Infowars: IRS Faces Lawsuit After Stealing 60 Million Medical Records

infowarsdotcom:

Jim Hoft
thegatewaypundit.com
May 16, 2013

The IRS is facing a lawsuit after stealing 60 million medical records from 10 million patients.
Healthcare IT News reported:

The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.

According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

“This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents,” the complaint reads. “No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records,” it continued.

According to the case, the IRS agents had a search warrant for financial data pertaining to a former employee of the John Doe company, however, “it did not authorize any seizure of any healthcare or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter,” the complaint read.

The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages for constitutional violations, as well as $25,000 “per violation per individual” in compensatory damages. Those damages could start at a minimum total of $250 billion.

Update: Portland, Oregon (First reported 04-12-13): The city will pay $2.3 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed after a police officer wounded a man when he mistakenly fired lethal rounds at him from a beanbag shotgun. The victim is now permanently disabled and narrowly escaped death only because there was a hospital nearby

beatyourselfup:

The proposed settlement was reached after city attorneys and Monroe’s lawyer met Monday in a mediation session with U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken.

It must still go before the City Council for approval. If accepted, it would mark the city’s largest individual settlement in its history.

“Honestly, I think in the grand scheme of things, it’s not an unfair settlement,” Thane Tienson, Monroe’s lawyer, said Tuesday.

Tienson said the money will help pay for Monroe’s ongoing medical costs and lost wages.

Reister’s gunshots fractured Monroe’s pelvis and punctured his bladder, abdomen and colon. The fourth shot, fired from less than 15 feet away, left a “softball-size hole in his left leg” and severed the sciatic nerve, according to Monroe’s suit.

So it took 4 shots for the cop to realize he was shooting lethal rounds? Oh bullshit! That’s attempted murder.

Poor Richard's News: California wants to open up jury duty to non-citizens

poorrichardsnews:

An idea this phenomenally bad could only have come from the brilliant legal minds in California: jury duty…for non-US citizens.

from Breitbart:

California would allow noncitizens to serve on juries under a proposal being considered by state lawmakers, potentially expanding a fundamental obligation of American life to millions more people. 

The measure, which would apply only to legal residents, would make California the only state to open the jury box to noncitizens who meet all other requirements of service, according to legal experts. The proposal raises the question of what it means to be judged by peers in a state where more than one in seven residents is not a citizen. One of the bill’s authors, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), said the proposal would help ensure an adequate pool of jurors, help immigrants integrate into American society and make juries more representative of California. 

Juries “should reflect our community, and our community is always changing,” Wieckowski said. “It’s time for California to be a leader on this.” The Assembly passed the bill this week on a party-line vote, with most Democrats lining up in favor and Republicans standing in opposition. 

read the rest

California is setting itself up for legal disaster on this one.  There is absolutely no way a law like this will stand up in Federal court.  Can you imagine the havoc that will occur when hundreds of guilty verdicts begin to be overturned because members of the jury were non-citizens? The swing votes for crucial cases could be individuals who are not even citizens of the same country as the accused. 

6 Police Misconduct Settlements Worth Millions

When police abuse their authority everyone loses. Victims may get hurt or even lose their life, police damage their credibility and taxpayers end up shouldering huge payouts to victims and their families.

Last week, the Los Angeles Police Department settled a lawsuit brought against it by two women officers mistakenly shot at during the Dorner manhunt in February. The settlement will cost the city $4.2 million and attorneys called it “a bargain.“

Click to read a list of recent settlements paid out to victims of police misconduct.

(via beatyourselfup)

News to Me: Monsanto Threatens To Sue Vermont If It Passes GMO Labeling Bill

n-morgan:



April 21, 2013 

monsanto food

Source: Alternet





Despite overwhelming public support, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if it passes.

What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont’s “right to know” bill? They lost their nerve after Monsanto representatives recently threatened that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they pass the bill. [Officials] expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to “go it alone” against Monsanto in court.

During the hearings the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill – more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000.



Read More…

Legalization of marijuana puts end to searches based solely on possession of small amounts. Mass. court throws out evidence found after drivers searched for possessing legal amount of pot.

beatyourselfup:

The scent of reefer is not enough to justify an automobile search, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules.


In a series of three rulings issued Friday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cracked down on police who have been using evidence of marijuana possession as a pretext to search automobiles. Just two years ago, justices handed down the Cruz decision making it clear that automobile searches could not be conducted on the basis of finding marijuana (view ruling), but police have continued the practice.

…

“An officer smelling freshly burnt marijuana inside a stopped vehicle, and an occupant surrendering a noncriminal amount of marijuana, did not, without more, support probable cause to believe that a criminal amount of marijuana would be found in the vehicle,” Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly wrote for the court. “Absent articulable facts supporting a belief that any occupant of the vehicle possessed a criminal amount of marijuana, the search was not justified by the need to search for contraband.”

…

“Today’s rulings mean that people who share small amounts of marijuana don’t have to fear criminal prosecution or having police officers use the sharing of marijuana as a reason to search their belongings,” ACLU legal director Matthew R. Segal said in a statement on Friday. “Just as important, hopefully these rulings mean that police officers will focus on serious crimes instead of wasting their time investigating people sharing marijuana.”

Source: Massachusetts v. Pacheco (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 4/5/2013)

Appeals court affirms no immunity for San Diego County Sheriff's deputy Sgt. Michael Knobbe and others for keeping ambulance with shooting victim from leaving, detaining her family for hours and pepper spraying the grieving father. Shooter was fellow deputy.

(via beatyourselfup)

beatyourselfup: FAA Releases New Drone List – Is Your Town on the Map? The Federal Aviation Administration has finally released a new drone authorization list. This list, released in response to EFF’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, includes law enforcement agencies and universities across the country, and—for the first time—an Indian tribal agency. In all, the list includes more than 20 new entities over the FAA’s original list, bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012. Some of these new drone license applicants include: The State Department National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California) Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho) Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon) Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota) King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington) And several new entities in Ohio, including: Medina County Sheriff’s Office Ohio Department of Transportation Sinclair Community College Lorain County Community College The list comes amid extensive controversy over a newly-released memo documenting the CIA’s policy on the targeted killing of American citizens and on the heels of news that Charlottesville, Virginia has just become one of the first cities in the country to ban drones. This new list should contribute to the debate over whether using domestic drones for surveillance is consistent with the Constitution and with American values. As we’ve written in the past, drone use in the United States implicates serious privacy and civil liberties concerns. Although drones can be used for neutral, or even for positive purposes, drones are also capable of highly advanced and, in some cases, almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. Even the smallest drones can carry a host of surveillance equipment, from video cameras and thermal imaging to GPS tracking and cellphone eavesdropping tools. They can also be equipped with advanced forms of radar detection, license plate cameras, and facial recognition. And, as recent reporting from PBS andSlate shows, surveillance tools, like the military’s development of gigapixel technology capable of “tracking people and vehicles across an entire city,” are improving rapidly. EFF hopes this list will spur more people to ask their local law enforcement agencies about their drone programs. EFF has partnered with MuckRock to make it easier to ask for and disseminate this information. We also encourage people to ask hard questions of government officials about who is funding drone development in their communities and what policies the government will demand agencies follow if they fly drones. We need greater transparency and citizen push-back to protect Americans from privacy-invasive domestic drone use.
Pop-upView Separately

beatyourselfup:

FAA Releases New Drone List – Is Your Town on the Map?

The Federal Aviation Administration has finally released a new drone authorization list. This list, released in response to EFF’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, includes law enforcement agencies and universities across the country, and—for the first time—an Indian tribal agency. In all, the list includes more than 20 new entities over the FAA’s original list, bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012.

Some of these new drone license applicants include:

  • The State Department
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  • Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California)
  • Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho)
  • Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon)
  • Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota)
  • King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington)

And several new entities in Ohio, including:

  • Medina County Sheriff’s Office
  • Ohio Department of Transportation
  • Sinclair Community College
  • Lorain County Community College

The list comes amid extensive controversy over a newly-released memo documenting the CIA’s policy on the targeted killing of American citizens and on the heels of news that Charlottesville, Virginia has just become one of the first cities in the country to ban drones. This new list should contribute to the debate over whether using domestic drones for surveillance is consistent with the Constitution and with American values.

As we’ve written in the past, drone use in the United States implicates serious privacy and civil liberties concerns. Although drones can be used for neutral, or even for positive purposes, drones are also capable of highly advanced and, in some cases, almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. Even the smallest drones can carry a host of surveillance equipment, from video cameras and thermal imaging to GPS tracking and cellphone eavesdropping tools. They can also be equipped with advanced forms of radar detection, license plate cameras, and facial recognition. And, as recent reporting from PBS andSlate shows, surveillance tools, like the military’s development of gigapixel technology capable of “tracking people and vehicles across an entire city,” are improving rapidly.

EFF hopes this list will spur more people to ask their local law enforcement agencies about their drone programs. EFF has partnered with MuckRock to make it easier to ask for and disseminate this information. We also encourage people to ask hard questions of government officials about who is funding drone development in their communities and what policies the government will demand agencies follow if they fly drones. We need greater transparency and citizen push-back to protect Americans from privacy-invasive domestic drone use.

n-morgan:

Daniel Ellsberg On The NDAA Lawsuit

Published on Feb 7, 2013

 

Daniel Ellsberg speaks at the press conference after the hearing for the second circuit court of appeals in the NDAA lawsuit, Hedges v Obama. He speaks about what is happening in the lawsuit, the erosion of the Bill of Rights and Bradley Manning.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst turned whistleblower, most known for publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Learn more about the NDAA: http://www.stopndaa.org.

Support us by subscribing here http://bit.ly/P05Kqb

Check out our merchandise at http://wearechange.org/store/

Become a member of The Sponsor Lounge and get exclusive behind the scenes content while helping us grow! Join us today! http:///www.wearechange.org/donate

Walnut Creek, California: The family of a hairdresser killed by police is seeking $15 million in a wrongful-death suit filed against four members of the police department, alleging the 22-year-old man was shot after officers tripped and fell over one another

beatyourselfup:

Anthony Banta Jr. was killed Dec. 27 when officers say he charged them with a knife after a fight with his roommate in their Creekside Drive apartment. A lawsuit filed Jan. 24 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco maintains the altercation had ended by the time police arrived and that Banta was not armed. The lawsuit says that one officer fired in a panic after reacting to the other officers tripping and falling behind him, and that other officers also opened fire.

Read More

Judge lets NYPD resume suspicion-less stops

beatyourselfup:

(Submitted by ouspensky)

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge is allowing the New York Police Department to temporarily resume stop-and-frisk stops she believes are unconstitutional while the city appeals her decision.

Judge Shira Scheindlin on Tuesday lifted the order she issued earlier this month concerning a program aimed at thousands of privately owned buildings in the Bronx.

The judge had found that the city acted unconstitutionally in making trespass stops without reasonable suspicion.

Scheindlin says she still believes she’s correct but the city had shown it would be expensive to immediately implement an order that could be reversed.

A trial in March is set to decide the fate of a lawsuit more broadly challenging the city’s stop-and-frisk practices. The judge refused a request by the city to delay that trial.

Two cops entered man's home without a warrant while investigating an assault. They found Dagdagan asleep in bed, woke him, Tase him and put him in a chokehold, rupturing a ligament in his spine that led to paralysis -- city of Vallejo agreed to pay $4.15m to settle suit

beatyourselfup:

The city of Vallejo has agreed to pay $4.15 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a man who said police seriously injured his spinal cord after entering his home without a warrant.

Officers Jason Wentz and John Boyd went into Macario Dagdagan’s home on Louisiana Street without a warrant in June 2007 while investigating reports that he had assaulted his girlfriend, the city has acknowledged.

The officers found Dagdagan in bed at his apartment, apparently asleep, roused him, shocked him with a Taser stun device and put him in a chokehold, rupturing a ligament in his spine that led to paralysis, said Dagdagan’s attorney, Peter Alfert.

Doctors at Stanford Medical Center were able to reverse the paralysis, Alfert said.

In court papers, attorneys for the city said Dagdagan was intoxicated, verbally aggressive and “failed to follow even basic lawful demands.” Dagdagan had been accused of grabbing a meat cleaver, pulling his girlfriend’s hair, slamming her into a wall and threatening to kill her, the city said.

A federal judge in Sacramento and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officers improperly went into Dagdagan’s home without a warrant about two hours after the alleged assault on the girlfriend. There was no immediate emergency that would have exempted them from obtaining a warrant, the courts ruled.

“It was a flagrant violation of his constitutional rights,” Alfert said.

Dagdagan, 62, had worked as a machinist at an oil refinery. He is now permanently disabled, walks with a limp, has weakness and pain in his extremities, and must take many painkillers each day, his attorney said.

The city will pay for the settlement through its insurance, Alfert said.

Both Wentz and Boyd are now Richmond police officers.

Unattended Police Dog Mauls Suspect Already Face Down and Handcuffed - Lawsuit Awards Him $197,000 + Hospital Bills

53 Year Old Grandmother Shot By Police, She Was Unarmed and Not A Threat To Anyone

beatyourselfup:

A 53-year-old grandmother said she plans to sue the city of Wichita because a police officer shot her when she claims she was unarmed and not threatening anyone.

“I’m planning on it big time,” Shirley Smith said Thursday. “The police department is lying.”

She said no charges have been filed against her.

“Why would they? I didn’t do anything,” Smith said.

Smith said she was in the hospital for about five weeks, underwent six surgeries to repair internal injuries and lost part of her liver.

No charges were filed on the grandmother. She hasn’t done anything wrong.

St Louis MO police sued after 9 witnesses claim cop shot an unarmed man and continued to shoot him to death while he laid on the ground bleeding then planted a gun to cover it up

beatyourselfup:

ST. LOUIS • The mother of a man fatally shot by an undercover St. Louis police detective in 2010 has sued in federal court here, alleging the officer continued to fire as her son lay on the ground dying, then planted a gun on him to claim the use of deadly force was justified.

Normane Bennett, 23, was shot June 25, 2010, in an alley behind the 3900 block of Sherman Place after he fled from police who tried to arrest him and others for alleged drug activity.

[…]

Wasem’s actions were unanimously cleared by the police board. The department on Thursday declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

A Post-Dispatch review earlier this year found the department cleared all but four of 117 officer-involved shootings over the last five years. The reviews are done with little outside scrutiny, the newspaper found.

[…]

The federal lawsuit claims the police board “turns a blind eye to use of excessive force by its police officers.” It seeks an unspecified amount of damages.