Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In that instance, why would a subpoena be needed? If the PI lawyer represents the Plaintiff/Patient, all he needs to submit is a medical records request on behalf of the Plaintiff/Patient.

Under the TX law, the Patient is a third party to a lawsuit between the abortion provider and a Plaintiff suing the provider. The Plaintiff there (let's call him "Shitball," because that fits) sues the provider and then demands the records of a third party patient whom he alleges received an abortion.

The provider has to notify the Patient before turning those over. Patient then objects to disclosure of private information in a case in which Patient is not even a party.

Do you see a judge overruling the privacy interests of a third party - privacy interests in the most personal and sensitive forms of information imaginable - to satisfy discovery requests from a litigant suing a third party under a statute nakedly enacted for purely political purposes over broad public objection?

I handle subpoenas /requests for one of our facilities, and most of the time plaintiffs just use authorizations to get their own records. Sometimes they'll go the subpoena route just to get the affidavit, but usually it's cheaper/easier just do to a request. And they don't end up fighting with medical records departments (me) about letters of assurance, which I still insist upon even if the lawyer is representing the patient.

Sometimes the judge overrules. Most of the time (in my experience, anyways) the patient doesn't bother to object. I suspect because the patients don't have lawyers/don't know how. It doesn't happen very often where third party records are requested. Usually products liability cases or the like, but even then the lawyers need to have identified the third party and have a sense of what was going on with them.

Note: I do get a lot of third party in the case of medical board subpoenas, but the healthcare oversight exception to HIPAA applies in those instances and usually the patient is the person who brought the complaint, anyways. And of course, criminal subpoenas, which are in the law enforcement section of HIPAA and don't require the letter of assurance, at least on the prosecution side.

If anyone is ever interested in the exceptions to HIPAA 45 CFR 164.512 is the place to go for most of them.

As for "how will judges react", I suspect that the authors/advocates of this bill know EXACTLY which courts to file the suits in and those judges are geared up and raring to go against baby killers and their assistants.

I'm frankly more worried about how OB/GYNs will react. More bad baby cases. More maternal fatalities. Maternal Fetal Medicine folks leaving the state because the risk of practicing in that area is just not worth it. Residency programs losing their ACOG accreditation because they can't train on abortion, therefore not attracting good OB/GYN residents to the state.

The authors of this bill Do. Not. Give. A. Shit. about any of this.

[Replaced_Texan]

Just wanted to tell you all that I love you. I always think of you and everyone that came before on 9/11. Being on the Findlaw boards on that day and the immediate aftermath will always be part of my memories of the event. We banded together in a way that became super important, and I think is the reason that we remain close here (and elsewhere) two decades later.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Just wanted to tell you all that I love you. I always think of you and everyone that came before on 9/11. Being on the Findlaw boards on that day and the immediate aftermath will always be part of my memories of the event. We banded together in a way that became super important, and I think is the reason that we remain close here (and elsewhere) two decades later.

Thanks. A lot. Some of us who were there but barely touched, maybe get a little bit of survivor's guilt.

I did everything I could to tune yesterday out completely but then the Mets/Yankees game (which thankfully, I sold my tix to for a fortune) and the endless speeches and interviews with Joe Torre, etc. just had me tune that out.

However, as fucked up as 9/11 was, this country did come together. Post 9/11 there is no way that there would be a divide over whether a terrorist had the right to access a cockpit.

However 9/11 pales in comparison to the events of 2016 forward which started the real downfall of this country leading to the vile divide it is facing today.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Thanks. A lot. Some of us who were there but barely touched, maybe get a little bit of survivor's guilt.

I did everything I could to tune yesterday out completely but then the Mets/Yankees game (which thankfully, I sold my tix to for a fortune) and the endless speeches and interviews with Joe Torre, etc. just had me tune that out.

However, as fucked up as 9/11 was, this country did come together. Post 9/11 there is no way that there would be a divide over whether a terrorist had the right to access a cockpit.

However 9/11 pales in comparison to the events of 2016 forward which started the real downfall of this country leading to the vile divide it is facing today.

This place is a good example of people disagreeing but ultimately compromising. There are arguments here that can get quite bitter, but they usually resolve with some form of agreement that a compromise would be the only way to resolve the issue about which we are arguing.

Perhaps naively, I think - or maybe it's more hope - a majority of the powerful and influential people in the country behave in the same fashion.

What's causing the current polarization I think started way, way before 2016. Kurt Anderson nails is quite well in Evil Geniuses (god is that a great fucking book). It's been a long time coming, and Trump was the creation of the myriad causes, rather than its creator. But we can disagree on that.

Fuck, we could disagree on a whole ton of shit. But being thoughtful and circumspect, we'd ultimately compromise where it was required to allow society, govt, both, to function.

What scares me is what I think partly makes RT, and me, and most of us here, fond of the place. Yes, if you were here pre-9/11, there was a moment of bonding in that horror. RT describes it well, and reading her description took me right back to that very day, and the posts made on it, and where I was sitting, and the surreal aspect of what I was trying to grasp as the enormity of the thing came into focus.

But also, though RT doesn't say it, it's implicit: The people here are uniquely smart. It's hard to have an affinity for the dumb, and to come back to your point about polarization, it's the dumb who are causing all the problems. The dumb won't compromise. And there's a whole lot more of them in the country, in various areas, in various schools of thought, than there are the smart.

I may not agree with everyone here all the time, but I know what I'm not going to get when I come here: Dumb. The place is a refuge in that regard. And one can't help but having an affection for that in this day and age.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This place is a good example of people disagreeing but ultimately compromising. There are arguments here that can get quite bitter, but they usually resolve with some form of agreement that a compromise would be the only way to resolve the issue about which we are arguing.

Perhaps naively, I think - or maybe it's more hope - a majority of the powerful and influential people in the country behave in the same fashion.

What's causing the current polarization I think started way, way before 2016. Kurt Anderson nails is quite well in Evil Geniuses (god is that a great fucking book). It's been a long time coming, and Trump was the creation of the myriad causes, rather than its creator. But we can disagree on that.

Fuck, we could disagree on a whole ton of shit. But being thoughtful and circumspect, we'd ultimately compromise where it was required to allow society, govt, both, to function.

What scares me is what I think partly makes RT, and me, and most of us here, fond of the place. Yes, if you were here pre-9/11, there was a moment of bonding in that horror. RT describes it well, and reading her description took me right back to that very day, and the posts made on it, and where I was sitting, and the surreal aspect of what I was trying to grasp as the enormity of the thing came into focus.

But also, though RT doesn't say it, it's implicit: The people here are uniquely smart. It's hard to have an affinity for the dumb, and to come back to your point about polarization, it's the dumb who are causing all the problems. The dumb won't compromise. And there's a whole lot more of them in the country, in various areas, in various schools of thought, than there are the smart.

I may not agree with everyone here all the time, but I know what I'm not going to get when I come here: Dumb. The place is a refuge in that regard. And one can't help but having an affection for that in this day and age.

If I’m being honest I wish flower would quit and then Paigs could come back{sad face}

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Just wanted to tell you all that I love you. I always think of you and everyone that came before on 9/11. Being on the Findlaw boards on that day and the immediate aftermath will always be part of my memories of the event. We banded together in a way that became super important, and I think is the reason that we remain close here (and elsewhere) two decades later.

Thanks for this, here and on FB.

Love and respect to you all. Even Sebby.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If I’m being honest I wish flower would quit and then Paigs could come back{sad face}

I can probably convince The Daintiest Petunia to make a comeback.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by pretty little flower

i can probably convince the daintiest petunia to make a comeback.

Deal!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The Sussmann indictment has to be one of the most frivolous things ever floated.

We’re going to waste how many millions to prosecute someone for engaging in sleazy, hardball politics?

I’m not excusing the behavior, but really? Like, maybe, just maybe, we’ve slightly more important alleged criminal acts on which to focus?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Sussmann indictment has to be one of the most frivolous things ever floated.

Good thread on this by Popehat:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1438887582520147979

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Just wanted to tell you all that I love you. I always think of you and everyone that came before on 9/11. Being on the Findlaw boards on that day and the immediate aftermath will always be part of my memories of the event. We banded together in a way that became super important, and I think is the reason that we remain close here (and elsewhere) two decades later.

I was thinking about you all the other day. About this place. I was 1 year post law school working in a big Chicago firm on 9/11... Never forget.

Anyway, meant to log in to say hello, but life has been crazy recently, so I didn't get around to it until just now.

Glad to see the familiar faces are still mulling about. Hope you all are well.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck

I was thinking about you all the other day. About this place. I was 1 year post law school working in a big Chicago firm on 9/11... Never forget.

Anyway, meant to log in to say hello, but life has been crazy recently, so I didn't get around to it until just now.

Glad to see the familiar faces are still mulling about. Hope you all are well.

Welcome back.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Good thread on this by Popehat:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1438887582520147979

Two takeaways from that solid analysis:

1. The evidence is limited to a conversation with a witness with a dicey recollection of what was said. That indicates a situation where prosecutorial discretion should dictate refraining from seeking an indictment.

2. If the indictment is as long as the author suggests, and filled with woe-is-Trump sentiment, Durham has debased his office. It's bad enough to charge on facts so flimsy, and on which there's a better than usual chance that the govt will lose. To use it as a political tool and wreck the guy's life (Sussmann appears to be an asshole from what I've read, and clearly has poor judgment, but that's not a basis to destroy him) is vile.

I think Durham set out on a witch hunt (I know, but the term fits) and came up with nothing. But as so many in his position do (Ken Starr, Mueller to an extent, etc.), instead of admitting there's nothing there, he decided dammit, he'd find something to prosecute. And so now Sussmann is the sacrifice he can serve up to those who wanted heads to roll, and also his cover for those who claim his witch hunt was a witch hunt.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Good thread on this by Popehat:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1438887582520147979

I want to know the daintiest petunia's take on this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two takeaways from that solid analysis:

1. The evidence is limited to a conversation with a witness with a dicey recollection of what was said. That indicates a situation where prosecutorial discretion should dictate refraining from seeking an indictment.

2. If the indictment is as long as the author suggests, and filled with woe-is-Trump sentiment, Durham has debased his office. It's bad enough to charge on facts so flimsy, and on which there's a better than usual chance that the govt will lose. To use it as a political tool and wreck the guy's life (Sussmann appears to be an asshole from what I've read, and clearly has poor judgment, but that's not a basis to destroy him) is vile.

I think Durham set out on a witch hunt (I know, but the term fits) and came up with nothing. But as so many in his position do (Ken Starr, Mueller to an extent, etc.), instead of admitting there's nothing there, he decided dammit, he'd find something to prosecute. And so now Sussmann is the sacrifice he can serve up to those who wanted heads to roll, and also his cover for those who claim his witch hunt was a witch hunt.

The oral statement before one person is especially surprising to me.

Once upon a time, I practiced with a former FBI agent and was involved in a couple of his investigations. The travel in pairs thing was so deeply ingrained in him - if his phone rang, he'd ask someone to come into his office and listen in on the call. There was always a witness.