25 Nov 2017
UDRP Complaint Terminated
Regarding SLU’s UDRP complaint and attempt to confiscate the <slucomplianceproject.org> domain name, the panel appointed by the international arbitration body that considers such things for ICANN (the World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO) decided to “terminate” the complaint altogether, stating “While it is not altogether clear to the Panel why the Complainant chose to institute parallel proceedings by filing a UDRP complaint in tandem with its federal court lawsuit, it is evident to the Panel that the disputed domain names are tied up in a larger and more complex dispute than the issue of cybersquatting that the UDRP is designed to address.” WIPO case D2017-1759 decision can be read HERE.
The next hurdle is to overcome SLU’s federal lawsuit regarding trademark infringement, etc. (More information on that can be found below). SLU attorneys plan to depose the site administrator (Dr. M. Todd Rice) in early January 2018, on that case’s path to court.
SLUCP files ethics complaint against SLU lawyers and their lawyer witness.
As the deadline has passed for the submission of documents in SLU’s UDRP complaint in their attempt to take our domain name from us, SLU lawyers continue to try to submit annexes (exhibits) to their complaint. (We’re still about 14 days out from that decision as the Panelists are still being appointed.) We submitted 7 annexes with our response to SLU’s complaint. SLU is now up to 34 annexes! We especially took exception to their Annex 31, which is a late submission made on Oct 25. It is a statement by a person that claims, among other things, that she was confused by the SLUCP facebook page and website, that she was misled by the sites to make her think that they were official SLU sites, that she couldn’t remember any disclaimers on the sites, that the sites impede SLU’s communication with its alumni, and many other assertions. We found her statements to be highly misleading, if not outright lies.
After doing some research and facebook stalking, it turns out this woman is a SLU law grad from 2014, is herself an intellectual property attorney, has friends at the law firm (Lewis Rice) that is suing us as SLU’s representative, and more-than-coincidentally uses verbiage, phraseology, and arguments that read as if they could have been been directly lifted from SLU’s lawsuit against us… as if she had been assisted and/or induced to produce her statement. This is all overly coincidental and suspicious, in our opinion. We went through her statement, rebutted her, and sent a formal complaint of ethical misconduct to the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (the attorney oversight body in this state).
We’re attaching her statement and our complaint for the public’s awareness and perusal. We can’t help but wonder why, if SLU has a real case against us, that such extreme measures have to be taken to win their litigation and motions. Perhaps, as we have asserted from the beginning, it is to silence us, to chill our speech, and to suppress dissent.
10 Oct 2017
SLUCP has created a response to the UDRP complaint that has been submitted by SLU lawyers against us in their attempt to take the domain name(s) that we have a First Amendment Right to utilize and which we need in order to bring our information to the public. Our UDRP response was submitted to WIPO on Oct 9, 2017 and can be read HERE (with Annex 1 and Annex 2). As this is a process that few physicians and/or members of the public are familiar with, we will share what we learn with you through our own efforts at self-education and pro se representation. If you can understand the process, too, then you will be less intimidated when a large entity attempts to stifle your speech, dissent and advocacy.
Check out our Defending Digital Freedom page for related topics. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will take up to 15 days to appoint a three-person panel to review the arguments, then deliberate for up to another 14 days. We believe our points are clear, well-reasoned, and supported by administrative, legal, and moral principles. We believe this process will prove to be embarrassing for SLU. We believe that the entire process was initiated to bully and silence us. Whether we win or lose this battle, the public and the medical community must be made aware of the dysfunctions at SLU that affect so many. We’ll keep you updated!
27 Sept 2017, 0630
Please don’t try to hack into our website. We can see you, Mr iPhone, at 10:13pm last night, from IP address: 188.8.131.52. On a positive note, the website hit its 10,000th page view yesterday!
Additionally, stay tuned for updates on our UDRP dispute response to SLU lawyers’ complaints to ICANN against our First Amendment use of our domain name. That response is due Oct 17, 2017.
20 Sept 2017, 0625 hrs
SLU Med School Institutionalized?
The control of its departments centralized? Its chair persons stripped of control? We have never heard of such an action, but these are the inputs we’ve been receiving for weeks from our readers and followers. SLU Communication has not answered us. If accurate, what are the causes and the implications of such a change? What does this mean for the public, for current students and residents, for faculty, for those that interview with the med school for positions and will sign contracts of employment? We believe this is newsworthy information with the potential for significant impact on hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. We hope that SLU will inform us all on this matter.
20 Sept 2017
A surgical resident’s legal battle with her program. Physician’s Weekly.
“Having been a residency program director for many years, I know there are two sides to every story, and so far we’ve heard only one.
“However if the program is to prevail in this suit, the resident’s dossier needs to be much more robust than what her allegations describe.”
This article was also carried at medpagetoday.com
19 Sept 2017
Website Cloned as a Precaution
As SLU attempts to strip our First Amendment Right to Free Speech with a multi-pronged approach via restraining order, UDRP domain name complaint to claim ownership, and a lawsuit, we have successfully cloned our SLUCP website at anewSLU.org. That name describes what we are after: a new culture, a new approach to compliance, a new attitude that respects all as humans, a new attention to an environment conducive to learning and absent the hostility and dysfunction. If SLU is successful in shutting down our primary site, we will be ready to go with another. We have also secured several other domain names that can be used to continue our efforts towards transparency and change.
16 Sept 2017, 1408 hrs
Analytics update – SLUCP internet analytics: FB reports a post reach of over 10,000 and a post engagement of over 1,000 for this past week. Over at http://slucomplianceproject.org/, we’re showing over 7,800 pageviews for the month of September, so far. If you think that you are alone, that these topics are not of interest to others, that you cannot join us or speak out or report the unacceptable, our numbers are showing that to not be the case. If you want change, there will not be a better time than now for you to make that happen. Our School – Our Future – Our Responsibility. If you don’t know where to start, contact us. We’ll take the heat.
15 Sept 2017, 1415 hrs
SLU lawyers at Lewis Rice filed a Uniform Domain Name Dispute (UDRP) with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in an attempt to take control of our domain: slucomplianceproject.org. If they spent 1/10th of the energy fixing their problems as they do trying to suppress those that speak out about them, they’d be a stellar outfit!
15 Sept 2017, 0840 hrs
Breaking News! The ACGME has begun an official inquiry into the dept of surgery regarding complaints of suspected non-compliances with mandatory accreditation requirements. Step one is a written report back to the ACGME regarding those concerns,… which will be written and self-reported by the very individuals who would be the targets of concerns for the non-compliances. “We have investigated ourselves and found we have done nothing wrong! Nothing to see here! Back to your regularly scheduled dysfunction.” And we thought you had to be a politician in order to get that protected of a gig! #acgme #shaminvestigation #ABS
15 Sept, 2017, 0445 hrs
To avoid any confusion or unintentional diversion from the SLU Official Compliance Department: when we do an internet search for that department, we are led to the Office of General Counsel. That is apparently a new link – or at least new to show up on an internet search after our Project was started. Although our long course of reporting and complaints led us through the Office of General Counsel 6 months ago (email to them from March 13, forwarding our letter to the dean of the medical school here which was sent March 9 – redacted to try to avoid their next threat of a restraining order), we did not receive a single word of response. Therefore, we started our own Project for Compliance as the official department seemed as dysfunctional as the other systems we were dealing with.
We hope you will send the Official Compliance Department all of your interest, comments and complaints regarding any issues that may have brought you to our sites. They should be the ones to hear about and have opportunity to address them. Again, here’s their webpage. Unfortunately, we do not see specific compliance concerns on their pages for the issues that we have brought forward: hostile work environment, retaliation in the workplace and training programs, dysfunctional physician behavior, non-compliances with mandatory accreditation requirements, failure to follow evaluation and promotion procedures, etc. Perhaps those links could be added on their pages for better education and as an access point for the residents, faculty, and staff that an official compliance office would seem to serve. We would be happy to act as a consultant service – pro bono!
13 Sept 2017, 0620 hrs
Sept 12, 2017. ST. LOUIS • “St. Louis University is suing a surgical resident who filed suit against the school last month.
“In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, the university alleges that the surgical resident Mandy Rice and her husband Michael Rice are diluting SLU’s brand by using the institution’s trademarked name on a website the pair created.”
12 Sept 2017, 1835 hrs
and at 1856 hrs
12 Sept 2017: Jury Trial Scheduled for Rice v. SLU, et al. – date is currently unspecified online.
St. Louis University threatens the Compliance Project
Sept 7, 2017
As the Compliance Project has garnered thousands of page views and interactions via its website and social media presence at slucomplianceproject.org and our SLUCP facebook page, the university has sought the owner/author in order to shut it all down. Under the misrepresentation of concern for intellectual property, St. Louis University is attempting to intimidate, bully and silence those that would bring its dysfunctions to light. While our FB page data analytics for roughly the past week show over 70,000 people reached and over 7,000 post interactions; and our website analytics tally over 4,000 page views in that time frame, not a single person that has interacted with us, emailed us, commented with us, FB messaged us, etc. has believed our group to be part of the university. They know exactly what we’re doing and talking about,… as does the university.
The university’s claim that our site is attempting to deceptively “divert the University’s supporters” to our site is laughable. We’ll be picking apart their arguments in coming days. Our site exists to force much needed transparency and awareness upon those who have contractually bound themselves to abide by well-described policies, procedures, culture and behavior. Speaking of transparency, we are publishing the letter sent out by the university’s legal firm for your perusal. If you disagree with their attempt to silence dissent, please let them know. If you think we have a right to question, to criticize, and to demonstrate the faults and dysfunctions of an entity that receives tax payer money, and upon which so many depend for their educations, medical training, and livelihood, leave us a FB comment or email of support.
St. Louis University Compliance Project
(and for the non-existent person that cannot decipher for him/herself: our group obviously is in no way affiliated, connected, sponsored or otherwise associated with the university)
Surgical Resident Alleges Defamation in Lawsuit Against St. Louis University by Ashley Jost. St Louis Post-Dispatch. August 31, 2017. “A St. Louis University surgical resident filed a civil lawsuit last week alleging a series of misconduct issues. SLU resident Mandy Rice claims a series of failures and retaliatory behavior by her superiors is causing her to have to repeat her fourth year of her surgical residency. The lawsuit was filed Friday against the university; Catherine Wittgen, the director of SLU’s surgery residency program; Carl Freeman, the chief of the trauma service.”
Surgical resident sues St. Louis University, alleges discrimination due to nursing background by Mackenzie Bean. Becker’s Hospital Review. August 31, 2017. “A fourth-year surgical resident filed a civil lawsuit last Friday against St. Louis University over alleged misconduct issues involving program leaders….”
Surgical resident “too much of a nurse:” lawsuit. Univadis: A Trusted Medical Reference. Sept 1, 2017. “A one-time registered nurse and current surgical resident is suing St. Louis University, alleging she had to redo her fourth year of surgical residency because of discrimination by her superiors, in part because of her nursing background…. [and] claims a series of failures and retaliatory behavior on the part of her superiors, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.”
“Eventually, I became a supervisor, borne out of an aspiration that no trainee should have to undergo a ritual of humiliation to somehow emerge the secure and well-adjusted doctor that society deserves. If doctors were to be genuine healers, they couldn’t commence their career by licking their own wounds inflicted by their own colleagues. From the stories I still hear, we are not there yet.
“It’s a myth long perpetuated in medicine that trainees will only learn through ‘tough love,’ but this tough love ignores constructive criticism, finding space to listen, providing room to grow, resting instead on public (or if you’re lucky, private) shaming. I have seen plenty of doctors destroyed by it but have yet to meet someone who blossomed through such cruelty.”
SLU Medical School Put on Probation by Accreditation Agency by Ashley Jost. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 15, 2017. “SLU is the only medical school in the United States currently on probation,….”
Our School. Our Future. Our Responsibility.
SLUCP: Driving education, awareness, and positive change towards systemic improvement for St. Louis University med school residents, faculty, and staff.
⇑ to Top of Page
⇐ To Home Page
*Disclaimer: We are in no way associated with or supported by any educational, administrative, accreditation, licensing or oversight body mentioned in these pages. In fact, we're certain they all wish we'd just go away. *Legal: Institutional images and names are used non-commercially and under concepts of fair use, public domain, sharing of newsworthy and public-benefiting criticism, and with an unlikelihood of confusion as to trademark usage. Legal correspondence will be gladly shared broadly here and on social media.