Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology 
Telephone: (215) 333-4900
 Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152
March 27, 2018
To: Informed-Consent
Re: Dean H. Malik, Esquire

“I helped to create a monster-candidacy; I should have been concerned for what I wished before I got it.”

Envisioned are four e-mail summaries of what transpired in this case and what might be done about it,
comporting with the “SOAP” Medical Model of Subjective/Objective/Assessment/Plan; the “history”
[subjective] was conveyed on Sunday, and the focus of this update is on what emerges upon “examination”
of all available data. Integrated are interim e-mailed observations [from the home laptop] that serve to
illustrate the import of these observations; they have been conveyed virtually instantly after being noted,
lest anyone suggest they were morphed into what would comport with any underlying message herein.

Also to be provided [continuously] is feedback in-toto, again to ensure that the 100+ people receiving
these e-mails can justifiably conclude that all nooks/crannies of this conundrum have been explored;
again, the key-problem is that the Candidate has articulated positions that have appeared to have been
closer to what the Donald has desired—in contrast with the Incumbent—but has exhibited problematic
personality traits/behavior. The key-finding during the past 72 hours is that a role-swap transpired when
the one major 2018-vote desired by the GOP pre-election (signed by The Donald) was supported by the
Incumbent and opposed by the Candidate. Oh, what a crazy/fun/ironic world it is, in which we live!

These memos will be primarily comprehensive, but hyperlinks and breakers have been employed so allow
people to explore to whatever depth they desire; thus far, no feedback has undermined any assertions,
and one ‘phone-caller [who had warned of becoming involved with the Candidate for reasons withheld]
simply conveyed a “See, I told you so” posture (without degrading, without smirking) amidst accolades.
Perhaps this individual had planted the seed for gnawing-fear that this candidacy was too doctrinaire,
although the covert Gale-fealty had not previously been exposed; harboring a baseline ideology is
admirable but, per Emerson’s Self-Reliance essay, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Overview

The prior e-mail focused upon the pathogenesis of the current ailment, triggered by the successful
challenge to Gale’s unconstitutional filing; again, as soon as the complete dataset has been received from
Commonwealth Court, it will be uploaded onto Scribd and distributed as have other primary documents.
The conflict between concurring with a candidate’s philosophy and conflicting with a candidate’s behavior
continues to be the dilemma facing the GOP-Primary electorate—and those who perceive themselves as
activists during this turbulent era—and it is mandatory that a personal “insider” experience be exposed
for disinterested scrutiny; defensive/passive/aggressive/hypocritical conduct was inadvertently provoked.

How humility covertly mutated into hubris remains problematic; recalling the Candidate’s ongoing silence
supports the disclaimer that everything that transpired is consistent with the intent of the Candidate.
Again, I’m proud of what I contributed to this nascent campaign and look forward to a vigorous debate.

1
 Narrative - Prodrome

To recap, I’d first encountered Dean two years ago [exposing his having misquoted State Rep. Scott Petri]
and next encountered him last fall, nudging him to run due to Brother Brian’s opposition to The Donald
on multiple/major fronts, summarized thusly [quoting from Carlo Grilletto, without parsing these points]:

A. Did not vote for Trump in the general election. He disliked Trump to the extent
that he would have preferred Hillary;
B. Opposed the travel ban;
C. No funding of the Wall;
D. Supported Military funding for sex change;
E. Against Repeal of Obamacare;
F. Initially accused Trump of siding with Nazis in Charlottesville;
G. Defender of Comey;
H. Supports the Paris climate change accord;
I. Refused to sponsor National Reciprocity, eventually VOTED NO on National
Reciprocity Bill (HR38);
J. Introduced with Democrats a bill to limit semiautomatic firearms; and
K. Privately admitted to a reliable source that he supports gun control.

My major concern with Fitz was his robust defense of the Deep State, in the form of swamp-fox Comey;
that an energized Dem effort must be countered by an energized GOP effort appeared pivotal, for the
weak reasoning for the above litany of deviations from The Donald was worrisome (even assuming that
this posturing could retain a definable %-age of Dem cross-overs). That’s why I had no problem delving
into Scut-Work [petition-drive preparation process] as well as maxing-out [facing a bare $-cupboard].
Explanations can be conjured, but Fitz must convey a feeling that he harbors a beating conservative heart.

As was previously detailed in the blow-by-blow recitation, everyone had both petitions and voter-lists
[organized by precinct, up-to-date, accompanied by detailed instructions, explained at two meetings]
prior to the 3-week signature-drive; having self-taught Excel/Access and having made every possible error,
these nevertheless didn’t impede the ability to provide the grist for the army to spread throughout Bucks.
Neither the Candidate nor the Campaign Manger [nor the newly-appointed Chief-of-Staff, Dr. Duome]
became saddled with the responsibility to generate these tools [from the DoS] and/or to rationalize them.

Little did I know of the Gale-Malik collusion-pact for, instead of sharing the fact that the Candidate had
signed his petition, repeatedly uttered was the plan to remain neutral between Wagner/Mango; indeed,
when informed Mango had donated to Brother Brian, a personal chat was held and yielded the fact that
Mango had done this because Fitz had assembled an audience [@ the St. Patty’s annual get-together]
AND Mango promised $1K were the Candidate to be able to invite him to speak before 100+ people.
Surmised was intersection of Gale-Malik pro-Life stances for, otherwise, Gale has “0” accomplishments.

My constitutional challenge to Gale’s petition was validated by Commonwealth Court, but vindication
obviously didn’t alter the forces-at-play; indeed, it’s possible that anger/dismay was exacerbated.
Channeling Tucker Carlson’s being “The Sworn Enemy of Lying, Pomposity, Smugness, and Group-Think,”
a petition-challenge was launched against Dan David of CD-4 [MontCo] due to insufficient valid signatures;
in both instances [Gale/David], what will emerge is unknown, only that improper filings must be purged.
This is done because no one else does it, and it’s healthy for the GOP to demonstrate its “clean hands”;
thus, opposition to these initiatives by the Candidate only serves to besmirch his rule-of-law chops.

2
 Sequellae

To whatever degree the reader desires to probe the hyperlinked e-mails, he/she will not only corroborate
the conclusions in these cover-memos, but he/she will also receive a tutorial on how to grow from a
December get-together in a 3rd Story walk-up one-room office to a challenge to a monied Incumbent.
Riddled with demonstrable error was the communication by newly-dubbed Chief-of-Staff, Dr. Duome
[whose palatial home served as a strategy-session site, almost two months ago], inasmuch as key-points
emphasized therein [https://www.scribd.com/document/374819680/Duome] dovetailed with the e-mail
from the Candidate of 3/9/2018, crossing-the-line between what a Treasurer does and what the Candidate
could properly mandate a Treasurer not do AND not be able to ensure someone else was (properly) doing:

Dean Malik: As my campaign treasurer, [you] had no business filing a challenge to any
candidate in any race without my agreement and approval. I am giving you the
opportunity to fix this problem immediately. You have been a good friend and supporter
up to this point, and I trust you will do the right thing. I want no response other than a
complete termination of the challenge without any caveats.

That’s why, to alleviate a rare episode of insomnia that-p.m., mandated was a get-together with the triad
[Candidate & Campaign Manager], rejected explicitly by the former individual after the latter individual
had probed for logistical input; having a copy of the campaign-calendar confirmed that nothing was on it
during the entire Saturday that had been targeted. The optimal way chosen to reply to the terse request
for a complete fiscal report was to give all accrued papers to the Campaign Manager (in lieu of a meeting);
nothing was retracted in the process, inclusive of the characterization of Dr. Duome’s “emergency list” as
“useless” (for reasons aforementioned), particularly when compared/contrasted with its [my] substitute.

Recalled again are both the sudden-shift in policy from shrouding the petition-drive to announcing it
[c/o the Candidate] and the silent-transformation from receiving accolades from the Candidate and the
Campaign Manager to the Duome letter [despite my having done nothing negative in the interim]; again,
also noted is electrical-silence thereafter from all three, although no effort was made to smoke-out info.
That’ why my 3/20/2018 e-mail remains operational, regarding the key-errors that are remediable:

You should apologize for attempting to control behavior that promised to be distinct from
Dean.

You should acknowledge that the sudden cessation of communications reflected "over-
reach."

You should restore me to myriad Facebook-sites ASAP that were supposedly open to
everyone.

You should reimburse the additional $100 to "make me whole" [seed-$ = $2500] per your
letter.

You should provide promised-input [two months remote] regarding my freedom-of-

speech case.

It is now desirable to provide an update of what has transpired during the past 48-hours, again inviting
feedback-critique of the tantalizing ethical/political issues that this experience has evoked.

3
 Interim E-Mails

Two follow-ups were remitted, some of which bounced; thus, they are included herein:

#1
As you ponder the Candidate's wisdom in attacking The Donald for signing the Omnibus -
and the judgment of the Incumbent when voting to have passed it - know what happened
last night, as the "blast" e-mail was being assembled.

As one of the recipients of this e-mail will recall, the national conference call of Tea Party
Patriots leadership prominently included discussion of a strongly-worded attack on the
Omnibus; the trend was strongly supportive during open-debate...until caller #3 [moi]
initiated a debate with the Prez [JennyBeth Martin], unprecedented during these
Webinars.

I wasn't muted when I advised we not be duped by the DbM noting, for example, that...
MARCH AGAINST GUNS ATTENDANCE LESS THAN HALF EXPECTED
...despite wall-to-wall coverage [when not hyping the Stormy Warning].

FNC polling just showed the gap between party preference narrowing to 5% as the
Donald's popularity has risen; it is not wise to lose enthusiasm for the Trumpsters' agenda,
and pivotal is having strengthened the military last week.

I noted that The Donald can indeed start building the Wall...

Trump tweets that border wall is needed for national defense

Mar. 25, 2018 - 5:05 –
Former Romney presidential campaign adviser discusses funds provided
in the spending bill to rebuild the military.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5757923831001/

...much to the surprise of the TPP leadership, quoting Omnibus Lingo. My reply, simply,
was for the Donald to act...let them try to enjoin...and then allow the issue to rise to the
[increasingly friendly] SCOTUS.

THEREFORE, ponder the power-politics emerging when the Incumbent and Candidate
FLIP their postures, and the implications thereof when The Donald needs aggressive
supporters to broadcast his message...instead of adopting the persistently
simplistic/defeatist view of Never-Trumpers @ the "conservative" National Review.

#2

This just arrived, composed by the AP and the lede in the daily Axios [leftie] "blast" e-mail:

Business economists are expressing optimism that tax cuts and increased
government spending will accelerate economic growth over the next two
years.

4
 https://apnews.com/5f876c06f3ff44689ec28cad13f92a04/Survey-of-
business-economists-finds-growing-
optimism?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaig
n=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories

The Donald knows what he's doing, and KellyAnne Conway had undoubtedly poll-tested
his pivotal move.

Also know that, after my comments about strengthening the military [the best way to
answer the Rooskies/Chicoms/Iranian-Islamists behaviorally], JBM announced her draft-
letter would be "rewritten"; my comments were endorsed inter alia by the California TPP
Chair...former military.

Again, compare/contrast awareness of the underlying forces-at-play with what comprised

the courageous stance, even if all the Dem-goodies [which couldn't be blocked, absent
destruction of the Filibuster as I proposed a year ago in a piece in the American Thinker]
had to be sustained...this year.

Expunging the Deep State is a process that cannot yield instant results; as one [additional]
endorser of my views wrote in the comments-section, Conservatives/Republicans must
be as resolute in fighting the Resistance as have been the Libs/Dems in promoting this
destructive/unpatriotic narrative.

{pmsDNC's Morning Joe is DISSING the Stormy interview; keep the faith!}

Feedback

First item-of-business is to provide the text of the e-mails from two people who aren’t receiving this one,
@ their request [“Looks like you have too much time on your hands Robert. Please remove me from your
Anti-Dean list. I don’t agree with Dean on every issue but he’s certainly an improvement on Mr. No Labels.”
AND “Please remove me from your email list. I am not sure what your reasoning is for sending these
emails, but I do not want to be a part of it. I thanked you for the help you had been giving to Dean's
campaign, but it seems your current mind set seems to be set on hurting it. I was not aware at the time
of what you had done regarding the challenge of Joe Gale. I absolutely disagree with what you did. I
continue to support Dean and I do not wish to receive your emails in the future. I hope that you will honor
my request.”]

Second item-of-business is to note that one critiqued the length thereof [“Whoever you are, an M.D., you
sure are long-winded! Mayhaps you should be a politician, b/c you did NOT write this email for the
common man. I suggest that you go back, edit this and...explain your email to me...as though I were a six
year old, b/c your communique was a fraction of the size of the Omnibus (now) Law. Best to you, whoever
you are.” For that individual, I collapsed-down the prior e-mail on the first pages [supra] and will update
the reformulated plan after having provided all available data regarding all related activities.

Third item-of-business is to ensure this entreaty has been fleshed-out [“What are you doing now to help
Dean Malik get elected? Do you want to see Brian Fitzpatrick re-elected?], within the context of the plan.

5
 Daniel David

The Supreme Court Gale-related file has not been received, but another initiative was launched over the
weekend regarding another local Congressional candidate; the motivation to have done so is comparable
to that articulated regarding Gale, for almost 1/3 of the signature-lines assessed were grossly faulty.
Interactions with the MontCo Voter-Services personnel confirmed that 82 signers weren’t registered and
63 lines were blank; thus, even ignoring the illegibles, incompletes and forgeries [totaling another ~300],
the total of ~1147 signers has been easily punctured. It appears (based upon watching a video that is
being released at week’s end) that he’s a fiscal whistle-blower regarding ChiCom shenanigans, but it is also
apparent that he has no identifiable policy-statements on his (sparse) website; thus, in contrast with Gale
(with whom I have had the aforementioned “problems”), it seems David is an upstanding citizen (albeit
inexperienced, apparently, in the electoral process). Nevertheless, for now, the challenge continues
(pending a chat with his attorney, who returned from being out-of-town over the weekend, on Monday).
Detailed in the filing are three alternatives, to wit, that he might withdraw (and then I’d withdraw) … that
he might persist (and then I’d probably persist) … or that I’d have second-thoughts and decide not to file
the necessary hard-copy (if, somehow, his attorney were to be able to rebut this entire initiative).

This information is conveyed to illustrate the motivation to invoke this cottage-industry of challenging,
simply because it’s the correct action when knowingly faced with people who shouldn’t be on the ballot.

Discussion

None of the feedback affected the information conveyed initially and, thus, both of these memos will be
sent both to the Malik-crew [again] and to the initial list of people to whom an “APB” had been remitted
last year [in a desperate attempt to unearth competition for Brother Brian]. This is far shorter than the
Omnibus Law, and no other substantive reaction has been received; thus, noting the interim colloquy with
the national leader of Tea Party Patriots last night, it is apt to weigh the accuracy of this instant-response
to the events of last Friday (notwithstanding the “punctuation” thereof by a bit of blue-lingo) {unedited}:

Gregg Richman:
"Can you all stop fucking crying over the spending bill just because it funds PP.... he just
ended the sequester and added a pay raise to the military and got billions for
infrastructure projects as well as the largest increase in military spending ..... stop fucking
crying you babies and stop bitching how your not gonna vote for him in 2020.., your all a
bunch of morons if you don't because you will ensure that you have a president Kamala
Harris or Warren or sanders and then you will have the United States of South Africa...,,
the man got almost 2 billion for the wall and will get the other money when DACA is
determined in 6 months.... so quit your bitching this is the best president since Reagan ....
and he signed amnesty bills ..... if he didn't sign it he wouldn't have gotten infrastructure
military and spending on DHS.... so shut up just because you don't like one thing... planned
parenthood .... you'll hate life even more with President Sanders or Biden or god forbid
President Harris or Michelle Obama..... so be happy that we got most of what we want
and in learn that negotiations are such that if both sides walk away slightly unhappy its a
win.... it he we're to halt PP he would potentially lose women voters who he did well with
in 2016..... use your dam brains he got much more then he gave in this Bill"

6
One other ethical observation has been recalled. After assuming the role of Treasurer, a pledge was given
that the prior conflict regarding the bathroom-bill would not be pushed, in deference to the desire for a
united front; nothing else was requested, and nothing else was proffered. Even the difference in emphasis
between trying to overturn Roe and focusing on state-level law was not perceived as a major concern,
inasmuch as there has not been a major problem encountered in this regard for the past quarter-century
(while engaged in GOP politics). In fact, the posture of TPP (to avoid dealing with Social Issues) has been
an effective method to prioritize activities; if this rankled, the Candidate failed to convey any dismay.

The challenge to Daniel David is docketed as 190-MD-2018 but, for whatever reason, the supplement that
would complete the database can’t get past the “participant” page on the PACfile system; thus, gave all
info [via scribd] on Tuesday, allowing for this hurdle to be overcome via Commonwealth Court “support.”

Addenda

Every problem provides opportunity; herein is documentation of prior assertions, unavailable yesterday
when this memo was sent; this intro is reprinted @ the end of page 7 of the attachment for completeness.

After the above was typed, it was remitted to two lists (minus two names), despite the absence of the
Commonwealth Court Opinion regarding Gale (promised a week ago to have been remitted via snail-mail)
that corroborated my input; a call today yielded its being faxed, so that its contents can be confirmed as
consistent with my rendition of what transpired during Oral Argument. The details conveyed by-memory
in real-time are in the comments section of PoliticsPa; the Opinion has just been uploaded.

Also, the complete Commonwealth Court filing regarding David [190-MD-2018] was finalized today
[following colloquy among filer, CC, and PACfile “IT” personnel]; it was updated as of yesterday’s input.
Because it was uploaded to the CC-site in segments, it has been processed via “Scribd” in like-fashion;
Exhibits exclusively contain documentation, except that “D” details what happened through yesterday:
Filing, A, B, C, D, MontCo’s Voter-Services inputs confirming assertions via SURE system (1 & 2), Service
(supplanting individual service for-everything-except-D & D, because hand-delivery of the former—with
the thumb-drive—was not altered). Those who may wish to challenge others’ petitions in the future may
wish to retain this document as a template; it includes all necessary pleadings (validated in prior filings).

Summary

Every effort has been made to adopt an “agnostic” posture while conveying these data and perceptions;
obviously, full-throated support for a dogmatic ideologue who countenanced [and hasn’t tried to rectify]
the letter from Dr. Duome cannot be maintained. On the other hand, Brother Brian needs to demonstrate
he will no longer hew to the “No Labels” posture of faux-independence [lacking conservatism]. He has
certainly taken a giant-step in that direction while the Candidate-Challenger has regressed comparably;
thus, as much as I’ve harbored strong antipathy to the perceived-betrayal of the Fitz-Brothers, it is quite
difficult to support an individual who does not perceive the importance of funding a strong military.
Indeed, noting his military background, this blunder is even more remarkable, notwithstanding worriment
about the debt [which can be reversed when a filibuster-proof senate has been acquired, in 2019.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.