do not judge these doctors based on the mistakes of their coder billing for the service, and for the Medicare. Medicaid, and TRIWEST clerks paying for the services when the medical records did not justify the billing.

Billing problems are routine.  This one got out of control because Medicare, Medicaid and TRIWEST paid when they should not have.  Had the billing been denied based on incomplete medical records, doctors would have corrected the problem.

Yes, I agree the doctor should have to pay the money back, but the Congressional Oversight Committee needs to look into this matter so they can see how the mistakes of Medicare, Medicaid, and TRIWEST are costing the taxpayers millions. 

Back to work, before leaving for a doctor in McAllen.

A FEW UPDATES

UPDATE:

The SSA office was so helpful.  They told me I did not need an appointment.  I am officially on Medicare Parts A and B, under Plan N which effectively gives me full coverage.  I will pay $20.00 a visit and a $282.00 deductible a year.

The Plan N is $111.00 a month.  The Part B is either Zero or $202.00.  I have to apply with Texas Adult Medicaid to see if they will pay Part B.  I am fine paying $313 a month for better choices.  I will only use the Medicare when the private providers do not take VA.  

I got to the SSA office at 2:30 and was out of there at 3:45. I was a walk-in.  The representative knew exactly what I needed.  I gave him my ID and VA award letter.  He entered everything and I was done.  I am good effective March 1, 2026.   The wait was really nothing. 

This thing with community providers not accepting VA vouchers is only going to get worse.  I see the bills.  The VA sends me every summary.  It tells me how much the provider bills, what the VA pays, and my part is zero.  I will say the majority of the time the VA does not pay enough to cover the front office, and paperwork.  The doctors have to know they are not getting paid and just do it to help veterans.  

I totally support the doctors who will no longer accept VA vouchers.  

Here is a fact.  That $1.5 million bill for my 5 weeks in the hospital never would have happened had I been on Medicare.  I would have been in San Antonio with a team which does not take VA but are well regarded for their advanced care.  

I am back to working on court matters, for now.  I will be in McAllen most of tomorrow with other doctors.

Original Post

A quick note before I head out to SSA to see if they can help me with an emergency Medicare Part B application.

There is nothing further the VA can do for me to finish assessing whether or not the high PSA and low free% PSA indicate prostate cancer.  I was told in writing the local urologist I was assigned to has permission to do the prostate biopsy and I need to work with his office.

I have worked with his office.  I cannot get past the front desk.  Whether by visiting or calling I am told the same thing.  The doctor has been too busy to look at the lab work which points to possible prostate cancer. I do not believe them.  I like this doctor and there is no way he would leave critical lab work on his desk and not review it.  

So on Monday I went to the best urology group available in SA and asked if they take VA vouchers.  Under Vets Choice I can use anyone I want so long as they take VA insurance.  I got the answer I dreaded.  They no longer take VA insurance.  You have to have Medicare.  This is the third time I have faced this problem.  Had the ENT group in SA accepted VA insurance, I never would have ended up in the hospital for 5 weeks, and then 9 weeks with out-patient daily treatment.  Oh, and that infection is back. 

So now I decide it is time to just pay for Medicare since the VA can no longer guarantee care.

Nope, I spent 3 1/2 hours on the phone back and forth with SSA and Medicare and after they could not help me I was told I have to go in for an in office appointment.  The best they can do is March 24th.  

So the local urologist is too busy to look at the lab work, and the SSA cannot help with Medicare Part B until March 24th.  This also means cancelling the Part N which starts on March 1.  It is the best available supplement to cover me all over the US and up to $50k internationally. 

Trump needs to send specialist to the LRGV to provide veterans healthcare and stop trying to send a ship hospital to Greenland.  He needs to take care of US Veterans first.

This post is a break.  I came home from the VA after being there most of the morning for unrelated care to the prostate.  My phone ran out.  

I was told to take everything I have and try a walk in and maybe they can help me on an emergency basis to get Medicare Part B.

Not edited.  I need out the door.

 

FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS I HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR HEMP: TEXAS REMAINS A PLACE WHERE HEMP IS NOT WANTED

All over the world countries have realized that planting large areas of trees in arid areas can lead to more rain.  We should not be cutting down trees unless absolutely necessary, but we do.

Had the LRGV listened to me over 20 years ago when I came to Brownsville and spoke to a group about hemp, the LRGV by now would be a major growing area of hemp, and manufacturing.  But has is always the case, the political class which keeps the LRGV depressed, could not see a profit for themselves so they opposed it. 

 

TEXAS CHIEF JUSTICE JIMMY BLACKLOCK WILL FACE FEDERAL JUDGE ROLANDO OLVERA ON CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGES.

ALSO INCLUDED IN THE SHOW CAUSE FILING IS THE ENTIRE TEXAS SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE OF ISSUING A RULING ON THE MANDAMUS, AND FOR DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO RECUSE OVER THE ISSUE OF GAY MARRIAGE, SAVE JUSTICE DEVINE WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RECUSAL ISSUE

ON ME REAL QUICK:  I AM IN SAN ANTONIO FOR TREATMENT ON MY HIPS.  AFTER THE MORNING PROCEDURE I WILL TRY AND GET AN APPOINTMENT WITH A PROSTATE CANCER SPECIALIST.  I WILL NOT WAIT UNTIL JUNE FOR THE BIOPSY

Federal Judge Rolando Olvera should have remanded the case to state court.  Based on everything I know he will not address any of the motions until the Pretrial Hearing on March 17th. had he simply remanded the case to state court the Chief Justice and the entire Court would not be in this mess.

OKAY I HAVE TO FINISH ON MY TABLET - THE MOUSE ON MY LAPTOP DIED

Here is the caselaw I originally promised at the bottom. 

Catholic Archdioces 589 US 57, 63-64 (2020)

For all I know Judge Rolando Olvera at the pretrial hearing was going to address the sanctions motion against the COB in my favor.  It does not matter.  The parties are now in a position they will have to expend a lot of time and money preparing for the pretrial hearing.  

In state court you file a request with the court for a hearing in court or by submission.  This is how you know your motion will be heard. I can prove that in state court all a judge has to do is refuse a hearing, and your motion is denied as a matter of law, and the ruling cannot be appealed.

In federal court Judge Olvera's local rules provide that once a motion has been completely briefed you notify him by filing and request the matter be heard by submission.  If Judge Olvera believes the matter should be heard in open court, he will notify the parties.

The city hired Helen Scott to handle the removal to federal court.  There is no issue her conduct is fully sanctionable.  I will get there.

But once I was ready to ask my motion to remand be heard by submission, which is Judge Olvera's preference, I emailed as allowed the case coordinator to verify that all that is needed is my filing the matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is ready for submission.  She refused to answer me.

But Helen Scott also emailed her and got into a substantive discussion with the case coordinator over whether I had to wait until the pretrial hearing.  The rule is pretty clear, and Helen was eventually told she was wrong.  Justice must have the appearance of justice.  When the court's staff is willing to have a substantive discussion with one of the lawyers but refused to acknowledge a request to verify the motion will be submitted for submission, there is no longer an appearance of justice.

BUT KARMA HAS ITS WAY

Helen Scott did everything she could to delay the court remanding the case to state court.  I do not say this lightly.  In fact, all of the case law which justifies my Moton to Show Cause to the Chief Justice and the entire court, is a simple copy and paste from Helen Ramirez's brief to deny my motion to remand.

My position was and remains that if the case is remanded the Texas Supreme Court regains its jurisdiction to rule on the pending mandamus.  I never suggested otherwise.  In fact, I notified the Texas Supreme Court of the removal to federal court and its loss of jurisdiction.  To suggest I was arguing while the case was in federal court the Texas Supreme Court still had jurisdiction is absurd.

But Helen Scott insisted on misleading the court and, in the process, did all the research I needed that the Texas Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the state case.

I will give you the case law as I cut and pasted it from Helen Scott's brief.

There is also the question of her argument.  She lies to the court and says there is no unique question which should be resolved by the Texas Supreme Court.  This was a lie and she knew it.  No court has ever ruled code enforcement is discretionary.  It was a question of first impression for the Texas Supreme Court.

She was so desperate to make the argument she just glossed over the rules of statutory construction.  You cannot argue the meaning of a statute without using the rules of statutory construction.  She did not because it could not be done.

In her brief as an act of desperation she argued in the alternative that it did not matter if there is no discretion because I never took Omar Ochoa's ruling to the City Board of Appeals.  There can only be a Board of Appeals if there is no discretion in enforcement of the code.  In her desperation she conceded code enforcement is not discretionary.

Whether I went to the Board of Appeals is a fact question which is not subject to a 12B6 dismissal.  My affidavit will say the issue of the Board of Appeals never became an issue because Omar Ochoa never responded to my request for code enforcement.  He just ignored me.  Then he and Helen Ramirez were party to telling Texas Lone Star they did not have to comply with the code violations.  They did same after I demanded a personnel review.  That my friends is a slam dunk Sec. 1983 lawsuit.  

Even on the sec. 1983 issue Helen Scott's motion does not align with my lawsuit.

I do not have to respond to the motion to dismiss because it must meet the legal requirements of a 12B6 dismissal, and it does not.  But I will respond before the pretrial conference.

MY HEALTH IS CAUSING PROBLEMS

I am focused on a final diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia.  The problem is that my free PSA results show a high risk for prostate cancer.  For BPH the number should have gone in the other direction.  I am not waiting until June for an appointment to decide if a biopsy is required.  It is.  I have done the research. 

All the research shows if caught early I could have a life span of another 20 years.  I am not sure I want to live to 88, but whatever. 

It is hard on days when you sleep for 16 hours.  The fatigue is really bad.  My insulin is at 80 units, the max allowed with the pen, and my BS remains at 161 or higher.  I am insulin resistant and the insulin may never work.  But if I have cancer, my BS could be artificially high.

Trust me this is taxing on my mobility.  Being caught up in litigation does not help. 

 WHAT WILL HAPPEN PROCEDURALLY? 

The clerk of the Texas Supreme Court can reject my filing.  It was filed and served late this morning.  It awaits acceptance by the clerk.  I will probably be in a procedure when the notice of acceptance comes through.  I will check before I go into the procedure and post at the top if it was accepted or rejected.

I do not care if it is rejected.  It is solid and I do not need the Supreme Court to respond to my motion to Show Cause in order to file the request with Judge Olvera, and the DOJ for obstruction of justice.

I do not care if Judge Olvera takes the matter seriously.  It will go to the federal court of appeals.  When a state judge not once but effectively issues three rulings in a federal case it needs to be addressed.  The US Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear such conduct cannot be ignored.

The three rulings are the denial of a motion to recuse Missy Medary which was made moot after the removal and the court lost jurisdiction Then as to the entire court save Justice Devine the court denied my motion to recuse the court over bias based on my LGBTQ+ status.  And finally, the court denied my mandamus in a merit ruling.  All are void based on a want of jurisdiction. 

I will also be seeking an immediate removal of Chief Justice Blacklock for retaliation based on my pending complaint with the commission on judicial conduct.

This mess is going to go on and on, and John Cowen, the mayor of the City of Brownsville will be a key player in this mess. He knows he is petty and vindictive, and his shortsightedness will play out for some time.

OKAY, HERE IS HELEN SCOTTS LEGAL ARGUMENT WHICH ALLOWED ME TO FILE THE SHOW CAUSE MOTION WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

She did this to confuse the court by alleging I was saying the Texas Supreme Court retained jurisdiction.  I never said such a thing, and my notice to the Texas Supreme Court about the removal and its options prove my point.

As I noted I cannot access my brief on my laptop, Monday night I will post Helen Scott's entire legal argument I used against the Texas Supreme Court.