opensubscriber
   Find in this group all groups
 
Unknown more information…

m : misc.legal@googlegroups.com 11 April 2008 • 6:52AM -0400

25 new messages in 9 topics - digest
by misc.legal group

REPLY TO AUTHOR
 
REPLY TO GROUP




misc.legal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal?hl=en

misc.legal@goog...

Today's topics:

* Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/0880c33a5fc2ad6c?hl=en
* Kent's ""Fake ID"" makes no sense - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/983bb45be9c69d94?hl=en
* Castaneda v. United States, 2008 WL 704073 (C.D. Cal. 2008) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/af442047c20e1dff?hl=en
* Break the law by being a daredevil? (Curiosity questions only.) - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/83eb233e57ce94b7?hl=en
* AT&T To Pay $756,000 For Religious Bias Against Jehovah's Witnesses - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/d6c3eab2ebd14876?hl=en
* singular they - 8 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/51dab6f9a0751cdd?hl=en
* Moe gets NASTY! LOL Kent tries to pull a fast one - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/ef53c3169f3e648d?hl=en
* KUNT WILLS DELIBERATE LIES - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/16b675c2c85aed77?hl=en
* Kunt Wills LIES HIS ASS OFF - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/d9a618f565c9ee98?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/0880c33a5fc2ad6c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 1:59 pm
From: Brian Lafferty  


Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> "jeremy.p.spinrad@vand..." <jeremy.p.spinrad@vand...>
> wrote:
>
>> I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
>> decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
>> who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
>> to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
>> they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
>> felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
>> it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
>> make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
>> don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
>> which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
>> cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
>> still practiced in this country.
>
> Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
> involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
> parents of prospective clients should evaluate.  

I agree.  For parents to make that decision intelligently, they need to
know all the facts.




== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:07 pm
From: Brian Lafferty  


Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowh...> wrote in message
> news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
>> invalid@exam... wrote:
>>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>>
>>>
>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>
> Hey Deuce!
>
> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
> more than that?

Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy.  The children's father tells me
that his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being
done to them.  The guardian, quite properly, told the court.  The court
issued its order.


  Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?

You decide.  What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad
litem when they have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the
Pufferfish.  Next interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign
a sworn statement if he denies it.  Do you have the balls to ask the
question BB? :-)
>
> Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>
>  :)))
>
> Phil Innes
>
>>  And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention.  Facts.
>> Not assertions.
>
>




== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:09 pm
From: Brian Lafferty  


Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <mikemurray@desp...> wrote in message
> news:6nusv3djthaelavvqmvtj793fjb3ptd6tu@4ax.......
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comc...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>> Hey Deuce!
>>>
>>> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>>> more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>>>
>>> Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>>>
>>> :)))
>> So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up?  Do you
>
> Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
> being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
> existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
> challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
Ah Bowel Boy, you are releasing intellectual diarrhea. Immodium for your
brain is needed.

>
>> know what a guardian ad litem does ?  Or this he/she just one more
>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

See my comment on another post that answers your stupid questions.
>
> PI
>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>>  And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>>>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention.  Facts.
>>>> Not assertions.
>
>




== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:51 pm
From: Mike Murray  


On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comc...>
wrote:


>> know what a guardian ad litem does ?  Or this he/she just one more
>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
>You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
>proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
>would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

Well, this answers my question.  You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does.  Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?




== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:01 pm
From: The Historian  


On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@desp...> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comc...>
> wrote:
>
> >> know what a guardian ad litem does ?  Or this he/she just one more
> >> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> >You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> >proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> >would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
>
> Well, this answers my question.  You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does.  Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?

Must be more of the "erudition" you claimed for this 'man', Mike.




== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:11 pm
From: SBD  


On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@desp...> wrote:

>
> Well, this answers my question.  You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does.  Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?

Well, he's consistent.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kent's ""Fake ID"" makes no sense
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/983bb45be9c69d94?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:03 pm
From: "Peter Hucker"  


On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:10:35 +0100, Kent Wills <compuelf@gmai...> wrote:

>> If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
>>
>> TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
>>
>> The hypothetical FAKE ID.
>>
>> ****No one really disputes who is responsible for the ID.
>> It's your stalking that is in dispute.
>
>      No it's not.  Greg stalks people.
>      He may have been able to intimidate people in the past with his
> stalking, but he'll soon learn he can't intimidate me.
>
>> You think you aren't a stalker.
>> Your persistent look ups and posting prove different.
>> You stalk.  That's the issue.
>> BTW...when you want to piss and moan about how Kane, et al, took over this
>> newsgroup and destroyed it you should really think hard about whether or
>> not you are projecting.
>
>      Greg wouldn't be the first to try and destroy alt.friends.  Doc failed,
> and he put in one heck of an effort.
>      He then sent Peter Hucker.  He tried, but he also failed.

Rubbish.  I just don't know whether to believe you or Doc.

>      We get the odd troll now and again who will try to destroy the group.
> Everyone has failed every time.


--
This message has been brought to you by nuclear power.  Please don't tell the neighbours.
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com    http://www.petersphotos.com

                                            _\/
                                         .-'.'`)
                                      .-' .'
                .                  .-'     `-.          __\/
                 \.    .  |,   _.-'       -:````)   _.-'.'``)
                  \`.  |\ | \.-_.           `._ _.-' .'`
                 __) )__\ |! )/ \_.          _.-'      `.
             _.-'__`-' =`:' /.' / |      _.-'      -:`````)
       __.--' ( (@> ))  = \ ^ `'. |_. .-'           `.
      : @       `^^^    == \ ^   `. |<                `.
      VvvvvvvvVvvvv)    =  ;   ^  ;_/ :           -:``````)
        (^^^^^^^^^^=  ==   |      ; \. :            `.
     ((  `-----------.  == |  ^   ;_/   :             `.
     /\             /==   /       : \.  :     _..--``````)
   __\ \_          ; ==  /  ^     :_/   :      `.
> <__   _```---.._/ ====/       ^ : \. :         `.
     / / `._  ^  ;==   /  ^        :/ .            `.
     \/ ((  `._ / === /       ^    `.'       _.--`````)
     (( /\     ;===  /      ^     .'        `.
      __\ \_  : === | ^ /                     `.
   >><__   _``--...__.-'   ^  /  ^              `.
        / / `._        ^    .'              .--`````)     .--..
        \/   :=`--...____.-'  ^     .___.-'|            .' .--.`.   (
       ((    | ===    \                  `.|__.         ; ^:   `.'   )
              :  ====  \  ^      ^         `. |          ;  `;   `../__
            .-'\====    \    .       ^      `.|___.       ;^  `;       \
         .-'    :  ===   \.-'              ^  `.  |        ;  ^ `;      )
      .-'    ^   \==== .-'         ^            `.|___.     ;     ;    (
   .-'         ^  :=.-'                 ^        `.   |      ;     ;
.'      ^       .-'          ^               ^    ;_/__.    ;  ^   ;
: ^        ^ .-'     ^                   ^   ;     ;   |    ;       ;
:    ^    .-'    ^          ^      ^     _.-'    ^  ;_/    ; ^      ;
:  ^    .'                           _.-"    ^      ; \.  ;      ^  ;
  `.   ^ :   ^         ^       ^__.--"               ;_/  ;          ;
    `.^  :                __.--"\         ^     ^    ; \ ;     ^     ;
      `-.:       ^___.---"\ ===  \   ^               ;_/'        ^  ;
         ``.^         `.   `\===  \         ^     ^       ^        ;
            `.     ^    `.   `-. ==\                          ^   ;
             _`-._        `.    `\= \    ^           ^           ;
     __..--''    _`-._^     `.    `-.`\         ^          ^    ;
    (-(-(-(-(--''     `-._  ^ `.     `\`\              ^      .'
                  __..---''     `._     `-. ^      ^      ^ .'
         __..---''    ___....---'`-`)      `---...____..---'
        (-(-(-(-(---''             '





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Castaneda v. United States, 2008 WL 704073 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/af442047c20e1dff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:01 pm
From: Sorafon  


United States District Court, C.D. California

Francisco CASTANED, Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES of America, California, George Molinar, i his individual
capacity, Chris Henneford, in his individual capacity, eff Drinkley, in his
individual capacity, Gene Migliaccio, in his individual capacity, Timothy
Shack, M.D., in his individual capacity, Esther Hui, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 704073 (C.D.Cal.)

No. CV 07-07241 DDP (JCx).

March 11, 2008.

Background: Immigration detainee brought action against United States, and
individual federal and state employees, alleging failure to treat serious
medical condition violated United States Constitution and Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA). Individual federal defendants moved to dismiss.

Holdings: The District Court, Dean D. Pregerson , J., held that:
(1) Public health officials were not entitled to immunity under FTCA, and
(2) detainee's allegations were sufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim.

Motion denied.^p[

Adele P. Kimmel, Public Justice, Washington, DC, Conal F. Doyle, Willoughby
Doyle, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.

Anoiel Khorshid, Keith M. Staub, AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Deborah C.
Saxe, Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA, Laura R. Anderson, Jones Day, Cleveland,
OH, James A. Creason, Creason & Aarvig, Riverside, CA, Larry A. Dunlap,
Creason & Aarvig, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

[Motion filed on January 14, 2008]

DEAN D. PREGERSON , District Judge.

*1 This matter comes before the Court upon the individual Public Health
Service Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties and
reviewing the arguments therein, the Court DENIES the motion.FN1

I. LEGAL STANDARD

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court ³assum[es] all facts and
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.² Libas Ltd. v. Carillo, 329 F.3d
1128, 1130 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, where, as here, the motion to
dismiss is based upon an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), ³the trial court may
rely on affidavits and other evidence submitted in connection with the
motion.² Berardinelli v. Castle & Cooke Inc., 587 F.2d 37, 39 (9th
Cir.1978).

II. BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2006, Plaintiff Francisco Castaneda-an immigration
detainee-informed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (³ICE²) medical
staff at the San Diego Correctional Facility that a lesion on his penis was
becoming painful, growing in size, and exuding discharge. The next day,
Castaneda was examined by Anthony Walker, an ICE Physician's Assistant.
Walker's treatment plan called for a urology consult ³ASAP² and a request
for a biopsy. (Amended Compl. ¶ 37 FN2; Doyle Decl. Ex. 1.)

On April 11, 2006, ICE documented that because of Castaneda's family
history-his mother died of pancreatic cancer at age 39-penile cancer needed
to be ruled out. (Doyle Decl. Ex. 2.) A Treatment Authorization Request
(³TAR²) was filed with the Division of Immigration Health Services (³DIHS²),
requesting approval for a biopsy and circumcision. The TAR noted that
Castaneda's penile lesion had grown, that he was experiencing pain at a
level 8 on a scale of 10, and that the lesion had a ³foul odor.² (Id. Ex.
3.) By this time, DIHS had determined that certain ³possible infections²
were not causing the lesion. (Id.) The TAR further urged that, ³[d]ue to
family history and pt [patient] discomfort,² a biopsy and ³pertinent
surgical f/u [follow up]² should be performed the ³sooner the better.² (Id.)
DIHS approved the TAR, authorizing the biopsy, urology consult, and
³pertinent surgical f/u,² on May 31. (Id.)

On June 7, 2006, ICE sent Castaneda for a consult with oncologist John
Wilkinson, M.D. Castaneda presented with a history of a fungating lesion FN3
on his foreskin. (Id. Ex. 4.) Dr. Wilkinson

"agree[d] with the physicians at the [M]etropolitan [C]orrectional Center
that this may represent either a penile cancer or a progressive viral based
lesion. I strongly agree that it requires urgent urologic assessment of
biopsy and definitive treatment. In this extremely delicate area and [sic]
there can be considerable morbidity from even benign lesions which are not
promptly and appropriately treated.... I spoke with the physicians at the
correctional facility. I have offered to admit patient for a urologic
consultation and biopsy. Physicians there wish to pursue outpatient biopsy
which would be more cost effective. They understand the need for urgent
diagnosis and treatment."

*2 (Id. (emphasis added).) On the same day, Defendant Esther Hui, M.D.,
spoke to Dr. Wilkinson. She noted that she was aware that Mr. Castaneda ³has
a penile lesion that needs to be biopsied,² and that Dr. Wilkinson had
offered to admit Castaneda and perform this procedure. (Id. Ex. 5.) However,
Dr. Hui explained that DIHS would not admit him to a hospital because DIHS
considered a biopsy to be ³an elective outpatient procedure.² (Id. (emphasis
added).) Dr. Hui never made arrangements for the outpatient biopsy.

On June 12, 2006, Castaneda filed a grievance asking for the surgery
recommended by Dr. Wilkinson, stating that he was ³in a considerable amount
of pain and I am in desperate need of medical attention.² (Id. Ex. 6.) This
grievance was denied. DIHS records from June 23 document that Castaneda's
penis was ³getting worse, more swelling to the area, foul odo[r], drainage,
more difficult to urinate, bleeding from the foreskin.² (Id. Ex. 7.) DIHS
records from June 30, 2006 state that because Castaneda had not yet had ³a
biopsy performed and evaluated in a laboratory,² the agency considered him
to ³NOT have cancer at this time.² (Id. Ex.8.) DIHS acknowledged that ³the
past few months of the lesion [had been] looking and acting a bit more
angry,² yet dismissed Castaneda's concerns: ³Basically, this pt needs to be
patient and wait.² (Id.)

DIHS records from one month later document that the ³lesion on his penis is
draining clear, foul malodorous smell, culture[s] before were negative for
growth, negative RPR, negative HIV. [F]oreskin is bleeding at this time and
pt states his colon feels swollen, previous rectal exam showed slightly
swollen prostate, deferred today.² (Id. Ex. 9.) Despite Dr. Wilkinson's
emphasis over a month earlier on the need for a biopsy due to the
considerable likelihood of cancer, DIHS claimed to have no idea what could
be causing Castaneda's ailment, noting the ³unk[nown] etiology of [his]
penile lesion.² (Id. Ex. 9.)

On the same day, a report by Anthony Walker claims that Castaneda ³was not
denied by Dr. Hui any treatment, albeit there was no active Treatment
Authorization Request (TAR) placed for approval by DIHS headquarters in
Washington, DC, nor was there an emergent need.² (Id. Ex. 10 (emphasis
added).) Despite the alleged lack of ³emergent need,² the next day a TAR was
submitted seeking Emergency Room (³ER²) evaluation and in-patient treatment
for Castaneda. There is no explanation for why ICE did not schedule him for
the circumcision and biopsy ordered by Dr. Wilkinson the month before.
However, the TAR did note that Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Masters, an outside
urologist,

both strongly recommended admission, urology consultation, surgical
intervention via biopsy/exploration under anesthesia to include circumcision
if non-malignant, return f/u with oncology depending upon findings, and
potential treatment or surgery of any malignant findings.... There is now
bleeding, drainage, malodorous smell and the lesion now appears to be
³exploding² for lack of better words, definitely macerated. Request for
urology and oncology inpatient eval[uation] and treatment with outpatient
follow-up.
*3 (Id. Ex. 11 (emphasis added).) The TAR was approved. (Id.)

Inexplicably, DIHS failed to arrange for an evaluation with Dr. Wilkinson
and/or Dr. Masters, the treating doctors who were familiar with Castaneda's
condition and who, indeed, had offered to continue treating him. Instead,
DIHS brought Castaneda to the ER at Scripps Mercy Chula Vista on July 13,
2006. There, Dr. Juan Tovar, M.D., who examined Castaneda, documented the
existence of a 1.5cm by 2cm ³fungating lesion with slight clearish
discharge.² (Id. Ex. 12.) Dr. Tovar made arrangements for Castaneda to be
admitted to the hospital; his impression was that Castaneda had a ³penile
mass² and that there was a need to ³rule out cancer, versus infectious
etiology.² (Id.)

Once admitted, yet another doctor unfamiliar with Castaneda's history, Dr.
Daniel Hunting, M.D., performed a brief examination the same day, but did
not do the biopsy needed to rule out cancer. Instead, Dr. Hunting guessed
that the problem was condyloma, commonly known as genital warts. (Id. Ex.
13.) There is no evidence from his report that Dr. Hunting asked about or
was aware of Castaneda's family history of cancer. Dr. Hunting then referred
Castaneda back to his ³primary treating urologist,² dismissed his symptoms
as ³not an urgent problem,² and discharged him from the hospital. (Id.)

Four days later, Castaneda's condition was worsening. DIHS documented that
the lesion was still ³growing,² and that Castaneda had ³severe phimosis, FN4
bleeding, and clear drainage for lesion area with foul odor.² (Id. Ex. 14.)
The DIHS record notes that both Dr. Masters and Dr. Wilkinson ³strongly
recommended² admission to a hospital, biopsy, and circumcision. (Id.)
Instead, DIHS followed the suggestion of Dr. Hunting-who had only briefly
examined Castaneda in the ER-and assumed Castaneda had genital warts. DIHS
therefore declined to order a biopsy, although it nonetheless noted
Castaneda would ³need a resection FN5 of the penis² due to the severity of
his condition. (Id.)

On July 26, 2006, DIHS acknowledged that Castaneda ³complains that he is
being denied a needed surgery to his foreskin.² (Id. Ex. 16.) ICE told
Castaneda, however, that ³while a surgical procedure might be recommended
long-term, that does not imply that the Federal Government is obligated to
provide that surgery if the condition is not threatening to life, limb or
eyesight.² (Id.) On August 9, DIHS again noted Plaintiff's ³inflamed
foreskin,² but denied his request for a circumcision, claiming that
³surgical removal, at the current time, would be considered elective
surgery; that as such the Federal Government will not provide for such
surgery.² (Id. Ex. 17.)

On August 11, 2006, Walker submitted a TAR requesting a biopsy and
circumcision by Dr. Masters, the outside urologist. (Id. Ex. 18.) Dr.
Masters examined Castaneda on August 22. Dr. Masters thought Castaneda might
have genital warts, but noted Castaneda's family history of cancer and that
Dr. Wilkinson had recommended a ³diagnostic biopsy² to rule out cancer. (Id.
19.) Therefore, Dr. Masters recommended circumcision, which would at once
relieve the ³ongoing medical side effects of the lesion including infection
and bleeding² and ³provide a biopsy.² (Id.) Dr. Masters told DIHS that ³we
will arrange for admission for circumcision at a local hospital. My
principal hospital is Sharp Memorial.² (Id.)

*4 In spite of this unequivocal recommendation, Walker characterized Dr.
Masters as stating that ³elective procedures this patient may need in the
future are cytoscopy and circumcision.² (Id. Ex. 20.) The word ³elective²
does not appear in Dr. Masters's report. DIHS denied the request for a
circumcision. (Id.) On August 24, 2006, DIHS told Castaneda that, ³according
to policy,² surgery was denied because it was ³elective.² (Id. Ex. 21.) On
August 26 and 28, Castaneda was seen by medical staff because of ³complaints
of stressful situation regarding medical status, unable to sleep at night;
states that ICE won't allow surgical operation for lesion on penis.² (Id.
Ex. 22.) ICE was thus aware that Castaneda's ³stress is due to a chronic
medical problem which the CCA has refused to have corrected as it is
considered to be elective surgery.² (Id.) Castaneda was prescribed an
antihistamine as treatment. (Id.)

On August 30, 2006, ICE sent Castaneda a letter:

This is to inform that the off-site specialist you were referred to for your
medical condition reports that any surgical intervention for the condition
would be elective in nature. An independent review by our medical team is in
agreement with the specialist's assessment. The care you are currently
receiving is necessary, appropriate, and in accordance with our policies.

(Id. Ex. 23.) As noted, Dr. Wilkinson's and Dr. Masters's reports do not in
fact state that the recommended biopsy and circumcision would be elective.
On the contrary, Castaneda's treating doctors, as discussed, both noted the
urgency of the situation and made efforts to see Castaneda treated as
quickly as possible.

On September 8, 2006, Castaneda complained: ³I have a lot [sic] pain and I'm
having discharge.² (Id. Ex. 24.) ICE noted that Castaneda's current
treatment was Ibuprofen (800mg), which was having ³no effect² on his pain;
Castaneda was having ³white discharge at night,² and he worried that ³It's
getting worse. It's like genital warts, but they're getting bigger.² (Id.)
By October 17, 2006, ICE medical staff was aware that Castaneda was bleeding
from his penis; one officer ³saw some dried blood on his boxers.² (Id. Ex.
26.) On October 23, Walker submitted a TAR for surgery, but it was denied on
October 26 because ³circumcisions are not a covered benefit.² (Id. Ex.
27-28.)

In the October 26 denial report, Defendant Claudia Mazur, a DIHS nurse,
stated that ³Pt has been seen by local urologist and oncologist and both are
not impressed of possible cancerous lesion(s), however, there is an elective
component to having the circumcision completed.² (Id. Ex. 28.) This
conclusion directly contradicts the July 13 TAR, which documented that Drs.
Wilkinson and Masters both ³strongly recommended... surgical intervention
via biopsy/exploration² to rule out cancer. (Id. Ex. 4, 11, 19.) The TAR
also documented that Castaneda ³is not able to be released to seek further
care due to mandatory hold and according to ICE authorities, may be with
this facility for quite awhile.² (Id. Ex. 28.) This document thus suggests
ICE officials knew that Castaneda would be unable to receive treatment in
the foreseeable future.

*5 DIHS noted that Castaneda's symptoms ³have worsened² on November 9. (Id.
Ex. 29.) Castaneda reported ³a constant pinching pain, especially at night.
States he constantly has blood and discharge on his shorts. [Castaneda
stated] it's getting worse, and I don't even have any meds-nothing for pain
and no antibiotics.² (Id.) Castaneda also ³complains of a swollen rectum
which he states make bowel movements hard.² (Id.) Castaneda was told that
the ³TAR was in place for surgery and is pending approval.² (Id.) Yet the
surgery was not provided.

Instead, on November 14 and 15, DIHS documented that Castaneda ³complains of
new, 2nd penile lesion on underside, distal penis.² (Id. Ex. 30.) ICE noted
that Castaneda was concerned ³that his lesion OEis growing¹ ³ and that it is
³moist,² that ³he cannot stand and urinate because the urine OEsprays
everywhere¹ and he cannot direct the stream.² (Id.) DIHS treated this
condition by making a request for seven pairs of clean boxer shorts weekly.
(Id.)

In early December, Castaneda was transferred to the San Pedro Service
Processing Center. (Jawetz Decl. Ex. 1.) ACLU lawyers began to advocate on
his behalf. On December 5, 2006, the ACLU sent a letter to multiple ICE
officials, including Defendants Chris Henneford, Stephen Gonsalves, and
George Molinar. The letter stated, in part, that ³Mr. Castaneda, who has a
strong family history of cancer, legitimately fears that his long term
health is being jeopardized by the lack of appropriate medical care he
continues to receive in ICE custody. In the short term, Mr. Castaneda
continues to experience severe pain, bleeding, and discharge.² (Id.) The
letter requested medical treatment for Castaneda.

Also on December 5, a TAR was filed seeking consultation with Lawrence
Greenburg, M.D., because of a ³history of severe HPV infection causing
large, painful, penile warts, has bleeding and pain from the lesions. May
also have an underlying structural deformity of penis.² (Doyle Decl. Ex.
31.) Dr. Greenberg ³also recommended a circumcision and biopsy.² (Jawetz
Decl. Ex. 5.) On January 19, an ACLU attorney faxed another letter to ICE,
requesting medical treatment for Castaneda. (Id.) On January 24, a TAR for a
urology consult with Asghar Askari, M.D. was approved. (Doyle Decl. Ex. 32.)
The next day, Castaneda was seen by Dr. Askari, who diagnosed a fungating
penile lesion that was ³most likely penile cancer² and ordered a biopsy.
(Id. Ex. 33.)

On January 29, 2007, the ACLU faxed yet another letter to ICE, urging the
agency to provide Castaneda the care that had been ordered for the past ten
months. (Jawetz Decl. Ex. 6.) According to Plaintiff's complaint, a biopsy
was finally scheduled for early February. However, a few days before the
procedure, Castaneda was abruptly released from ICE custody. Castaneda then
went to the ER of Harbor-UCLA Hospital in Los Angeles on February 8, 2007,
where he was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma. His penis was amputated
on Valentines Day, 2007. According to the complaint, Harbor-UCLA confirmed
that Castaneda had metastatic cancer. Castaneda began undergoing
chemotherapy at Harbor-UCLA. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 104-09.) However, the
treatment was not successful, and on February 16, 2008, Mr. Castaneda
died.FN6

*6 Plaintiff Castaneda brings this lawsuit against, inter alia, the United
States and individual federal officials, arguing that the refusal to provide
Castaneda with a biopsy despite numerous medical orders to do so violated
the United States Constitution.FN7 Plaintiff brings state tort claims
against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (³FTCA²),FN8
and alleges federal constitutional violations against the individuals
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388, 389, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (establishing that
victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent may recover damages
against that federal official in federal court).

The individual Public Health Service (³PHS²) Defendants now bring this
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.FN9 They argue
that the PHS Defendants are absolutely immune from suit, that Plaintiff must
instead bring this claim as an FTCA action against the United States, and
that because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for claims
of constitutional violations, this action must be dismissed.

III. DISCUSSION

This case presents an unresolved legal question in the Ninth Circuit:
whether § 233(a) of the Public Health Service Act allows Castaneda to assert
Bivens claims against the individual Public Health Service Defendants. The
Court finds that the plain language of the statute dictates that it does.
FN10

A. Bivens Claims are Generally Available to Remedy Eighth Amendment
Violations, and the FTCA is Intended as a Parallel, Rather Than a Substitute
Remedy

A victim of a constitutional violation by a federal agent may bring a Bivens
action to recover damages against the individual in his personal capacity
unless ³defendants demonstrate special factors counseling hesitation in the
absence of affirmative action by Congress² or unless ³defendants show that
Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to
be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution and viewed as
equally effective.² Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64
L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). The only question
before the Court is whether Congress has explicitly provided for a
substitute remedy under the circumstances in this case, so as to preclude a
Bivens claim.

The United States Supreme Court has made ³crystal clear² that in cases
involving Eighth Amendment claims based on an alleged failure to provide
proper medical care, ³Congress views FTCA and Bivens as parallel,
complementary causes of action.² Id. at 20. In Carlson, the Court rejected
defendants' argument that the FTCA was intended by Congress to be an
adequate substitute:

"[W]e have here no explicit congressional declaration that persons injured
by federal officers' violations of the Eighth Amendment may not recover
money damages from the agents but must be remitted to another remedy,
equally effective in the view of Congress. Petitioners point to nothing in
the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or its legislative history to show that
Congress meant to pre-empt a Bivens remedy or to create an equally effective
remedy for constitutional violations.
*7 Id. at 19."

According to the Court, ³[f]our additional factors, each suggesting that the
Bivens remedy is more effective than the FTCA remedy, also support our
conclusion that Congress did not intend to limit [the aggrieved individual]
to an FTCA action.² Id. at 20-21. First, the threat of a Bivens claim
provides stronger deterrence against future constitutional violations than
an FTCA action because only the former remedy ³is recoverable against
individuals,² and ³[i]t is almost axiomatic that the threat of damages has a
deterrent effect, surely particularly so when the individual official faces
personal financial liability.² Id. at 21 (internal citations omitted).

Second, and relatedly, punitive damages are available in a Bivens action,
but are ³statutorily prohibited² in an FTCA suit, see 28 U.S.C. § 2674, so
the ³FTCA is that much less effective than a Bivens action as a deterrent to
unconstitutional acts.² Id. at 22. Moreover, because 42 U.S.C. § 1983-the
counterpart to Bivens actions for constitutional violations by state
officials-allows for punitive damages, ³the constitutional design would be
stood on its head if federal officials did not face at least the same
liability as state officials guilty of the same constitutional
transgression.² Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Third, Bivens actions are more effective in this context because FTCA
actions do not allow for jury trials. The Court found ³significant[ ]² that
plaintiffs should be able to retain the choice between courts and juries.
Id. Fourth, and finally,

"an action under FTCA exists only if the State in which the alleged
misconduct occurred would permit a cause of action for that misconduct to go
forward. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (United States liable ³in accordance with the
law of the place where the act or omission occurred²). Yet it is obvious
that the liability of federal officials for violations of citizens'
constitutional rights should be governed by uniform rules.... The question
whether respondent's action for violations by federal officials of federal
constitutional rights should be left to the vagaries of the laws of the
several States admits of only a negative answer in the absence of a contrary
congressional resolution."
Id. at 23. For all of the above reasons, the Court held that ³[p]lainly FTCA
is not a sufficient protector of the citizens' constitutional rights, and
without a clear congressional mandate we cannot hold that Congress relegated
respondent exclusively to the FTCA remedy.² Id.

Since the Court's opinion in Carlson, Congress has amended the FTCA to
expressly preserve parallel Bivens actions against federal employees. In
1988, it passed the Federal Employees Liability and Tort Compensation Act,
which, inter alia, provided the the FTCA will be the ³exclusive² remedy ³of
any other civil action or proceeding for money damages... against [a
federal] employee.² 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). However, the Act then explains
that this exclusivity ³does not extend or apply to a civil action against an
employee of the Government... which is brought for a violation of the
Constitution of the United States.² Id. § 2679(b)(2)(A).

B. Both the Plain Language and the Legislative History of § 233(a) Evince a
Congressional Intent to Preserve Bivens Actions

*8 Defendants acknowledge that in general, victims of constitutional
violations may proceed with both FTCA and Bivens claims. They nonetheless
urge that as to the Public Health Service Defendants specifically, Congress
has expressed an explicit intent, through the Public Health Service Act, to
limit plaintiffs to an FTCA remedy. The Court disagrees.

Whether the Public Health Service Act evinces an intent to limit Mr.
Castaneda's remedies against PHS Defendants for any constitutional
violations to an FTCA claim is a question of statutory interpretation. When
interpreting a statute, courts ³look first to the plain language of the
statute, construing the provisions of the entire law.² Nw. Forest Resource
Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 831 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotation
marks omitted). After that, ³if the language of the statute is unclear, we
look to the legislative history.² Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In
this case, both the text and legislative history reveal an explicit intent
to allow Bivens claims.

1. Plain Language
The pertinent provision of the Public Health Service Act, § 233(a), FN11
reads in its entirety as follows:

DEFENSE OF CERTAIN MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE ACTS

Sec. 223.(a) The remedy against the United States provided by sections
1346(b) and 2672 of title 28 [the FTCA], or by alternative benefits provided
by the United States where the availability of such benefits precludes a
remedy under section 1346(b) of title 28, for damage for personal injury,
including death, resulting from the performance of medical, surgical,
dental, or related functions, including the conduct of clinical studies or
investigation, by any commissioned officer or employee of the Public Health
Service while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall be
exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same
subject-matter against the officer or employee (or his estate) whose act or
omission gave rise to the claim.

Emergency Health Personnel Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-623, § 223(a), 84
Stat. 1868, 1870 (1970). From this provision, it is clear that Congress
intended some medical injuries caused by PHS employees to be redressable
solely through the FTCA. The question is whether the provision applies to
allegations of constitutional violations. Congress has expressly indicated
that it does not.
At first glance, it may appear that § 233(a) does not address one way or
another whether Congress intended constitutional claims to come under its
rubric. Upon following the statutory trail, however, it turns out that
Congress has in fact explicitly answered the question presented by this
case.

Subsection 233(a) declares that ³[t]he remedy against the United States
provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of title 28,... shall be exclusive.²
The two sections mentioned-1346(b) and 2672-are part of the FTCA. The
latter-entitled ³Administrative Adjustment of Claims²-deals with how a
federal agency may manage the claims against it, and is not relevant for our
purposes. Subsection 1346(b), however, is more instructive:

*9 "b)(1) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the
district courts, together with the United States District Court for the
District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands,
shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the
United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for
injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the
negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government
while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under
circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable
to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
omission occurred."

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(emphasis added).

One little clause, almost invisible, should attract our attention: ³Subject
to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title.² This is the kind of clause
that is often ignored, on the assumption that it is probably not relevant.
But let us see what chapter 171 says, just in case:

CHAPTER 171-TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURE
28 USCA Pt. VI, Ch. 171, Refs & Annos
§ 2671. Definitions
§ 2672. Administrative adjustment of claims
§ 2673. Reports to Congress
§ 2674. Liability of United States
§ 2675. Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
§ 2676. Judgement as bar
§ 2677. Compromise
§ 2678. Attorney fees; penalty
§ 2679. Exclusiveness of remedy
§ 2680. Exceptions

The statutory provision that is the central focus of this motion to dismiss-
§ 233(a)-thus explicitly incorporates by reference 28 U.S.C. § 2679.
Subsection 2679(b) is dispositive here:

"(b)(1) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b)
and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or
death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office
or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money
damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act
or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of such employee.
Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or
relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee's
estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not extend or apply to a civil action against an
employee of the Government-
(A) which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United
States."

28 U.S.C. § 2679 (emphasis added). Therefore, § 233(a) incorporates the
provision of the FTCA which explicitly preserves a plaintiff's right to
bring a Bivens action. Stated differently, far from evincing the explicit
intent required by Carlson that Congress intended to preclude Bivens claims,
the plain language of § 233(a) unambiguously states the opposite:

*10 "The [exclusive] remedy against the United States provided by sections
1346(b) and 2672 of title 28... for damage for personal injury, including
death, resulting from the performance of medical... or related functions...
by any commissioned officer or employee of the Public Health Service... does
not extend or apply to a civil action... which is brought for a violation of
the Constitution of the United States."

42 U.S.C. § 233(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b).

The United States Supreme Court, in interpreting a provision similar to §
233(a), has confirmed that the ³the FTCA is not the exclusive remedy for
torts committed by Government employees in the scope of their employment
when an injured plaintiff brings: (1) a Bivens action.² United States v.
Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 166-67, 111 S.Ct. 1180, 113 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991); see
also Billings v. United States, 57 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that
³constitutional claims are outside the purview of the Federal Tort Claims
Act²). Smith dealt with the Gonzales Act, which has a provision worded
almost identically to § 233(a):

§ 1089. Defense of certain suits arising out of medical malpractice

(a) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and
2672 of title 28 for damages for personal injury, including death, caused by
the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any physician, dentist, nurse,
pharmacist, or paramedical or other supporting personnel (including medical
and dental technicians, nursing assistants, and therapists) of the armed
forces, the National Guard while engaged in training or duty..., the
Department of Defense, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, or the Central
Intelligence Agency in the performance of medical, dental, or related health
care functions (including clinical studies and investigations) while acting
within the scope of his duties or employment therein or therefor shall
hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of
the same subject matter against such physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist,
or paramedical or other supporting personnel (or the estate of such person)
whose act or omission gave rise to such action or proceeding. This
subsection shall also apply if the physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or
paramedical or other supporting personnel (or the estate of such person)
involved is serving under a personal services contract entered into under
section 1091 of this title.

10. U.S.C. § 1089(a). Both § 1089(a) and § 233(a) address claims for ³damage
for personal injury, including death² which result from certain federal
officials involved in the ³performance of medical, dental, or related health
functions.² Both subsections incorporate by reference 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and
2672 of the FTCA, and explain that the remedy provided by those subsections
³shall be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the
same subject matter.² The Supreme Court has acknowledged the FTCA's ³express
preservation of employee liability² for Bivens claims in the context of 10
U.S.C. § 1089. Smith, 499 U.S. at 166-67. Like 10 U.S.C. § 1089, § 233(a) of
the Public Health Service Act incorporates the FTCA as an exclusive remedy,
and like 10 U.S.C. § 1089, § 233(a) incorporates that remedy's express
preservation of employee liability for Bivens claims.

*11 Defendants rely heavily upon the Second Circuit's opinion in Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.2000), which held that the plain
language of § 233(a) precluded Bivens actions. Although Cuoco cites §
233(a), and its incorporation of the FTCA remedy, it appears that the court,
for whatever reason, was not aware of what the FTCA remedy in fact
consisted. If the Second Circuit had followed the statutory trail back to 28
U.S.C. § 2679, this Court can only opine that Cuoco would have adhered to
the statutory mandate preserving Bivens claims. This Court therefore
respectfully requests that the Second Circuit, as well as the several other
courts that have followed Cuoco, reconsider their holdings. See, e.g.,
Anderson v. Bureau of Prisons, 176 F. App'x 242, 243 (3d Cir.2006)
(unpublished); Lyons v. United States, No. 4:03CV1620, 2008 WL 141576, at
*12 n. 5 (Jan. 11, 2008) (unpublished); Lee v. Guavara, C/A/ No. 9:06-1947,
2007 WL 2792183, at *14 (D.S.C. Sept.24, 2007) (unpublished); Fourstar v.
Vidrine, No. 1:06-cv-916, 2007 WL 2781894, at *4 (S.D.Ind. Sept.21, 2007);
Hodge v. United States, No. 3:06cv1622, 2007 WL 2571938, at *4-5 (M.D.Pa.
Aug.31, 2007) (unpublished); Coley v. Sulayman, Civ. Action No. 06-3762,
2007 WL 2306726, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Aug.7, 2007) (unpublished); Wallace v.
Dawson, No. 9:05CV1086, 2007 WL 274757, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan.29, 2007)
(unpublished); Barbaro v. U.S.A., No. 05 Civ. 6998, 2006 WL 3161647, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Oct.30, 2006) (unpublished); Williams v. Stepp, No. 03-cv-0824,
2006 WL 2724917, at *3-4 (S.D.Ill. Sept.21, 2006) (unpublished); Cuco v.
Fed. Medical Center-Lexington, No. 05-CV-232, 2006 WL 1635668, at *20 (E.D.
Ky. June 9, 2006) (unpublished); Arrington v. Inch, No. 1:05-CV-0245, 2006
WL 860961, at *5 (M.D.Pa. March 30, 2006) (unpublished); Foreman v. Fed.
Corr. Inst., No. CIV A 504-CV-01260, 2006 WL 4537211, at *8 (S.D.W.Va. March
29, 2006) (unpublished); Pimentel v. Deboo, 411 F.Supp.2d 118, 126-27
(D.Conn.2006); Whooten v. Bussanich, No. Civ. 4:CV-04-223, 2005 WL 2130016,
at *3 (M.D.Pa. Sept.2, 2005) (unpublished); Freeman v. Inch, No.
3:04-CV-1546, 2005 WL 1154407, at *2 (M.D.Pa. May 16, 2005) (unpublished);
Dawson v. Williams, No. 04 Civ. 1834, 2005 WL 475587, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb.28, 2005) (unpublished); Lovell v. Cayuqa Corr. Facility, No.
02-CV-6640L, 2004 WL 2202624, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept.29, 2004) (unpublished);
Valdivia v. Hannefed, No. 02-CV-0424, 2004 WL 1811398, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug.
10, 2004) (unpublished); Cook v. Blair, No. 5:02-CT-609, 2003 WL 23857310,
at *1 (E.D.N.C. March 21, 2003) (unpublished); Brown v. McElroy, 160
F.Supp.2d 699, 703 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

The Supreme Court did not rely in Carlson on the express FTCA language
preserving Bivens remedies because that language was added to the FTCA in
1988-eight years after Carlson-as part of the Federal Employees Liability
Reform and Tort Compensation Act. In effect, the 1988 amendment codified the
holding in Carlson and made explicit the fact that Congress did not intend
for the FTCA to preempt Bivens claims. Therefore, any ambiguity that may
have existed prior to the 1988 amendment has long been extinguished.
Frankly, the Court is surprised that neither the parties in this case, nor
the Second Circuit in Cuoco, nor the many courts that have followed Cuoco
without analysis, have noticed that the FTCA explicitly preserves the right
to bring Bivens claims. Therefore, according to the plain text of § 233(a),
Public Health Service officials are immune from suit under the circumstances
provided by the FTCA, which does not include claims for constitutional
violations; the PHS Defendants are therefore not entitled to immunity in
this case.

2. Legislative History

*12 The plain text ends the inquiry. The Court is compelled to follow the
direct expression of intent in § 233(a). Period. Cf. U.S. ex rel. Lujan v.
Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (³If the statute is
ambiguous, we consider the legislative history.²). It is useful nevertheless
to note that the legislative history in this case is equally direct. The
relevant materials provide context for what Congress envisioned by
preserving Bivens claims, and make clear that not only did Congress intend
to preserve the Bivens remedy, but it intended to do so specifically in the
context of § 233(a).

a. Congress Intended to Preserve Bivens Because of the Difference Between
Claims for Malpractice and Claims for Constitutional Violations

A 1988 House Committee Report of the 1988 amendment to the FTCA stated the
following:

The second major feature of section 5 [codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2)(A)
] is that the exclusive remedy expressly does not extend to so-called
constitutional torts. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Courts
have drawn a sharp distinction between common law torts and constitutional
or Bivens torts. Common law torts are the routine acts or omissions which
occur daily in the course of business and which have been redressed in an
evolving manner by courts for, at least, the last 800 years.... As used in
H.R. 4612, the term OEcommon law tort¹ embraces not only those state law
causes of action predicated on the OEcommon¹ or case law of the various
states, but also encompasses traditional tort causes of action codified in
state statutes that permit recovery for acts of negligence. A good example
of such codification or tort causes of action are state wrongful death
actions which are predominantly found upon state wrongful death statutes. It
is well established that the FTCA applies to such codified torts. See, e.g.,
Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6-7, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492
(1962); Proud v. United States, 723 F.2d 705, 706-07 (9th Cir.1984), cert.
denied, 467 U.S. 1252, 104 S.Ct. 3536, 82 L.Ed.2d 841 (1984) applicability
of recreational use statute). A constitutional tort action, on the other
hand, is a vehicle by which an individual may redress an alleged violation
of one or more fundamental rights embraced in the Constitution. Since the
Supreme Court's decision in Bivens, supra, the courts have identified this
type of tort as a more serious intrusion of the rights of an individual that
merits special attention. Consequently, H.R. 4612 would not affect the
ability of victims of constitutional torts to seek personal redress from
Federal employees who allegedly violate their Constitutional rights.

H.R. Rep. 100-700 (1988), as reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5945, 5950
(emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not have been clearer that 28 U.S.C.
§ 2679, which is incorporated by reference into § 233(a), was intended to
preserve, not preclude, Bivens actions to redress constitutional violations.
This congressional statement is particularly persuasive because, as
legislative history goes, committee reports are given great weight. See
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 687 (9th Cir.2006).

*13 It is not surprising that Congress, in preserving Bivens liability,
emphasized the difference between constitutional torts and garden-variety
malpractice claims, for the distinction is longstanding and important. To
establish an Eighth Amendment violation for inadequate medical care a
plaintiff must show ³deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical
needs.² Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251
(1976). Such deliberate indifference may ³manifest[ ]² itself through the
intentional denial or delay of care or an intentional interference ³with the
treatment once prescribed.² Id. at 104-05. However, neither an accident, an
³inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care,² nor ³negligen[ce] in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition,² though each may be medical
malpractice, is cognizable as a federal constitutional claim. Id. at 105-06.
In short, a constitutional violation is an intentional tort-a higher
standard than a negligence suit for medical malpractice based on a personal
injury.

Even the legislative history from § 233(a) itself-expressed eighteen years
before Congress would amend the FTCA to explicitly preserve Bivens
claims-reveals that Congress intended by § 233(a) to immunize PHS employees
from garden-variety malpractice claims, not from constitutional
violations.FN12

The provision in question was not a part of the original Public Health
Service Act; rather, it was introduced as an amendment in the House during a
congressional debate on December 18, 1970. Representative Staggers, who
introduced the amendment, stated that the House ³ought to² adopt the
amendment so that, ³in the event there is a suit against a PHS doctor
alleging malpractice, the Attorney General of the United States would defend
them in whatever suit may arise.² 91 Cong. Rec. H42542-32 (daily ed. Dec.
18, 1970) (emphasis added). Representative Staggers emphasized that the
amendment was ³needed because of the low salaries that [PHS doctors] receive
and in view of their low salaries, they cannot afford to take out the
insurance to cover them in the ordinary course of their practice of
medicine.² Id. (emphasis added). Representative Hall supported the amendment
but urged the committee to ³look [ ]into the general problem in the United
States of malpractice insurance.² Id. The House approved the amendment. In
context, then, the amendment obviously stemmed from concerns over liability
for unintentional malpractice, not from attempts to avoid responsibility for
the kind of intentional torts that would support a constitutional violation.

The only mention of the amendment in the Senate occurred three days later,
when Senator Javitz expressed his support for ³the provision for the defense
of certain malpractice and negligence suits² which would protect doctors ³in
the event there is a suit against a PHS doctor alleging malpractice.² 91
Cong. Rec. S42977 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 1970). Aside from these instances, the
amendment, as far as the Court can tell, was never mentioned. Thus, even
before the 1988 FTCA amendment, far from revealing an intent to immunize PHS
doctors from intentional torts, the legislative history of § 233(a) shows
that the amendment was clearly intended to protect PHS doctors from ordinary
medical malpractice actions.FN13

b. Congress Intended to Preserve Bivens in the Specific Context of § 233(a)

*14 The legislative history of the 1988 amendment to the FTCA reveals not
only that Congress intended to preserve Bivens claims, but that it so
intended specifically with respect to § 233(a). Some statutory context is in
order.

This 1988 FTCA amendment-28 U.S.C. § 2679-renders the FTCA the exclusive
remedy for all civil actions (except, inter alia, Bivens claims) against all
federal employees. The legislative history to 28 U.S.C. § 2679 explains that
the intention of the provision was to ³remove the potential personal
liability of Federal employees for common law torts committed within the
scope of their employment, and would instead provide that the exclusive
remedy for such torts is through an action against the United States under
the Federal Tort Claims Act.² H.R. Rep. 100-700, 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N, at 5947.
In the same House Report in which it articulated its reasons for preserving
Bivens actions, Congress explained that it felt comfortable awarding such a
broad swath of immunity because

"[t]here is substantial precedent for providing an exclusive remedy against
the United States for actions of Federal employees. Such an exclusive remedy
has already been enacted to cover the activities of certain Federal
employees, including:... 42 U.S.C. 233 regarding Public Health Service
Physicians.²

Id. at 5948. In other words, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 provided the same immunity as
§ 233(a), but extended that immunity to all federal employees. After the
1988 passage of 28 U.S.C. § 2679, all federal employees-not just certain
specified federal employees such as PHS officials-are covered. See Smith,
499 U.S. at 172-73 (holding that the Federal Employees Liability Reform and
Tort Compensation Act, including § 2679, applies both to ³employees who are
covered under pre-Act immunity statutes [such as § 233(a) ] and those who
are not,² and noting that this immunity is limited by the ³preserv[ation] of
employee liability for Bivens actions²).

Congress was aware of § 233(a) when it expanded immunity to all federal
employees. Indeed, provisions like § 233(a) provided the example and
incentive to so broaden that immunity. At the same time, Congress made clear
that this immunity was intended to cover ³routine² torts, and that a
plaintiff whose constitutional rights had been violated remained free to
pursue a Bivens claim against the individual federal employee in question.
H.R. Rep. 100-700, 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N, at 5947. In light of the explicit
statutory text and legislative history, there can be no doubt that the
FTCA-and § 233(a), which incorporates the FTCA's remedies by
reference-expressly allows for the Bivens claim that Mr. Castaneda seeks to
bring in this case.

C. Plaintiff's Allegations and Evidence, if True, Prove Constitutional
Violations

Ultimately, Defendants concede that an Eighth Amendment claim for
unconstitutionally-inadequate medical care is not subsumed by a claim for
medical malpractice; instead, they urge that Plaintiff's claims just don't
make the constitutional cut, so to speak. As Defendants put it, ³[t]he
bottom line is that Plaintiff's claims form the basis for a medical
malpractice action (a non-constitutional tort claim) against the United
States, and not a Bivens claim against each Public Health Service
Defendant.² (Mot.8.) Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff's complaint
alleges that the Public Health Service Defendants ³ OEpurposefully denied him
basic and humane medical care for illegal and improper reasons,¹ ³ but posit
that ³[t]his vague and conclusory allegation fails to state any civil rights
violation.² (Id. 6. (quoting Compl.).) The Court rejects Defendants' attempt
to sidestep responsibility for what appears to be, if the evidence holds up,
one of the most, if not the most, egregious Eighth Amendment violations the
Court has ever encountered.

*15 There simply can be no dispute that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable
claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. Mr. Castaneda quite obviously
suffered from a serious medical condition-terminal penile cancer. The only
question is whether his allegations, if true, show that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his condition. The Court finds that they do.

Indeed, the Court finds perplexing the fact that Defendants would try to
argue that Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory, given that Plaintiff has
submitted thirty-three exhibits of Defendants' own official medical records
documenting their knowledge of the fact that several physicians had
concluded that Plaintiff's lesion was very likely penile cancer, and that he
needed a biopsy-a straightforward procedure-to rule cancer out. These
documents show that nevertheless, Defendants refused to grant Plaintiff this
simple procedure for almost eleven months, even while they noted that his
pain and suffering were severe and increasing, that his penis was emitting
blood and discharge, and that a second growth had developed.

Therefore, if Plaintiff's evidence proves true, from the first time
Castaneda presented with a suspicious lesion in March 2006 through his
release in February 2007, the care afforded him by Defendants can be
characterized by one word: nothing. The evidence that Plaintiff has already
produced at this early stage in the litigation is more thorough and
compelling than the complete evidence compiled in some meritorious Eighth
Amendment actions. Defendants will surely have an opportunity to contest or
refute the evidence presented. But their assertion that Plaintiff's claim is
not even cognizable is, frankly, frivolous.

D. FTCA Remedy is Not Equally Effective as a Bivens Action

The circumstances of this case illustrate why, as the Supreme Court
concluded in Carlson, FTCA claims against the United States are not as
effective a remedy as a Bivens claim against individual federal officials.
First, and most importantly, as Defendants acknowledge, Plaintiff Castaneda
may not bring his constitutional claims for inadequate medical care against
the United States under the FTCA because the United States has not waived
sovereign immunity to be sued for constitutional torts. See F.D.I.C. v.
Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478-480, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). It
would turn logic on its head to hold that the FTCA is an ³equally effective²
remedy for constitutional violations as a Bivens action, Carlson, 446. U.S.
at 19, when suits under the FTCA do not even allow for constitutional
claims. See Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that
prisoner plaintiff did not have to serve the United States as a defendant in
his Bivens claim for inadequate medical care ³[b]ecause [plaintiff] did not
and could not have sued the United States or its officers in their official
capacity upon a Bivens claim²). FN14

Indeed, Defendants' contorted reasoning is revealed by its request for
relief in this motion: Defendants ask this Court to hold that Congress,
through § 233(a), intended the FTCA to be the exclusive cause of action for
Castaneda's constitutional claims, and then, having thus converted the claim
to an FTCA action against the United States, Defendants seek dismissal on
the grounds that the United States may not be sued for constitutional torts
under the FTCA. The Court will not indulge this backwards argument.

*16 Second, an FTCA action is only allowed to the extent it would be allowed
under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). California caps non-economic damages
in medical malpractice actions at $250,000. See Cal. Civ.Code § 3333.2. In
contrast, there is no cap on damages in Bivens actions. Plaintiff has a
strong argument that $250,000 would be inadequate to compensate his ³ten
months of pain, bleeding, anxiety, loss of sleep, and humiliation while in
ICE's custody, the amputation of his penis, and nearly a year of grueling
chemotherapy,² not to mention his eventual death. (Opp'n 19.)

Third, FTCA actions, unlike Bivens claims, preclude punitive damages. Yet
the evidence that Plaintiff has presented thus far-through Defendants' own
records-suggests a strong case for punitive damages because it shows that
Defendants' behavior was both callous and misleading. The evidence suggests
that they refused Castaneda's request for a biopsy despite their knowledge
that several medical specialists suspected cancer and ³strongly recommended²
a biopsy to rule out that possibility. (Doyle Decl. Ex. 11.) Worse, the
evidence suggests that not only did the individual Public Health Service
Defendants ignore doctor recommendations to provide Castaneda with a simple
procedure, they may also have lied about those recommendations.

For example, Defendant Esther Hui, M.D. stated in an official report that
Dr. Wilkinson considered a biopsy or circumcision for Mr. Castaneda to be
³elective.² (Id. Ex. 5 (³Dr. Wilkinson called² and recommended a biopsy,
which is ³an elective outpatient procedure²). Similarly, another official
DIHS report, written by Anthony Walker, claimed that ³Dr. Masters stated
that elective procedures this patient may need in the future are cytoscopy
and circumcision.² (Id. Ex. 20.) Yet the reports of Dr. Masters and Dr.
Wilkinson never mention the word ³elective.² On the contrary, Dr. Wilkinson
worried that the lesion ³may represent... a penile cancer² and ³require[d]
urgent urologic assessment of biopsy² because ³even benign lesions² in that
area can be deadly. (Id. Ex. 4.) Dr. Masters stated the need to ³rule out
malignant neoplasm² and that ³appropriate treatment would be circumcision
[and]... a biopsy.² (Id. Ex. 19.)

Further, Dr. Hui and the DIHS included this false characterization in
official reports despite the fact that a TAR recognized that both doctors
³strongly recommend admission, urology consultation, surgical intervention
via biopsy,² and despite that fact that Dr. Wilkinson reported that he had
spoken to ³the physicians at the correctional facility² and ³[t]hey
understand the need for urgent diagnosis and treatment.² (Id. Ex. 11, 4.)
Indeed, Dr. Hui herself recognized in a report that Castaneda might have
cancer but ³[s]ince this is an elective outpatient procedure, we decided
that we would not admit him [to the hospital to have the procedure] at this
time.² (Id. Ex. 5.)

*17 Plaintiff's evidence also suggests why Dr. Hui was so interested in
characterizing the surgery as elective; ³as such the Federal Government will
not provide for such surgery.² FN15 (Id. Ex. 17.) Plaintiff has thus
submitted compelling evidence that Defendants purposefully mischaracterized
Plaintiff's medical conditions as elective in order to refuse him care. Dr.
Wilkinson reported that Defendants refused to admit Castaneda to the
hospital for a biopsy because they wanted a ³more cost effective² treatment.
(Id. Ex. 4.) Official records document Defendants' circular logic that
because they would not allow him to have the biopsy, ³he DOES NOT have
cancer at this time²; because he does not have cancer, he therefore does not
need a biopsy. (Id. Ex. 8.) In other words, as long as they could label
Castaneda's condition elective, Defendants could remain willfully blind
about his lesion and avoid having to pay for its treatment. If Plaintiff's
evidence holds up, the conduct that he has established on the part of
Defendants is beyond cruel and unusual.FN16

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

    FN1. The initial order was issued with the Plaintiff's name spelled
incorrectly. Other than that adjustment, this amended order is identical to
the initial order.

    FN2. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed before the Complaint was
amended. However, the Amended Complaint contains no new allegations against
the individual federal defendants and the parties have stipulated that
Defendants' motion is responsive to the Amended Complaint.

    FN3. The National Cancer Institute defines a ³fungating lesion² as: ³A
type of skin lesion that is marked by ulcerations (breaks on the skin or
surface of an organ) and necrosis (death of living tissue) and that usually
has a bad smell. This kind of lesion may occur in many types of cancer,
including breast cancer, melanoma, and squamous cell carcinoma, and
especially in advanced disease.² See http://www.cancer.g
ov/Templates/dbalpha.aspx?print=1 & cdrid=367427 (last accessed February 17,
2008).

    FN4. Phimosis is medically defined as a ³tightness or construction of
the orifice of the prepuce arising either congenitally or from inflammation,
congestion, or other postnatal causes and making it impossible to bare the
glans.² Merriam Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary 613 (1996). In other
words, the foreskin is so tight it cannot be pulled back completely to
reveal the glans.

    FN5. Resection means the surgical removal of part of an organ. Webster's
Medical Desk Dictionary at 697.

    FN6. A motion to substitute the representative and heirs of his estate
as the proper parties, as well as to permit the filing of a second amended
complaint, is currently pending before the Court. However, this motion does
not affect the instant motion to dismiss, and the individual federal
defendants-the moving parties in the instant motion-do not oppose the
substitution.

    FN7. Plaintiff also brings claims against California state officials.
These claims are not at issue in the instant motion.

    FN8. The FTCA makes the federal government liable to the same extent as
a private party for certain torts committed by federal employees acting
within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

    FN9. These Defendants are Chris Henneford, Eugene Migliaccio, Timothy
Shack, M.D., Esther Hui, M.D., and Stephen Gonsalves.

    FN10. Plaintiff brings a Bivens claim alleging a violation of the Fifth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as well as his Eighth Amendment claim
for inadequate medical care. Because Defendants do not specifically argue
that Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim is also preempted by § 233(a), the
Court does not address the issue, except to note that its conclusion that §
233(a) allows an Eighth Amendment Bivens claim applies equally to any other
Bivens claim.

    FN11. The language of Public Law No. 91-623 has not been amended since
enacted on December 31, 1970. However, the 1970 edition of the United States
Code (where this statute first appeared in the Code) renumbered this section
as ³ § 233(a).² Although the accurate version is § 223(a) of the Public
Health Service Act in the Statutes at Large, the Court will refer to the
section as § 233(a) for ease of reference.

    FN12. To the extent that § 233(a) is at all ambiguous (which it is not)
as to whether it immunizes PHS employees from constitutional as well as
malpractice claims, the title of the statutory subsection supports the
Court's conclusion. See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.,
331 U.S. 519, 528-29, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947) (noting that ³the
title of a statute and the heading of a section² may be used ³[f]or
interpretive purposes... when they shed light on some ambiguous word or
phrase²). In this case, the title of the relevant section, ³DEFENSE OF
CERTAIN MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE ACTS,² clearly indicates that Congress,
even before it amended the FTCA expressly to preserve Bivens claims,
intended § 233(a) to apply to malpractice and negligence actions
specifically. Far from suggesting that the subsection covers constitutional
claims, then, the title shows that Congress meant by this section to offer
immunity for certain specific claims, and that those claims did not include
intentional (constitutional) torts.When the statute was codified in the
United States Code at 42 U.S.C. § 233(a), the title of the subsection was
changed-without any congressional amendment-from ³DEFENSE OF CERTAIN
MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE ACTS² to ³Exclusiveness of Remedy.² Compare
Emergency Health Personnel Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-623, § 223(a), 84
Stat. 1868, 1870 (1970) with 42 U.S.C. § 233(a)(1970). To the extent that
the subsection is ambiguous, its title affects its meaning. In the context
of ³DEFENSE OF CERTAIN MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE ACTS,² the grant of
immunity obviously refers to malpractice and negligence actions; by
contrast, in the context of ³Exclusiveness of Remedy,² the text could apply
in a much broader fashion.Nevertheless, there is no doubt about which
version the Court must follow. ³Though the appearance of a provision in the
current edition of the United States Code is OEprima facie¹ evidence that the
provision has the force of law,... it is the Statutes at Large that provides
the OElegal evidence of laws.¹ ³ U.S. Nat'l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents
of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 449, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 124 L.Ed.2d 402 (1993). As
³the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are
inconsistent,² United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 98 n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082,
12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964), the Court will consider only the original version
entitled ³DEFENSE OF CERTAIN MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE ACTS,² and with it
that title's effect on the scope of the provision.

    FN13. Such a distinction makes sense. Protecting low-paid Public Health
Service doctors from astronomical malpractice insurance premiums due to
run-of-the-mill personal injury claims is a reasonable, practical endeavor.
Protecting individuals who intentionally inflict cruel and unusual
punishment just because they happen to work for the Public Health Service is
not. Would an individual who purposefully subjected a patient to surgery
without anesthesia deserve immunity? A civilized society can answer this
question only in the negative.

    FN14. Defendants rely primarily on the Second Circuit's decision in
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.2000), for the proposition that §
233(a) was intended by Congress to preclude Bivens actions. For several
reasons, the Court does not find this non-binding authority persuasive.
First, and most importantly, the court in Cuoco did not recognize that §
233(a) explicitly incorporates by reference the FTCA remedy codified at 28
U.S.C. § 2679, which, as discussed, expressly preserves the right to bring
Bivens claims. Second, and relatedly, Cuoco does not address whether
Congress viewed the FTCA as being equally effective as a Bivens action. The
Supreme Court has held that this threshold issue must be established before
declaring the FTCA an exclusive remedy at the expense of a Bivens claim. See
Carlson, 446 U.S. at 18-19. Yet, Cuoco never makes this finding, nor does
the opinion analyze the four factors set forth in Carlson that explain why
remedies under the FTCA and Bivens are not equally effective. 222 F.3d at
107-09. Third, Cuoco does not adequately examine the differences between a
state law medical negligence claim under the FTCA and a constitutional claim
under Bivens. On the one hand, Cuoco states: ³Of course Congress could not,
by the simple expedient of enacting a statute, deprive Cuoco of her
constitutional due process rights, but that is not what § 233(a) does.² Id.
at 108. In the next sentence, however, Cuoco asserts that § 233(a) ³protects
commissioned officers or employees of the Public Health Service from being
subject to suit while performing medical and similar functions by requiring
that such lawsuits be brought against the United States instead.² Id. This
analysis overlooks the important fact that, as discussed, the United States
cannot be sued for constitutional violations. Therefore, Cuoco's
construction of § 233(a) does exactly what it claims it cannot do: deprive a
plaintiff of a constitutional claim by relegating him to an action under the
FTCA.

    FN15. The Court has serious questions as to the constitutionality of a
policy of refusing to pay for all medical treatment that can be
characterized as ³elective² because, as evidenced by this case, the label
fails to identify accurately who needs care. See, e.g., Brock v. Wright, 315
F.3d 158, 164 n. 3 (2d cir.2003) (³Merely because a condition might be
characterized as OEcosmetic¹ does not mean that its seriousness should not be
analyzed using the kind of factors² employed in normal Eighth Amendment
jurisprudence). DIHS labeled the treatment in this case ³elective² even
while acknowledging that Castaneda's condition was so ³severe² that he would
need a ³resection²-full or partial removal of the penis. (Doyle Decl. Ex.
14.) Indeed, Plaintiff's evidence suggests that Dr. Hui defined ³elective²
so broadly that she believes the term to encompass life-saving treatment.

    FN16. After all, Plaintiff has submitted powerful evidence that
Defendants knew Castaneda needed a biopsy to rule out cancer, falsely stated
that his doctors called the biopsy ³elective², and let him suffer in extreme
pain for almost one year while telling him to be ³patient² and treating him
with Ibuprofen, antihistamines, and extra pairs of boxer shorts. Everyone
knows cancer is often deadly. Everyone knows that early diagnosis and
treatment often saves lives. Everyone knows that if you deny someone the
opportunity for an early diagnosis and treatment, you may
be-literally-killing the person. Defendants' own records bespeak of conduct
that transcends negligence by miles. It bespeaks of conduct that, if true,
should be taught to every law student as conduct for which the moniker
³cruel² is inadequate.









==============================================================================
TOPIC: Break the law by being a daredevil? (Curiosity questions only.)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/83eb233e57ce94b7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:12 pm
From: ProfGene  


mike3 wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Although I would not probably ever do this in reality at all due to
> the danger, I'd be curious as to know what would happen if one opened
> up a computer power supply unit. I've heard that one can get in
> trouble with the law doing this (unless one has the proper
> qualifications?). Is that right, and does this mean that even if I
> didn't get zapped, and did this enough times (say 10 counts of illegal
> opening of a power supply unit), I could spend the rest of my life in
> prison (maximum security prisons, too???)? And furthermore, would just
> 1 count have _lifelong_ consequences, even if I made it through the
> jail term? Are these worse or better than getting electrocuted?
>
> Just curiosity questions: I wasn't really planning on doing something
> dumb.
How many people do you know who are in prison for removing the tag from
a mattress?





==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T To Pay $756,000 For Religious Bias Against Jehovah's Witnesses
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/d6c3eab2ebd14876?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:49 pm
From: "Antonio L .Santana"  


EEOC Wins Jury Verdict for Two Fired Customer Service Technicians
JONESBORO, Ark. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) today announced a favorable jury verdict of $756,000 in a
religious discrimination lawsuit brought against AT&T Inc. on behalf of
two male customer service technicians who were suspended and fired for
attending a Jehovah's Witnesses Convention.
The jury of nine women and three men awarded the two former employees,
Jose Gonzalez and Glenn Owen (brothers-in- law), $296,000 in back pay
and $460,000 in compensatory damages under Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act. During the four-day trial, the jury heard evidence that both
men had submitted written requests to their manager in January 2005 for
one day of leave to attend a religious observance that was scheduled for
Friday, July 15, to Sunday, July 17, 2005. Both men testified that they
had sincerely held religious beliefs that required them to attend the
convention each year. Both men had attended the convention every year
throughout their employment with AT&T -- Gonzalez worked at the company
for more than eight years and Owen was employed there for nearly six years.
Commenting on the case, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division (Case No. 3:06-cv-00176) , before Judge
Leon Holmes, former employee Joe Gonzalez said, "I am very pleased with
the jury's verdict." Glenn Owen added, "I'm glad that the justice system
works and that the jury saw what was going on and corrected it."
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious
discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations
to employees' and applicants' sincerely held religious beliefs as long
as this does not pose an undue hardship.
"In this case, AT&T forced Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Owen to choose between
their religion and their job," said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney
for the EEOC Memphis District Office. "Title VII does not require that
an employee make that choice in order to maintain gainful employment."
EEOC supervisory Trial Attorney William Cash, Jr., who tried the case
with agency attorney Darin Tuggle, said, "Protecting the rights of
employees to be free from religious discrimination is an important part
of the EEOC's mission."
Religious discrimination charge filings (allegations) reported to EEOC
offices nationwide have substantially increased from 1,388 in Fiscal
Year 1992 to 2,541 in FY 2006. The EEOC enforces federal laws
prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the
EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: singular they
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/51dab6f9a0751cdd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 2:59 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"Greegor" <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote in message
news:85ae854d-85b6-4973-b162-9d72cfe0f5fb@a70g......


>When you talked to the rabbi you bored them, didn't you?

     There was only the one, and he didn't appear bored.


--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:13 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"Greegor" <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote in message
news:ee2a79fe-6a23-4adf-9e8f-2854d8ecdb18@e39g......
>KRP > Oh I bet Kunt doesn't know that Davey is also POLISH!
>
>Freedom (DM) > No, I'm not, dumbass.
>Freedom (DM) > "Moore." Yeah, that's a really Slavic-sounding name.
>ROFL...
>
>G > Dave, We already know you were adopted by Janet M. Moore.
>
>KW > Why do you lie?
>
>Got proof Kent?

     Yes.
     This is part of the reason you're trying to stalk me.  I consistently
expose your lies.

>
>G > This is almost as funny as when you were asking
>G > how we were going to explain when you continued
>G > to post after your March hearing.
>G > (Cause you got hearing rescheduled for July 22nd. )
>
>G > Nice GAME, Dave!
>
>G > What kind of plea bargains have they been offering Dave?
>G > Gonna take one or fight like hell in court?
>G > (With a public defender??)
>G > He's telling you he's a real fighter, right? LOL
>
>KW > So you still assert that because the person
>KW > we know as David Moore has the same first
>KW > and last name as the person awaiting trial,
>KW > they are the same person?
>
>First and last name, Kent?

     Yes.
     You don't let things like different middle names, or dates of birth
factor in at all.  And not just with David.

>Convenient of you to have selective blindness when
>middle name, birthday, DD214 and ex-wives came out.
>

     None of which came out.  All you have are the claims of Kenny-Bob, and
he's already been proved to be more than willing to flat out LIE about
David.

>David Daniel Moore DOB 9/26/70 oc Calumet City, IL
>
>You see nothing there but a first and last name, Kent?

     The problem is that the David we know from Usenet has a different
middle name.

>
>No DD214, no ex-wives, no brick through window former in-laws?
>

     None.

>KW > If this is your position, <snip!>
>
>No, Middle name, birthday, DD214, ex-wives, ex in-laws.

    None of which apply to the David we know from Usenet.

>
>KW > please explain why you threatened to cripple
>KW > your girlfriend if she told the police.
>KW > By YOUR standards, you and that
>KW > Greg Hanson are the same person.
>
>You are of course telling a lie about my standards.

     Not at all.  I'm holding you to your standards.

>You know very well that Dave and you are ID'd
>by your middle names and birthdays.
>You've posted mine several times.

     I've never posted your birth date.
     Why are you psychologically UNABLE to be honest?

>
>David Daniel Moore DOB 09/26/70

     Doesn't post to Usenet, as far as I can tell.

>Kent Bradley Wills  DOB 01/08/69

     Is a fictional name and date of birth.

>Greg Scott Hanson DOB 05/22/59
>

     Is a well known and documented wife and child abuser.

>These are all correct middle names and birthdays
>of the respective newsgroup posters.

     Liar.

[snip Greg's further proving he is psychologically UNABLE to be honest]

     Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?  I've asked multiple times.  You've not answered.  You've only
managed to play the avoidance game.

--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:13 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmai...> wrote in message
news:1ph1hr.guo.17.1@news......
> "Greegor" <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote in message
> news:ee2a79fe-6a23-4adf-9e8f-2854d8ecdb18@e39g......
>
>> David Daniel Moore DOB 9/26/70 oc Calumet City, IL
>
>> You are of course telling a lie about my standards.
>
> If the implication is that you have standards, then yes, he is telling
> lies about your standards.
>
> <aside>
> WHOOSH!
>

     That burn was so hot, *I* could feel the heat.
     Good one.


--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:14 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



" krp" <krp2457k@veri...> wrote in message
news:qkmLj.23690$4O1.16701@trnddc03...
>
> "Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmai...> wrote in message
> news:ftjtep$p29$1@stab......
>>
>> "Greegor" <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote in message
>> news:bed95d6d-8fdc-4463-8f22-186a22ec786e@m44g......
>>>KRP > Oh I bet Kunt doesn't know that Davey is also POLISH!
>>>
>>>Freedom (DM) > No, I'm not, dumbass.
>>>Freedom (DM) >  "Moore." Yeah, that's a really Slavic-sounding name.
>>>ROFL...
>>>
>>>Dave, We already know you were adopted by Janet M. Moore.
>>>
>>
>>     Why do you lie?
>
> Huh? You have PROOF he wasn't adopted Kunt??
>

     You now think David is a vagina?



--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:23 pm
From: Deadrat  


Transition Zone <mogulah@hotm...> wrote in
news:57d0dc2e-86e1-4b49-ad76-9349f3edde14@e39g...:

>
> Now (just for the effect). Explain this. Since you've failed to agree
> to your cheap red herring attempt having occurred,

I can't even parse this.  But I assume that you've finally agreed with me
that McPeak didn't use the word "jewry."  The person who used the word
was the rep for the RJC.

> Explain away other Anti-Jewish Obama Campaign statements, like other
> Anti-Jewish claims from Obama campaign chairman McPeak, like this:
>
> Explain this away, kiddo:
>
> "McPeak also charged Jews and Christian Zionists with dual-loyalties"
>            - www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125688

Except of course, that he didn't "charge" that.  This is the
interpretation of McPeak's remarks by Arutz Sheva, the organization of
www.israelnationalnews.com.

> How about this:
> "McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their
> perceived influence..."
>            - blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obama-mcpeak-
> an.html

This is the same old quote from Matt Brooks of the RJC.  It's *not*
McPeak's words. From the url you gave here's a quote from McPeak about
the Israeli-Palestiniana peace process:

<quote>
I think there's enough good will there [on the Israeli side] - I don't
know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been
radicalized pretty well.
</quote>

Sound to you like he's blaming Jews?
>
> This ?:
>
> "The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today called on Sen. Barack
> Obama to remove Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak as his military advisor "
>           - www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Jewish_Group_Wants_Obama_/2008/
>           03/25/82924.html

The Republican Jewish Coalition?  As I've said, I think this group shares
office space with the Negro Auxiliary of the White Aryan Resistance.  Who
cares what the RJC says?  And by the way, it was *their* rep who used the
word "jewry," that you're so opposed to.
>
> As stated. Obama/McCain surround themselves with racists and agree
> with them.

Don't you even read your own "evidence"?




== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:27 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"freedom" <aboutKRPken@abou...> wrote in message
news:d9e3c26954bddb7f43c388be11d07754@msgi......
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Greegor <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote:
>>KRP > Oh I bet Kunt doesn't know that Davey is also POLISH!
>>
>>Freedom (DM) > No, I'm not, dumbass.
>>Freedom (DM) > =A0"Moore." Yeah, that's a really Slavic-sounding name.
>>ROFL...
>>
>>G > Dave, We already know you were adopted by Janet M. Moore.
>>
>>KW > Why do you lie?
>>
>>Got proof Kent?
>
> Ken has already been nailed to the wall on this particular lie.

     MANY times.

>If I were
> "adopted," you would have no way of knowing about it, because the records
> would be sealed.
>

     Exactly.

>>
>>G > This is almost as funny as when you were asking
>>G > how we were going to explain when you continued
>>G > to post after your March hearing.
>>G > (Cause you got hearing rescheduled for July 22nd. )
>>
>>G > Nice GAME, Dave!
>>
>>G > What kind of plea bargains have they been offering Dave?
>>G > Gonna take one or fight like hell in court?
>>G > (With a public defender??)
>>G > He's telling you he's a real fighter, right? =A0 LOL
>>
>>KW > So you still assert that because the person
>>KW > we know as David Moore has the same first
>>KW > and last name as the person awaiting trial,
>>KW > they are the same person?
>>
>>First and last name, Kent?
>>Convenient of you to have selective blindness when
>>middle name, birthday, DD214 and ex-wives came out.
>
> None of which had anything to do with me.
>

     Greg NEVER lets truth, honesty or facts enter into it.

>>
>>David Daniel Moore DOB 9/26/70 oc Calumet City, IL
>
> Which isn't me.
>
>>
>>You see nothing there but a first and last name, Kent?
>>
>>No DD214, no ex-wives, no brick through window former in-laws?
>
> Nope...most of us see a name, a date, a city and state in that line of
> text.  Perhaps if you went back to finish grade school, you'd have better
> reading comprehension?

     Sadly, Greg has reached the pinnacle of his ability to learn.

>
>>
>>KW > If this is your position, <snip!>
>>
>>No, Middle name, birthday, DD214, ex-wives, ex in-laws.
>>
>>KW > please explain why you threatened to cripple
>>KW > your girlfriend if she told the police.
>>KW >=A0By YOUR standards, you and that
>>KW > Greg Hanson are the same person.
>>
>>You are of course telling a lie about my standards.
>>You know very well that Dave and you are ID'd
>>by your middle names and birthdays.
>>You've posted mine several times.
>>
>>David Daniel Moore DOB 09/26/70
>>Kent Bradley Wills  DOB 01/08/69
>>Greg Scott Hanson DOB 05/22/59
>>
>>These are all correct middle names and birthdays
>>of the respective newsgroup posters.
>
> I can say with absolute certainty that at least one of them is not
> correct.
> Given your inability to be truthful, I wouldn't put any stock in the other
> two either.
>

     Greg's own information might be.  It's more work than I'm willing to
invest to get it confirmed or denied.

[...]

>>
>>http://198.173.15.21/AssessorPics/GeoSpan/30182330330000.jpg
>>
>>Want to again assert there is no basement at that house?
>
> It doesn't look as if there is.  Again, having never been to the house in
> question, I couldn't say with any certainty.  However, if you and Ken say
> there is, there most likely isn't.

     The picture Greg has linked to as proof that he's stalking THAT David
Moore shows a house that doesn't look like it would have a basement.  It's
possible it does, but I question it.
     What's really funny, IMO, is that the link doesn't work.  Actually, it
never has.
     More proof, if any were needed, that Greg doesn't bother to check the
bunk he posts.

>
> Did you ever make good on your threat to cripple your girlfriend?

     By Greg's own standards, he made the threat.

>
> http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
> The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
> criminals
>
> "If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
> you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
> but you will still be a cripple."
> - --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services
> **,
> in a verbal threat to his girlfriend

     If Greg is consistent with his standards, he will have to agree that he
made the threat.

>
> "...my aunt wouldnt come over to our house anymore because of how he would
> talk to her and come on to her....and he had over 180 pictures of her on
> his computer"
> - --Ken Pangborn's former stepdaughter Megan, on growing up in the
> Pangborn
> household

     That's the claim Megan made.  It's unlikely she would lie about it,
though her hate for Ken is so great, I must admit it is possible.

--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:29 pm
From: Deadrat  


Transition Zone <mogulah@hotm...> wrote in
news:58f91480-267f-493b-aff1-e6a65927546a@m3g2...:

> On Apr 9, 7:40 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.co...> wrote:
>> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotm...> wrote
>> innews:9dea67a7-992c-4755-a218
> -06f8e29a955a@8g20...:
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 6:09 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.co...> wrote:
>> >> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotm...> wrote
>> >> innews:21ede847-41c8-4458-826b
>> > -7a96db2f6...@m3g2...:
>>
>> >> >> > I needed only visit news sites. All else was irrelevant.
>>
>> >> >> No, you need to contact a Jewish organization that uses the
>> >> >> word "Jewry" in its name and ask whether they think the word is
>> >> >> a slur.
>>
>> >> > One was reported.
>>
>> >> You're lying.  In the report quoted, it was the spokesman for the
>> >> RJC
>
>> >> who
>> >> used the word "jewry," not the member of the Obama campaign.
>>
>> > Wrong.
>>
>> Here's the quote from the RJC rep in your own post of April 5:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Gen.McPeak resorted to old stereotypes and unfortunate language by
>> blaming the lack of progress with the Israeli-Palestinian peace
>> process on the undue political influence of American Jewry.
>> <unquote>
>>
>> That's Matt Brooks, the RJC rep, speaking.
>
> The viewers already know by now, that McPeak used the word.

Not if they read the source you posted.  Brooks used the word, not
McPeak.

> Spin isn't going to help you.

Lies aren't going to help your case.

>> > Merrill McPeak of the Obama Camp used the word "Jewry" in the
>> > Oregonian Newspaper report.
>>
>> No, he did't.  Read your own post.
>
> News reports shows McPeak used the word.

Not the one you posted.  Brooks used the word, not McPeak.  (And, of
course, there's nothing wrong with the word.)

>> >> > And they want the Obama operatives that used the
>> >> > word "canned", according to media reports.
>>
>> >> What media reports?  You've cited only one.  And the RJC doesn't
>> >> want
>> >> Obama representatives "canned."  The report cited only one
>> >> (McPeak).  
>> > But
>> >> they don't want him canned for using the word "jewry."  The
>> >> representative of the RJC used that word in his complaint.
>>
>> > No. Merrill McPeak of the Obama Camp used the word "Jewry" in the
>> > Oregonian Newspaper report, as stated before.
>>
>> You've stated it before, but you've evidently not read your own post.
>>   Matt Brooks used the word.
>
> McPeak did, too.

You're lying again.  Not according to the source you posted.

> And McPeak is the Obama Campaign Chair.

You're lying again.  He's the campaign's millitary advisor.

>> >> >> Have you done that yet?-
>>
>> >> > They have. And that's sufficient enough.
>>
>> >> They have?  Who's they and when did they contact the Harman
>> >> Institute?
>> >  
>> >> What did the Institute say?
>>
>> > They aren't the news report.
>>
>> No, they're a Jewish organization that uses the word in its name.
>>  I'd say they were more expert on their own name that a news report.
>>  Wouldn't you, troll?
>
> They aren't the news reports, either.
>
> Thus irrelevant to this discussion.

The discussion is about whether the word "jewry" is offensive to Jews.  
How do you figure it's irrelevant to ask some actual Jews if the word
offends them?  It doesn't, by the way.

>> >> Are you lying?  Again.
>>
>> >> Why haven't *you* checked with a Jewish organization that uses the
>> >> word "Jewry" in its name to find out whether they think the word
>> >> is a slur?
>>
>> >> Should be easy.  I posted the contact information.
>>
>> > They aren't the news report who reported that Merrill McPeak of the
>> > Obama Camp used the word "Jewry"
>>
>> The news report doesn't quote McPeak using the word; it quotes Brooks
>> of the anti-Obama group using it.  Read your own post.
>
> News reports do show McPeak used the word.

You're lying again.  None you've quoted show that.

>> And why isn't the Harman Institute the final arbiter on its own name?
>>
>> Eh, troll?- Hide quoted text -
>
> How about the other group wanting McPeak canned ??

How about it?





== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:49 pm
From: Deadrat  


Transition Zone <mogulah@hotm...> wrote in
news:07d9f4aa-afc1-4999-a6c4-ecae8ecc8d42@t54g...:

> On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.co...> wrote:
>> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotm...> wrote
>> innews:8197fc8c-1531-417c-8d36
> -9e5a1b400530@c65g...:
>>
>> > On Apr 7, 6:19 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.co...> wrote:
>> >> yaak...@yaho... wrote
>> >> innews:964c758c-7c93-47a6-b171-5df9c22f489c@s50g20
>> > 00hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 7, 4:02 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.co...> wrote:
>> >> >> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotm...> wrote
>> >> >> innews:1c1652ed-356b-4a69-8d68
>> >> > -077303864...@k13g...:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, "adam russell"
>> >> >> > <adamruss...@sbcg....invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Flash Bazbo" <djflsd...@dlsf...> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:ra3hv35pnaot9c8g2o3oj59a7nh0o2nphl@4ax.......
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:07:58 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>> >> >> >> > <mogu...@hotm...> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> > And what is 'wrong' with that statement?
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Yeah, I have no idea what the poster was saying is bad
>> >> >> >> >>> about this statement. IsJewryslang?
>>
>> >> >> >> >>Jewry is a slur
>>
>> >> >> >> > "The Babylonian Jewry Heritage Center is both a Research
>> >> >> >> > Institute and a Museum, with an impressive collection of
>> >> >> >> > ethnographic material, judaica, archival documents, books
>> >> >> >> > and manuscripts."
>> >> >> >> >http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/index.html
>>
>> >> >> >> > Brazilian Jewry - A concise history
>> >> >> >> >http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/BrazilianJewry.htm
>>
>> >> >> >> > Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc.
>> >> >> >> > - the officially elected representative organisation
>> >> >> >> > of the Australian Jewish Community and speaks on its
>> >> >> >> > behalf.
>> >> >> >> >http://www.ecaj.org.au/
>>
>> >> >> >> > North American Conference On Ethiopian Jewry is the only
>> >> >> >> > major American organization exclusively committed to the
>> >> >> >> > welfare of Ethiopian Jews.
>> >> >> >> >http://www.nacoej.org/
>>
>> >> >> >> > The Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, a
>> >> >> >> > division of the Faculty of Humanities at the Hebrew
>> >> >> >> > University of Jerusalem, was founded in 1959 by Moshe
>> >> >> >> > Davis
>> >> >> >> >http://icj.huji.ac.il/about_us.asp
>>
>> >> >> >> >Are you saying all these sites, dedicated to documenting
>> >> >> >> >and serving Jewry worldwide, are using a racial slur?
>>
>> >> >> >> As well, the dictionary itself defines the word Jewry and
>> >> >> >> does not call it
>> >> >> >  a
>> >> >> >> slur or a slang.  Some *may* use it as a slur, but as with
>> >> >> >> most
>
>> >> >> >> words
>>
>> >> >> >> if
>> >> >> >  it
>> >> >> >> is not used in context as a slur then it is not a slur
>>
>> >> >> > The "N" word was a ligitimate word in Central Europe before
>> >> >> > slavery, for example.
>>
>> >> >> Legitimate.  And I suspect you're just making this up.  If the
>> >> >> "N" word
>> >> >> is "nigger," then the word is of American-English origin and
>> >> >> according to the OED dates from 1786.  Of course, that's the
>> >> >> first
>
>> >> >> known written occurrence, and the spoken word would probably
>> >> >> have been in use prior to that date, but not "before slavery"
>> >> >> (at least in the American south) and not in Central Europe.
>>
>> >> > You are ignorant of history and languages in Central Europe if
>> >> > you think that.
>>
>> >> Could be.  Got any evidence for your claim about the "N" word?
>> >>  Let's hear it.
>>
>> > That's OK. I'll just leave it to the viewer's conclusion.
>>
>> So you don't have any evidence for your claim.
>
> The viewer sees the evidence all over the net about the Obama camp's
> Anti-Jewish overtones.

There are no viewers here; just readers.  If the evidence is "all over
the net," how come you can't seem to post any?

>> I think that will be the
>> discerning viewer's conclusion.  
>
> You are right about that.
>
> (if anything)
>
>> Or that you're a troll.  Still cross-
>> posting to misc.invest.stocks, I see.
>
> Your constant willingness to go Ad Hominem is merely smokescreen to
> the fact that you know the Obama camp is bigoted.

You don't know what an ad hominem argument is (and it's not
capitalized).  I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you're a
troll.  I'm saying that you're a troll because you post off-topic
nonsense to newsgroups like misc.invest.stocks.

Your argument is wrong because the evidence you post contradicts your
claim.

>> > (they can find evidence now that they've been pointed in that
>> > direction)
>>
>> Why should they be able to?  
>
> How about you just say in suspense on that one, OK ??

Say what?

>> You can't.
>
> Not for those too lazy to do it themselves. No.

Your claim; your burden.  If you can't post evidence for your claim, I'm
guessing that evidence is nonexistent.  Prove me wrong, troll.

>> >> >> > Now, of course, these words are hate words.
>>
>> >> >> What "words."  You've posted about one word starting with "N."
>>
>> >> > Anyone reading the thread knows that Jewry and the N-word are
>> >> > slurs.
>>
>> >> > Why else did the media report use of the word Jewry by Obama
>> >> > campaign leader ??
>>
>> >> They didn't.  
>>
>> > Ha, frivolous nonsense. Im sure the viewer/listerner is abundantly
>> > satisfied that they did report it.
>>
>> >> The use of the word was by someone from the RJC complaining
>> >> about the "Obama camp"
>>
>> > We know now that other questionably Anti-Jewish claims have been
>> > made against McPeak.
>>
>> Well, of course *that's* true.  In fact, the Republican Jewish
>> Coaltion (!) made the claim and it's certainly questionable.  (Note
>> that it's onl
> y
>> one claim.)
>
> Numerous claims are all over the internet about Obama Anti-Jewish
> campaign stances.

Claims?  Claims are easy to make.

But you can't seem to find any *evidence*  Go figure.
>
> Here's another.
>
>  just heard a clip of another of Obama's black spiritual advisors,
> James Meeks,  and in his screaming he let slip with the "Typical
> White
> Person" epithet......
>
> Now where have I heard that before........
>
>
> He also used the "niggers" 3 times in one sentence but when asked why
> he
> said that, he explained to CBS news that it was not derogatory and it
> was not offensive in the black community and was actually a term of
> endearment.  I must remember that......
>
>
> Now, Meeks is active in the anti-gay community and consigned two
> glitter-clad boys to hell at halloween he also blamed "hollywood
> jews"
> for their "brokeback mountain" output.

You heard, eh troll?

Meeks is a member of the Illinois Senate; so was Obama.  I've read claims
that they're close, but Meeks isn't an advisor to the Obama campaign.  
You figure Obama is responsible for every black pastor in Chicago, eh
troll?

> I guess these are the kind of people that McCain should surround
> himself with?  (For about 10 minutes when the earth would open and
> swallow him whole.)

McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement; as far as I know, the earth hasn't
swallowed McCain yet.

> FACE wrote:
>
>  just heard a clip of another of Obama's black spiritual advisors,
> James Meeks,  and in his screaming he let slip with the "Typical
> White
> Person" epithet......
>
> Now where have I heard that before........
>
> He also used the "niggers" 3 times in one sentence but when asked why
> he
> said that, he explained to CBS news that it was not derogatory and it
> was not offensive in the black community and was actually a term of
> endearment.  I must remember that......
>
> Now, Meeks is active in the anti-gay community and consigned two
> glitter-clad boys to hell at halloween he also blamed "hollywood
> jews"
> for their "brokeback mountain" output.
>
> I guess these are the kind of people that McCain should surround
> himself
> with?  (For about 10 minutes when the earth would open and swallow
> him
> whole.)
>
>> > (which only reinforces his Anti-Jewish stance)
>>
>> I claim you're an ignoramus or a troll or both.  
>
> Hmm, Must be lonely out there with that, huh ??

Whatever that means.

>> An unquestioned claim,
>> in fact.  Does that reinforce my stance?
>
> Only yours. The viewers and news reports show otherwise about the
> Obama camp.

What viewers?  The news reports that you post contradict you.

>> >> >> > (and i'm afraid that you're just going to have to accept
>> >> >> > that)
>>
>> >> >> Most reasonable people accept that.  But this isn't about the
>> >> >> "N" word; it's about the "J" word.
>>
>> >> > Both words are slurs and their use by higher-ups is usually news
>> >> > FOR that reason.
>>
>> >> So you claim.  
>>
>> > And so the viewer would agree.
>>
>> What viewer?  Do you think you're on TV?
>
> Do you ??

I'm not the one talking about viewers.

>> >> Have you contacted the Harman Institute to see what they
>> >> have to say?
>>
>> > I see no reason to go beyond news reports of use of this word, no.
>>
>> And that's the problem.  People who think for themselves don't rely
>> on reports alone.  But even the reports quoted have the RJC rep using
>> the word you think is a slur, not the Obama campaign official.
>
> The Obama official used it.

You're lying.  Brooks of the RJC used it.  Not McPeak.

> He also demonstrated bigotry by stereotyping a group of persons.
>
> Why was the stereotyping reported, huh ?? Because Obama Anti-Jewish
> stances were being reported.

No, a Republican group is complaining about Obama's campaign.  Think they
might have a bias?

> Spin it anyway you like.

Hey, I'm just reading your own source.  Which contradicts you.

>> >> > You fail to tell us why else these words usage would even be
>> >> > reported.
>>
>> >> The news story was about one organization (the RJC) complaining
>> >> about another organization (the Obama campaign).  The story quoted
>> >> the spokesman for the RJC.  The story wasn't about the word
>> >> "jewry," which was part of the quote from the RJC.  The story was
>> >> about the complaint itself.
>>
>> > Which informs the viewer of the use of the word by a higher-up
>> > Obama friendly.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.  It informs the *reader* of the use of the word by
>> someone *opposed* to Obama.  It was the RJC coalition rep who used
>> the word, pretty much undercutting your claim that it is a slur.
>
> It confirms the viewer's suspicions that the Obama camp is Anti-
> Jewish. They haven't condemned stereotyping from their own camp.

They haven't responded to nonsense from a Republican group.  Go figure.

And Obama has directly condemned Wright's statements.  So you're lying.  
Again.

> Therefore the Obama camp is bigoted.

When you lie like this, you make the Baby Jesus cry.

>
>> The RJC rep was complaining that the Obama, campaign official had
>> stereotyped Jewish voters, not that said official had used a slur to
>> do so.
>
> And No apologies for the stereotyping.

In this society, we don't apologize for the actions of others.  Obama has
repudiated Wright's statements.

Not good enough for you, troll?





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moe gets NASTY! LOL Kent tries to pull a fast one
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/ef53c3169f3e648d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:34 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"Greegor" <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote in message
news:511181bc-7e25-4456-9320-59c88ab96e73@p25g......
> KW > So she made you do it, huh?
> KW > 100% consistent with the mind
> KW > set of an abuser. And Greg,
> KW > you really like to abuse females.
> KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
> KW > past and current regulars of alt.friends?
> KW > You've yet to answer this question.
>
> KW > Why are you DISHONESTLY (read: LYING)
> KW > claiming that Kevin wrote that
> KW > which you know I wrote?
>
> Golly, Kent, I can't imagine how I could
> confuse what you wrote with what one
> of your stooges wrote FOR YOU !   LOL

     Since Kevin wrote that for himself, you've only managed to, once again,
prove you lied.

>
> KW > And why are you stalking and
> KW > harassing past and current
> KW > members of alt.friends?
>
> I am not stalking them.

     Liar.

> Why are you pretending that I am stalking alt.friends?

     I'm not.  You are stalking and harassing past and current members.
     Please explain why.

>
> KW > "Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
>
> Mekka Lekka Heiney Ho!
>

     Bigotry against the Romani noted, and expected.
     You do LOVE to offer the evidence that the author of the racist rant is
you.

>
> Kent's ""Fake ID"" makes no sense
>

     Your deep rooted psychological NEED to LIE, and stalk and harass people
makes no sense.

     Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?



--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:38 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"forevernitefan" <fvrnite@yaho...> wrote in message
news:54ca2b70-5ccd-4a10-b56f-a9b5ce561afb@e67g......
On Apr 8, 7:05 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmai...> wrote:
>> TNK > Does it make you feel good to pick on a female greegor?
>>
>> Moe started the thread!
>>
>> Poor Greg missed out on polygamous child abuse sect.
>> 1 forevernitefan Apr 8
>
> Actually I altered Jones' subject header.

     Further PROOF that Greg is psychologically UNABLE to be honest.

>You've been inquiring about
>my sexuality for weeks now.
>

    Which is odd, since you're past puberty.

> And apparently you've never heard of " pegging" or BOB.

     I wasn't aware it had a name.

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%28sexual_practice%29

     I'll pass.
     I don't know if Greg would be into it.  Kenny-Bob probably would.



--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:39 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"Greegor" <Greegor47@gmai...> wrote in message
news:86b78d3b-4254-4a25-a290-b9cfc3599e3d@8g20......
> I'm not interested in any form of anal sex.
> You seem obsessed with it despite your protestation about it Moe.
> Why is that?

     It helps if you include the text to which you are replying in your
reply.


--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: KUNT WILLS DELIBERATE LIES
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/16b675c2c85aed77?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:36 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



" krp" <krp2457k@veri...> wrote in message
news:bxpLj.10210$BT1.5687@trnddc04...
> "Kunt Wills" <compuelf@gmai...> wrote in message
> news:ftks66$oln$1@stab......
>
>>>>> But he does maintain his STATION IN LIFE.  He is VERY IMPORTANT!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Meh... I don't think I'm all that important.  It's nice that YOU
>>>> think so, but the truth is, 200 years from now, no one will remember
>>>> me.
>>>
>>>
>>>    NO SHIT! I wonder why?
>>>
>>
>>     Because, simpleton, contrary to your LIE, I'm really not very
>> important.
>
> We ALL know that Kunt. Now TELL YOURSELF!
> '

     You are the one who claims I am very important.  Seems you need to be
convinced that I am no more or less important than anyone else here.
     I understand that you really want to gain some "fame by proxy" and
think that if I own all these neat things and am very important, people will
think you are somehow a big shot.
     The problem is, you have to LIE to try and get the fame.  And I'm not
letting you get away with it.


--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kunt Wills LIES HIS ASS OFF
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/d9a618f565c9ee98?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:42 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



" krp" <krp2457k@veri...> wrote in message
news:2FlLj.29676$4Q1.3737@trnddc06...

[...]

>>>    Tell me something Moe. Is the mental picture of a bunch of men in a
>>> small boat throwing HARPOONS at your ass a sexual turn on for you???
>>>
>>
>>     Tell me, Kenny-Bob, do you often think of a bunch of men holding
>> phallic objects (harpoons)?
>
>    So, tell me Kunt, how long has the harpoon been a phallic image for
> you?
>

     You're the one who was compelled to offer the phallic imagery in your
post about Moe's ass.  And if you had EARNED the degrees in psychology you
have, rather than buy them from a degree mill, you would already understand
the question I asked.
     Now tell me, and anyone else who may be reading, do you often think of
a bunch of men holding phallic objects (harpoons)?



--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:48 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"forevernitefan" <fvrnite@yaho...> wrote in message
news:e03f16ba-c889-4030-a10a-04c5b0da20bf@k37g......

[...]

>>
>> >> Tell me something Moe. Is the mental picture of a bunch of men in a
>> >> small boat throwing HARPOONS at your ass a sexual turn on for you???
>>
>> > Tell me, Kenny-Bob, do you often think of a bunch of men holding
>> > phallic objects (harpoons)?
>>
>> So, tell me Kunt, how long has the harpoon been a phallic image for you?-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ever hear of Sigmund Freud, you dumbass?

     Kenny-Bob BOUGHT his psychology degrees from a known diploma mill.
     See http://docs.aboutkenpangborn.com/k_pangborn.pdf  Note the bit about
the degrees from Shaftesbury University
London - Cambridge, England.
     Now check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury_University to
learn about the place.

     You can see why Kenny-Bob doesn't understand psychology at all.
     This isn't to imply I'm an expert in the field, but at least I
understand Freudian psychology.  Most people who have taken an intro to
psych course understand it enough to have caught the reference.

--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 3:51 pm
From: "Kent Wills"  



"forevernitefan" <fvrnite@yaho...> wrote in message
news:dcbfe0ba-c4c7-43f4-a5dc-cdfaee3d1c99@p25g......

[...]

>>
>> > Tell me something Moe. Is the mental picture of a bunch of men in a
>> > small boat throwing HARPOONS at your ass a sexual turn on for you???
>>
>> Tell me, Kenny-Bob, do you often think of a bunch of men holding
>> phallic objects (harpoons)?
>
> I got the Freudian reference from Gaggiie's post but decided to let
>them obsess like Captain Ahab for a bit.

     Hehehehe

>
> (( Looks at Chippendale's calendar)) Hmnn, nothing about whaling or
>harpoons. Ah well that's THEIR sexual turn on. (( Grins)) My sexual
>turn ons are private, OC.

     I've never concerned myself with what turns on or off those I meet on
Usenet.

>
>Jockstrap penis sniffers like Greg and KRaP have no hope in my
>fantasies.

     I don't think either are interested.  You're past puberty, so Greg
won't be interested, and you're female, so Kenny-Bob won't be interested.



--

"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.





==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.legal"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.legal-unsubscribe@goog...

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@goog...

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Bookmark with:

Delicious   Digg   reddit   Facebook   StumbleUpon

opensubscriber is not affiliated with the authors of this message nor responsible for its content.