You are on page 1of 2

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
April 8, 2018
To: Informed-Consent – Follow-Up - II
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.”

For those who have yearned for a two-page follow-up assessment of the GOP-Primary in CD-1, this is it.
You have received the “History” [subjective], the “Physical” [objective], the “Assessment” and the “Plan”;
yesterday, you received what had been envisioned as an initial follow-up that wouldn’t require an update
for a few days but, alas, such wasn’t to be the case. Summarized here is documentation of the deceit that
has been promulgated under the aegis of Candidate-Malik’s campaign by its chief-of-staff, Dr. Duome.
Repetition will continue to be minimal, except to cite to information already uploaded via Scribd, with the
goal having evolved from supporting the Candidate to becoming agnostic to supporting the incumbent.

Ample opportunity has been provided to the Candidate to repair documented damage but, as detailed,
instead: [1]—he has remitted a refusal-to-represent when no such representation had been requested,
and [2]—his chief-of-staff has distributed a false memo claiming this ex-Treasurer had been “removed.”

The half-dozen easily-repaired concerns have been ignored and, to them, it is necessary to add this FALSE
claim that this ex-Treasurer had been “Removed”; this flailing example of historical-revisionism is shocking
[https://www.scribd.com/document/375845305/Removal-of-Treasurer-Robert-Sklaroff-From] and it can
not be ignored, for the contrast with what had been sent to the ex-Treasurer [a total surprise] is notable
[https://www.scribd.com/document/374819680/Duome]. In contrast to the public “removal” assertion,
it had only stated “You have already been replaced as treasurer,” adding, “To the extent however, that
we have welcomed further participation by you in any aspect of this campaign, that offer is rescinded.”

The two e-mail threads inserted into the aforementioned “History” memo document the chronology:

https://www.scribd.com/document/374829821/E-Mail-Threads [14 pages, comprehensive]
https://www.scribd.com/document/374833581/E-mail [4 pages, terser]

As it turns out, prior self-reference to “I am functioning as Treasurer” was both an accurate description of
what had happened after having been drafted for this role and a covert message that this non-CPA could
easily be supplanted; indeed, the Campaign Manager’s wife had been approached to assume this role
[and/or something akin to acting as back-up] less than 2 days prior, affording surcease to this place-holder.

To recap, after all paperwork had unilaterally been deposited @ the Campaign Manager’s home,
subsequent requests for street-lists were prophylactically redirected by being maximally discreet noting,
[1]—withheld was the blow-by-blow and, [2]—utilized was the passive voice when citing the Treasure role
{with the appended document exemplifying how to ensure quality signatures had been acquired, here,
by detailing what the ex-Treasurer had accomplished atop the comprehensive petition organization}.

1
This is what was distributed:

Sat, Mar 10, 2018 4:54 pm
From: robert sklaroff (rsklaroff@gmail.com)
To: you + 75 more
PETITIONS - Vetted.xlsx (15 KB)

Greetings.

For reasons that will be detailed in an e-mail that will be remitted to the "inner"
component of the "inner-circle," I am no longer functioning as Treasurer; elaboration can
be provided orally upon request [215-333-4900].

I believe I have articulated all key pathways to problem-solve in prior e-mails and, thus,
inquiries related to the petitioning process are best directed @ Chris; know that the
system that you are using [voters provided via precincts with alphabetized streets] can be
manipulated if numerical sequencing of each street is desired [a bit labor-intensive, but
do-able ... as was demonstrated for one of you, last night].

The world now knows that 1K+ signatures have been acquired, to be vetted [by someone
else] as per [perhaps] the appended schema [which I started for those I'd acquired, to test
the system]; now that beans were spilled publicly about Thursday-p.m. {by the Candidate,
blowing-out his prior emphasis on maintaining secrecy}, y'all should consider transitioning
[as I advised on Thursday] from signature-focus to discussion-focus when door-knocking
[and don't forget to record key-info for feedback through the system].

G'luck!

Thus, to the degree to which being publicly claimed to have been “fired” is defamatory, a RETRACTION
[issued directly by Dr. Duome, representing Candidate-Malik] is formally requested.

Revised is this compilation the Candidate’s key-errors that remain remediable:

—Apologize for trying to control behavior that would violate the Gale/Malik Pact.
—Acknowledge the sudden cessation of communications reflected "over-reach."
—Restore the ex-Treasurer to myriad supposedly-open Facebook-sites ASAP.
—Remit $100 to "make me whole" [seed-$ = $2500, not $2400], per Dr. Duome.
—Provide promised-input [three months remote] regarding freedom-of-speech.
—Send letter to all volunteers rescinding claim that the Treasurer had been “Removed.”

Recall the previously-detailed explanation that the Candidate had self-satirized the basis for his campaign
against the Incumbent by attacking his Omnibus-vote [thereby discounting fealty to The Donald’s agenda]
and note that this directly stems from being excessively doctrinaire, and then ask whether straight-talk
invoking his prior incarnation [pro-Trumpy] and/or his subsequent incarnation [anti-Trumpy] resonates.
Indeed, one can easily project that he would integrate his doctrinaire approach to conservatism with his
posturing toward social-issues [e.g., abortion & bathroom] now recognized as a driving/defining-force.

Can he truly claim that the amalgamation of such absolutism would attract all but 100% conservatives?

2