The latest loss for DOJ, regarding the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's patients, also brings news that DOJ has started scaling back its requests following its many losses.
Frankly, neither do I. I *think* I was trying to suggest that the DoJ will still keep battering until they find a judge to agree with them. Perhaps a ham handed attempt to jurist shop.
'...the government's demand for deeply personal and private information about patients carries more than a whiff of ill-intent. This is apparent from their rhetoric.' Indeed--an outrageous, frightening and creepy request which in itself implies ill-intent. Thank you, Judge Bissoon. DOJ: MYOB!
This is a good development. It's relieving to see this kind of pushback happening. Given that the executive branch is peddling junk science (when they even bother mentioning science at all), I can only imagine the horrors they'd unleash with all that private information. The email narrowing the subpeona is still even too much...
Eternally grateful for the depth and insightfulness of this reporting, Chris. Have a warm and lovely holiday!
Requests? Gee, I always thought subpoenas were demands for information -- the "give this to us or we will prosecute you" type of thing, as opposed to a "please give us this if you are so inclined" kind of thing. I could be wrong.
The requests for information within the subpoena are what I was specifically referring to — terminology used both by DOJ and the judge (and quoted in the piece). But, yes, you are right about the mandatory nature of a subpoena. That’s why they’re being challenged here. (Successfully.)
It is unfortunate that you state that you MUST (or consider yourself obligated to) use the language of the DOJ and the judge -- I would think that you have the ability to accurately describe what is going on when not quoting them. But, evidently that is not the case.
I love the phrase, "a whiff of ill-intent." Maybe others will start using that wording. It could vary a bit, as in "a sent if ill-will" or "the smell of malicious concern." I could go on, but I hope we're on to something here going forward! And good news that the losses are accumulating for this ill-intended administration that favors only rich, white men pretending to be Christians. Good Christmas news!
maybe if the limited their request to anonymized data on trans genital surgeries of minors--surgeries for gender dysphoria, not correctional for other reasons--it might dawn on them that such surgeries are virtually non existent.
This was a good Christmas Eve report. Thanks Chris!
What do they say about repeating the same mistake? Probably the DoJ is trying to maneuver a trans care case before Judges Cannon or Bove.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about?
Frankly, neither do I. I *think* I was trying to suggest that the DoJ will still keep battering until they find a judge to agree with them. Perhaps a ham handed attempt to jurist shop.
'...the government's demand for deeply personal and private information about patients carries more than a whiff of ill-intent. This is apparent from their rhetoric.' Indeed--an outrageous, frightening and creepy request which in itself implies ill-intent. Thank you, Judge Bissoon. DOJ: MYOB!
Nice christmas gift indeed. Fuck trump and his fascist goons. Becoming more and more like true disgusting corrupt nazis
This is a good development. It's relieving to see this kind of pushback happening. Given that the executive branch is peddling junk science (when they even bother mentioning science at all), I can only imagine the horrors they'd unleash with all that private information. The email narrowing the subpeona is still even too much...
Eternally grateful for the depth and insightfulness of this reporting, Chris. Have a warm and lovely holiday!
"the Justice Department’s unusual requests"
Requests? Gee, I always thought subpoenas were demands for information -- the "give this to us or we will prosecute you" type of thing, as opposed to a "please give us this if you are so inclined" kind of thing. I could be wrong.
The requests for information within the subpoena are what I was specifically referring to — terminology used both by DOJ and the judge (and quoted in the piece). But, yes, you are right about the mandatory nature of a subpoena. That’s why they’re being challenged here. (Successfully.)
It is unfortunate that you state that you MUST (or consider yourself obligated to) use the language of the DOJ and the judge -- I would think that you have the ability to accurately describe what is going on when not quoting them. But, evidently that is not the case.
I love the phrase, "a whiff of ill-intent." Maybe others will start using that wording. It could vary a bit, as in "a sent if ill-will" or "the smell of malicious concern." I could go on, but I hope we're on to something here going forward! And good news that the losses are accumulating for this ill-intended administration that favors only rich, white men pretending to be Christians. Good Christmas news!
Good news!
What a relief. Thank you, Chris.
But what is the current status of UPMC’s compliance in advance - its cessation of some kinds of gender care citing the risk of prosecution.
Thanks Dork. Get some rest, you look tired.
maybe if the limited their request to anonymized data on trans genital surgeries of minors--surgeries for gender dysphoria, not correctional for other reasons--it might dawn on them that such surgeries are virtually non existent.
Good on this judge, and thanks for reporting on another win...which we def need more of now.
Merry Christmas, Chris!
Thanks, Chris.