Clemency to Dr. Prakash, Age 69, Unfairly Sentenced to 10 Years for Pleading Not Guilty

0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!

The petition is addressed to the President, who is currently Obama. We have chosen to include Donald Trump as an individual until allows us to modify to President Trump, who we believe will fix this injustice after his inauguration. 

1.5 years for a crime he did not commit. An additional 8.5 years for daring to challenge the all-mighty federal government by pleading not guilty. 

Meanwhile conspiracy leader Migran Petrosyan spent 6 years defrauding Medicare for Millions, and struck a 21 Month sweet-heart plea agreement with Obama DOJ.

"Dr Prakash, a philanthropist, friend of needy and deprived sections of population have been working for the poor and the sick who ever got associated with him. As one of his best friends, who has known him over a decade and more now have always found Dr Prakash very kind, generous, well educated, intelligent and brilliant in his work. He has been awarded and appreciated across the border for his noble and humanitarian work in field of Medicine and social upliftment." 

                             - Vicky Roy, in comments section of, one of 100s of people helped by Dr. Prakash all over the world.

  Stop Wasting Taxpayer Money Incarcerating 69 year old Dr. Prakash who has already been a federal prisoner for 6 years, spent 1 year in maximum security, and had a multiple bypass open heart surgery while in custody

Grant Clemency to Dr. Ramanathan Prakash; Federal Inmate# 58886-112, since July 2011

Please visit to see the full trial evidence for yourself and make the determination if this is a worthy cause. Contact us at if you wish to help with the cause, or follow us on twitter @freedrprakash

The way you can help is most is by contacting the WhiteHouse directly and writing a short message asking them to grant clemency to Ramanathan Prakash, Inmate# 58886-112 at If you want to email, use this link

Dr. Ramanathan Prakash, was convicted in July 2011, his trial was held jointly with two co-defendants he never met before. All 3 were found guilty. Dr. Prakash served as the Medical Director in 2006 for 1 of 3 clinics, where he was paid $6,000 a month ($64,000). Dr. Prakash was sentenced to 120 months in prison for his ten month involvement in the two year conspiracy where other members fraudulently received $302,770.46 from Medicare using his Medicare Billing number and extensively forged his signature.

Dr. Prakash is currently 69 years old, and has served more than 60 months of his sentence. His billing number was used to commit $302,000 worth of fraud. Despite being a known philanthropist, for exercising his constitutional right to trial, Dr. Prakash was punished with a jail sentence was over five times as much assigned to the true leader of the conspiracy (21 Months; $1.5 Million from Medicare over 3 years)

"Those who pleaded guilty early and who cooperated with the Government are not “similarly situated” to those who went to trial for purposes of analyzing sentencing disparities."

- Government  Sentencing Argument 

Please help me in asking President Barrack Obama to grant clemency to this 69 year old man who is only in jail because he decided to go to trial rather than plead guilty; leading the government to jail him for 120 months rather than the initially proposed 18 months.


Every cooperating witness in the conspiracy stated that Dr.Prakash was purposefully kept in the dark as to their activities.

The Physician's Assistant  Dr. Prakash met in person, who was never indicted or charged as part of the conspiracy.

"Q. While you were at the clinic from -- for those first few months, if you had seen anything suspicious, you would have reported it to Dr. Prakash, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Like if you had seen some sort of fabrication with files or something that was, you know, fraudulent, you would have had no problem calling Dr. Prakash, right?
MS. HOBLER: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Sustained."


Nazareet Salmanyan, an ultra sound technician at the Sacramento clinic for Dr.Prakash also chose to testify to FBI officials in an interview. He plead guilty to being involved in all 3 clinics of the conspiracy.

"SALMANYAN believed PRAKASH was a good doctor, but he was rarely at the clinic. SALMANYAN believed PRAKASH thought he was the only doctor at the 9121 Folsom Boulevard Clinic

"- Salmanyan FBI Interview


"The defendant requested numerous jury instructions that were rejected by the Court. Dr. Prakash filed numerous motions in limine which were all denied. Dr. Prakash had a six month contract which expired on its own terms. He was only paid for ten months. His salary was $6,000.00 per month. He had no financial participation in the profits or losses of the clinic. He was retained pursuant to a written agreement.

There was not a single witness that had any incriminating conversations with Dr. Prakash. The Court should carefully review this motion, as there is a strong potential that an innocent man may have been convicted

"  - Dr.Prakash Motion for new Trial


A single internal medicine practitioner specializing in malplractice cases was paid by the government to testify as to the low quality standard of care provided by a neurologist who was in charge of interpreting test results. During the attempted cross examination the judge sustained 70 of 75 objections. 

" On May 3, 2011, at the late hour, defense counsel received a fax indicating that there was evidence being reviewed by a medical doctor and that a new report would arrive in the future, no date certain, but by the end of the week. It arrived at 900 p.m. on May 6, 2011.

After reviewing the report, it is clear that its contents are not relevant to this trial and is only being used to lower the standard of proof from that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to simple negligence. The report is critical of things Dr. Prakash did and did not do, but does not assist the trier of fact one iota of proof whether or not he committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347.

The report shows that Dr. Prakash personally reviewed the files which he was given and the experts ex post facto criticism is frankly irrelevant. This is not a medical board prosecution. It creates a collateral issue and the Court should exclude this testimony. Dr. Prakash was the medical director for six months and paid a small sum for a lot of work: $40,000.00.

Dr. Prakash is charged in only two substantive counts, #12 and #13, showing one charge for $131.45 and one for $646.51. There are other defendants associated with that charge as well. His very limited involvement does not warrant an expert witness to make general medical observations about medical files he reviewed. He is not being charged with any crime that arises from his medical decisions. This purported paid testimony needs to be precluded.

Finally, the patient files that were reviewed shed zero light as to the charges of this case. The Court really needs to have a pretrial hearing on this matter as the use of this expert is nothing less than sheer quack science as to a criminal case. These files have very little to do with Dr. Prakash and it is outrageous that he was not asked about these specific files prior to the expert reviewing them or given an opportunity to discuss his medical opinions with her. A hearing will clear this up for the Court.  "

- Denied, Dr.Prakash Motion to question expert witness testimony



Even though her analysis was contingent on Dr. Prakash being a treating physician rather than a co-signing Medical Director, it was enough to convict him of conspiracy to commit medicare fraud.


"Q. You saw my colleague's questions about Sol Teitelbaum. You've heard that name, right?
A. No, I haven't.

Q. So prior to today, you never once asked Mr. Ferrari who is this Sol M.D., I need to look him up?
A. No.

Q. So you don't think it's important to know what clinician is initially evaluating the patient when you're reviewing another doctor's choices?
A. I was only asked to review the charts in terms of whether or not the standard of care was met. I was not asked to ascribe who was the provider of the care.

Q. Well, isn't it true that it makes a big difference whether a doctor is doing the initial evaluation of a patient or a nurse?
MR. FERRARI: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. RICHARDS: When you saw the M.D. line on each of those charts, signed by -- let's just say, hypothetically, for these questions that was Sol Teitelbaum, a licensed physician -- does that make a difference with respect to who is doing the initial evaluation with respect to how you're going to handle it?
MR. FERRARI: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. RICHARDS: In this case, are you aware that Dr. Prakash never -- that in this case Dr. Prakash looked at Sol Teitelbaum's observations when reviewing those files? Are you aware of that?
MR. FERRARI: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. RICHARDS: Just as a yes or no. Are you a -- In this case, do you know what Dr. Prakash's role is with respect to the evaluation of these charts?
A. No.

Q. And you know that my client's not being charged with violating the standards of care, that's not the charge in this case?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever ask the Government, "why am I evaluating the standard of care when this is a case about fraud?"
A. I was not told that it was a case about fraud.

"- Barbara Neyhart Full Testimony
This is the only thing used to convict Dr.Prakash of Health Care Fraud and sentence him to 10 years in prison


At sentencing a judge agreed with the government that Dr. Prakash intended to receive over $2 Million in ten months. The co-conspirators he worked under were guilty of intending to receive $1.5 million over 2 years.

Due to American criminal justice, it is virtually impossible to clear the bar of overruling a judge. 

"Even though we might have decided the issue differently, we cannot conclude with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Prakash therefore, fails to demonstrate that the court’s finding was clearly erroneous."
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses to overrule Judge England



 See the full site, with nice formatting and over 1000 pages worth of citations at