What is taking place now is the consideration of this case as well as the possible ramifications. While I would like to feel that this is exclusively based on the situation at hand, the legal system does not operate in a vacuum. One has to consider the worst case scenario that might transpire under any ruling.
The easy decision would be that of tossing out the case because my lawyer has no standing in the court. (John Does are in somewhat of a quandary, as well as the representation of such in Texas.) A harder decision is whether the judge's disclosure order can stand review.
Should it stand, it makes a mockery of the Cable Communications Act, and any semblance of
privacy. Virtually anything that you regard as private can be disclosed on the basis of a civil suit, with out any proof. That's what the Essent lawyer argued.
But, should a far more over-the-top anonymous blog be allowed free rein without fear of repercussion? Legislation should be enacted to plug the hole.
It comes down to the immediate rights of the individual, and the possible distress placed in a worst case senario.
There is national attention being devoted to this case.
Right Click on Case 06-07-00123-CV, and select open in new tab or window depending on your version of Internet Explorer. Users of Macs, Linux, and Firefox are on your own.
The easy decision would be that of tossing out the case because my lawyer has no standing in the court. (John Does are in somewhat of a quandary, as well as the representation of such in Texas.) A harder decision is whether the judge's disclosure order can stand review.
Should it stand, it makes a mockery of the Cable Communications Act, and any semblance of
privacy. Virtually anything that you regard as private can be disclosed on the basis of a civil suit, with out any proof. That's what the Essent lawyer argued.But, should a far more over-the-top anonymous blog be allowed free rein without fear of repercussion? Legislation should be enacted to plug the hole.
It comes down to the immediate rights of the individual, and the possible distress placed in a worst case senario.
There is national attention being devoted to this case.
Right Click on Case 06-07-00123-CV, and select open in new tab or window depending on your version of Internet Explorer. Users of Macs, Linux, and Firefox are on your own.
19 comments:
Surely your attorney (and you) have researched other similar blogs that are attempting to shine light on disparagements and faulty companies and/or the government. Use them as examples that would be caught up in this revealing of bloggers/posters and give a bigger picture of the implications of forced identification would be. You're right that legal system is not in a vaccuum - and neither are you the only blog or site out there trying to right wrongs done by corporations or non-profits.
I agree with the 8:56 AM poster, but I also ask this: how many of those blogsites are run by anonymous "blogmasters" (is there such a word?)? I'm not trying to take Essent's side, just playing devil's advocate here.
I agree that this case could set precedent for anonymous blogging in Texas, if not nationwide. One wonders if a very large can of worms has not been opened here.
Keep fighting the good fight!
I'm definitely not an Essent cheerleader, but the court has to look at the larger picture--not just a little blog from Texas (Admittedly, I like ZZ Top.)
But, does the court use two wrongs to make a right? This should have been taken up by the legislature, not the judicial system...and probably will be.
There should be two issues: A standard for the issuance of the disclosure order. And, a mechanism for Anonymous/John Doe representation in the court.
So, who wants to sponsor the bill(s)?
Perhaps Matt would like to!
Tried to get information on the case from the Appeals Court server. Apparently the load is a bit much for it.
Try accessing the case during off hours. This is a resource for many cases, not just this one....frank
What's the chance our local state legislator would get involved to the extent he sponsored the bills?
Our local state legislator is not likely to get involved - unless it was to back the hospital. He also makes use of one of the attorneys on Essent's side.
Even if the State Legislator uses one of the lawyers that Essent uses he should be impartial for ALL the people. Unless money has beeen slipped under the table, this is a wrong that needs to be made right. If he is interested in the economy of Paris, he should be working for the greater good of all, by keeping bussiness in the local area. As it is now people are going to other places in droves for their medical care. Essent has done wrong no matter how you look at it. Persecution of any person who states their side of the story is against every thing we grew up believing. Our Constitutional Rights. No more said!
And let's not forget to keep ETHICAL businesses. I believe this is the most important factor
One would think a legislator would be working for the common good, regardless of who his lawyer is. Does the fact he uses the plaintiff's attorney mean he has to ignore anything that attorney may be involved in? What a great way to preclude that legislator from introducing legislation; have the opponents hire his attorney.
Here we go again. Let's start jumping to conclusions about our State Reprensentative. In my experience, most politicians especially our State Representative, is very willing to listen to ALL sides of the story. Why don't you give him a call and talk to him about it rather than making accusations and accusing people of something you have no knowledge of.
The more I read this blog the more I realize it's really just a forum for those who like to bitch, moan and complain.
Get a life people!
Personally, having the same lawyer as Essent wouldn't affect a representative's decision as to get involved. You get a new lawyer if the conflict is actual.
Besides, if he uses staffers to research, and legal resources, what would be the problem? I would tend to tap both James and Wes for input as well. A view from the trenches, as it were.
As it is relatively unfettered, yes, it is a 'bitch' site. If you don't know there is a problem, how can you find a solution?....frank
To: "Let's start jumping to conclusions..."
You mean like you just did? How do you know our legislator has not been contacted? And who is making accusations, besides you?
As the moderator pointed out, it is not outside the scope of possibility or our legislator's job to consider this in terms of needed legislation. He is a good man. If the legislation is needed and affects his constituents, he absolutely should get involved if he can help from the floor of the house.
In my opinion, a few of the comments suggested that he hasn't stepped up to do something because of the fact they have used the same attorney. Which is why I suggested a call to him rather than posting untruths and misguided information.
The local state representative has not jumped in because he knows this is a no win for him regardless of the outcome. He is a politician and they like to win with the side that has the most voters which support them. Right or wrong in most cases has no bearing on what they do. Look at the record.
You state that Essent thinks that Kevin (I.T.) or Becky (psych. R.N.) are frank. However, The Houston Chronicle quotes Rodgers, contradicting this statement.
Lawyers talk among themselves. Maybe James got a sense of the way they were progressing. But, the termination of Kevin was attributed to a suspicion that he fit the bill. Had that not been the case, why terminate him and suspend his wife?
I haven't seen the quote. Perhaps someone can post the link for clarification?...frank
What did the judge do about the member of admin. threatening the Psych. Charge Nurse, Becky?? (Sacrifice). Seems individuals (authors of threat) are nervous about losing one's livlihood. The rumor about the hospital, is that this nurse has members of Essent Admin. (and stooges) by the short hairs.
This case won't get into her situation unless the appeal is lost. Then, there are going to be a few subpoenas that Essent isn't going to want to see on the list for discovery....frank
You state that peer review members are going to be subjected to depositions. We were only following instructions of attorneys and administration. I think peer review members are protected from prosecution. You may want to research before publishing your opinion.
Possibly deposed, but no one has said prosecution. The transcripts, testimonies, and results are subject to discovery. Once it becomes part of a court record...who knows where someone else will go with it?
What is her situation....whether or not she hung the patient?! I don't see how that is going to help you, dude!
Mainly to refute the allegations that Essent has in the lawsuit. If I can prove that the statements (that they say are false) are true, they have no case, and they eat the legal fees. So, anything that they allude to....
It opens up a private company to scrutiny that otherwise would not be available. We will argue that virtually anything brought up in the blog, since they have described the entire blog as defamatory, is discoverable.
And, yes, Matt, you did lead into my comments. Thanks....
Post a Comment