A Reminder: James O’Keefe and His Ilk Are Unethical Regardless of What Their Methods Uncover

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I just answered a reasonable question from a commenter on this post, who asked, “I have some questions about the unethical nature of James O’Keefe’s “journalism.”I would say his methods are ugly, but sometimes ugly things are discovered in ugly ways. Anybody who happily uses the results of his “journalism” enables this type of journalism; condemning this type of journalism sounds hypocritical to me after using his results.”

The comment continued, “Personally I have fewer inhibitions than you on his style; perhaps that is because of a different appreciation of Machiavelli. Sometimes the end does justify the means; it all depends on the end and on the means. Also James O’Keefe (above, before he was fired by his own organization) is not an official journalist, and may therefore not feel bound by any ethics code for journalist he has not signed, and therefore feels free to act as a free agent.”

After I posted my reply, I realized that I had just written a post, and one that was necessary despite the fact that I have written on this topic (and related ones) often here. This is what I wrote, lightly edited:

Continue reading →

How Many Other Government Workers Are Like This, I Wonder…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I presume that I have made it clear over the years that I regard James O’Keefe’s hidden camera “gotcha!” stings both unethical journalism and just flat-out unethical generally. This is “the ends justifies the means” exemplified; I don’t care how much corruption O’Keefe uncovers and what outrages he broadcasts. His methods are unjustifiable. A so-called investigative journalist who uses such tactics is untrustworthy.

Having said that, I don’t feel constrained to ignore the evidence his wrongful methods reveal when it is persuasive, for this isn’t the courtroom. His latest bust is an example. Deshaun Eli Mack (above), a Family Services Specialist with the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), was caught on one of O’Keefe’s hidden cameras admitting how he manipulates the system to offer extended emergency Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants, proudly boasting, “I get them emergency medical all the time… just because I want to.” Emergency Medicaid for illegals is supposed to be granted on a month-to-month basis and only for severe conditions. Mack said on camera, however, that he ignores the policy and the process.

“They’re supposed to apply every month,” he said, “so I just approve them for 12 months… because I can. I make it so. I bend the rules a lot….I will twist and turn our provisions to fit the way that I want them to be.”

Nice. The arrogance is as nauseating as it is unsurprising. Asked if he felt that he was subverting the law, Mack answered, “I do that a lot.”

O’Keefe’s group confronted Mack with the surreptitious recording, and he denied that what he was recorded saying was really true. “I say a lot of things that I don’t mean,” Mack said, adding “I lie all the time.” “None of those words I said were true,” he insisted.

It should be extremely easy to check that. But even if Mack was telling the truth when he said he was lying, can a government agency defend employing someone who “lies[s] all the time”?

__________________

Pointer: JutGory

Now THAT’S an Unethical Doctor!

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

That’s Jorge Zamora-Quezada M.D., 68, of Mission, Texas above, who was sentenced this week tten years in prison and three years of supervised release for perpetrating a health care fraud scheme involving over $118 million in false claims. More than $28 million was paid out by insurers because he falsely diagnosed patients with chronic illnesses to bill them for tests and treatments that the patients did not need. Zamora-Quezada also falsified patient records to support the false diagnoses.

Yikes.

The Justice Department press release reveals that Zamora-Quezada falsely diagnosed his patients with rheumatoid arthritis and administered toxic medications in order to defraud Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and Blue Cross Blue Shield. His patients were told that they had incurable conditions that required regular treatment at his offices, where Zamora-Quezada administered unnecessary drugs and ordered unnecessary testing. These included injections, infusions, x-rays, MRIs, and other procedures, risking harmful and in some cases deadly side effects. Then the doctor fabricated medical records and lied about the patients’ condition to insurers.

Among the debilitating side effects suffered by his patients were strokes, necrosis of the jawbone, hair loss, liver damage, and crippling, chronic pain. “Constantly being in bed and being unable to get up from bed alone, and being pumped with medication, I didn’t feel like my life had any meaning,” one patient testified. Others described abandoning plans for college or feeling like they were “living a life in the body of an elderly person.”

At trial, the more ethical rheumatologists in the Rio Grande Valley testified that they saw hundreds of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis by Zamora-Quezada that did not in fact have the condition. Meanwhile, he was an abusive, dominating supervisor to his medical staff. Former employees said Zamora-Quezada imposed strict quotas for procedures. He threw a paperweight at one employee who failed to generate enough unnecessary procedures, hired staff he could manipulate because they were on J-1 visas and knew their immigration status could be jeopardized if they lost their jobs. Zamora-Quezada also took ultrasounds of employees and used those images to falsify patient records.

Following a 25-day trial, a jury convicted Dr. Zamora-Quezada of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, seven counts of health care fraud, and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. To go with his prison term, Zamora-Quezada was ordered to forfeit $28,245,454, including 13 real estate properties, a jet, and a Maserati GranTurismo.

My question: why only ten years in prison for such conduct? He should have been sent away for life.

Witness to “Pay to Play”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I am not quite ready to write about the project I am currently involved in, but when I do, it will be a major story, and not just on Ethics Alarms. I found myself, mostly by happenstance, at Ground Zero in a massive scandal for the legal profession. Now I am working to expose it, make the public and the legal profession aware of it, and to both fix the problem and take measures in multiple sectors to ensure that it is permanently fixed. I’m not doing this alone; indeed I am focusing primarily on the ethical regulation front. However, the alliance is growing, and includes an insider whistle-blower, several public interest organizations, litigators, law firms, and at least one national association.

Regard the foregoing as a preview of coming attractions. This post is about a conversation I witnessed that continues to bother me, and will probably bother you as well. Some of the participants in the project were meeting with a prominent, well-connected D.C. attorney with a long history of legislative involvement. The topic was whether an Executive Order from the President would super-charge our effort. The lawyer said that he was close to an individual who “meets with the President every week” and that the contact was capable of carrying the EO request into the Oval Office.

“But it will cost you,” the lawyer said. “Access isn’t free.” “How much?” one of my delegation asked. “You give me a figure,” was the answer, “and I’ll let you know what would get it done.” The lawyer shook his head and smiled at $100,000, and kept giving a negative response until the number reached $100 million.” Now you’re talking,” he said. “That’s what this kind of thing takes.”

The group is confident that it could raise that kind of money—the scam we will expose and undo involves billions—but its ethics consultant, me, pointed out that our mission is to eliminate widespread and destructive unethical conduct. Using unethical means to accomplish that goal will taint the whole enterprise, corrupt it, and undermine trust in its motives and participants.

There will be no $100 million pay-to-play cash deals, at least as long as I am involved. However, the bland, “it’s always done this way”/”that’s just how Washington works” response we got from that prominent lawyer is by turns chilling, disillusioning, and discouraging.

Revisiting “The Worst President Ever” Final Verdict

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

The recent revelations in Ethics Villain Jake Tapper’s “Original Sin” exposé of how Joe Biden’s Presidency was a deceptive charade, with a POTUS how frequently and increasingly “had moments of incoherence, of a stark inability to communicate or recognize people or recall important facts.” I found myself wondering if the final installment of the long Ethics Alarms series “The Worst President Ever” needed an major update. After all, the last chapter, #7, declared Joe Biden the upset winner over Woodrow Wilson on January 12, 2025, before Donald Trump took office, before “Biden’s” series of last minute attempts to throw obstacles in the new President’s path, the prospective pardons, and the revelation that Biden was not only keeping his dementia secret (well, as secret as possible…) but was also deceiving the public regarding his physical health, having been diagnosed at some point—a year before he left office? Two years?—with prostate cancer.

Continue reading →

End of May Ethics Inventory, 5/31/25

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Nice. A pro-Hamas, pro-Palestine student who was the chosen MIT Commencement speaker this week changed her approved speech to condemn Israel for “genocide,” the current code-word favored by anti-Semites to mean “Jews aren’t allowed to defend themselves.” All the Jewish families as well as the Israeli students walked out of the ceremony in protest. Megha M. Vemuri, the speaker and president of the Class of 2025, was banned by the school from attending the later undergraduate ceremony, an MIT spokesperson told Fox. “MIT supports free expression but stands by its decision, which was in response to the individual deliberately and repeatedly misleading Commencement organizers and leading a protest from the stage, disrupting an important Institute ceremony,” the university said in a statement. 

MIT has no one to blame but itself. It has encouraged anti-Semitism on campus (like Harvard and other schools) and teaches its more suggestible students to embrace “intersectionality,” in which Palestinians are equated with “oppressed” minorities, and Jews with “racist whites.”

Meanwhile:

1. Loretta Swit died. She was a minor star who made her name and fame playing the character in “M*A*S*H” that Sally Kellerman had created in the hit Robert Altman movie in the long-running TV adaptation. (The TV show got Swit a lifetime sinecure guest starring on shows like “The Love Boat” and “Murder She Wrote” for the remainder of her career.). The character’s name was “Hot-Lips Houlihan, and because the New York Times cannot stop injecting leftist sentiments and propaganda into every corner of the paper, it wrote in Swit’s obituary,

This is garbage, and it makes me wonder if the writer saw the film. The character was nicknamed “Hot Lips” because a supposedly secret sexual adventure she enjoyed with her obnoxious lover (and ranking superior) Major Burns, had been inadvertently broadcast over the outpost public address system. Margaret Houlihan had been caught saying, “Kiss my hot lips!” and the name stuck. Since “Hot Lips” nicknamed herself, the moniker could hardly be called sexist, but political correctness still reigns at the Times. The movie “M*A*S*H” was about sexual hi-jinks among the doctors and nurses far more extreme than in the moralistic and sometimes oppressively liberal TV version. Writes Ed Driscoll on Instapundit regarding the 1967 hit, “The Times in 2025 looks back at the collective writing, directing and producing efforts of Richard Hooker, Ring Lardner Jr., Robert Altman and Larry Gelbart and concludes “That’s not funny.”

Continue reading →

Oh Dear! Patti Lupone Took My Advice and Now Broadway Wants Her “Cancelled”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Back in November of last year, I wrote about the silly–but instructive—Broadway feud between diva Patti Lupone and performer Kecia Lewis, who is black, and who has received some accolades herself. Lewis was starring in “Hell’s Kitchen,” a 2024 jukebox musical about the life and career of Alicia Keys in a theater that shared a wall with the theater featuring “The Roommate,” a quiet, two-actor drama starring Mia Farrow and LuPone. The amplified sound in “Hell’s Kitchen” at two points in the musical could be heard by the audience LuPone’s show, so LuPone sent a polite note to the “Hell’s Kitchen” producers asking them to turn down the volume at those points in the sound design that were loud enough to interfere with her show. (The producer of “The Roommate”should have handled that, but Patti has power and influence and has never been shy about using them.) “Hell’s Kitchen” complied. LuPone, in gratitude, sent a thank-you note to the producers and flowers to the stage management and sound staff.

But Lewis decided to play the race card, because that’s what so many of the Woke of Color have been taught to do, because it works. She posted a video on Instagram reprimanding LuPone for supposedly engaging in race-based “microagressions.” I wrote in “Dear Patty LuPone: Please, PLEASE Tell Kecia Lewis ‘Oh, Bite Me!’” that I was ” hoping against hope that LuPone, who is the epitome of a diva (as this Ethics Alarms post demonstrates), either issues an emphatic “Bite Me!” to Lewis or ignores her completely as not worthy of attention from Patti’s perch on Broadway Olympus. Lewis is the racist here; she is the one who is stereotyping a white performer as insensitive and dismissive.”

Continue reading →

Just the Facts, Ma’am: The Historian’s Responsibility

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Guest Post by AM Golden

[From your host: AM Golden has a second guest post this week, which is what happens when you send two excellent submissions that get lost in my email. This one is not only on a topic near and dear to my heart—the ethics rot in the ranks of American historians—but also on a specific historian and work that I had flagged for a potential Ethics Alarms post myself. How I love it when a participant in the ethics wars here not only saves me the time and toil of writing a post, but does such a superb job of it, which AM definitely does here. JM.]

Of the professions that have been disgracing themselves for the last 10 years or so, the betrayal of historians has cut me the deepest.

We all have biases.  Each of us has a responsibility to be aware of those biases in a professional setting and work to subdue them.  Prior to the 2016 campaign, I’d already learned to get a feel for an author’s premise before starting a book.  If an author likes Andrew Jackson, for example, he or she will likely rationalize unpleasant facts about his life.  If an author hates him; however, he or she will diminish Jackson’s triumphs.  This is unprofessional. It is also unethical. A historian should be devoted not only to fact, but also putting fact within its appropriate historical context.  Whether you like him or not, Jackson played a significant role in our country’s history.  A competent historian can produce a “Warts and All” portrayal without compromising the integrity of the subject.

Since 2016, a new practice has entered the history books:  gratuitous, sometimes barely relevant, statements about Donald Trump.  A recent book I will not name included two completely superfluous footnotes regarding secessionist states and how many of them voted for Trump.  In general, though, it’s included in the prologue or, more often, the epilogue to allow the author to tie the secessionists, the Dixiecrats or some other group of bigots (but never, for some reason, FDR’s State Department which deliberately slow-walked paperwork for desperate Jews in Europe) to Trump.

Continue reading →

It’s About Time: CNN Gets Called On Its “It Isn’t What It Is” Rhetorical Dishonesty and Bias

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

and…

Good.

All ethical and aware Americans should treat their Axis-supporting friends, relatives and colleagues similarly. What both Miller and Hamill did was to label propaganda what it really was, and not allow it to falsely present itself as “journalism.”

Stop Making Me Defend the Supreme Court!

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

Almost a year ago, Ethics Alarms discussed the case of Liam Morrison (above), a seventh grader who was told that his “There are only two genders” T-shirt was inappropriate as school attire. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a District Court decision from 2023 that the Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts didn’t violate Liam’s First Amendment rights by telling him to change his shirt.

Chief Justice David Barron, writing for the Court, concluded that “the question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred. The question is who should decide whether to bar them – educators or federal judges.” He continued, “We cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning’ at NMS to use rather than to the educators closest to the scene.”

I wrote, in a post agreeing with the decision both ethically and legally,

Continue reading →