What was the nature of your complaint? 

I'm glad that Anna is on this one because I am totally lost! Sorry but I've got so much going on that I can't keep up with the boards and that's why my partner takes care of the board for me - thanks Anna!

Love ya sweetie!
Jill

hello anna and thanks for your involvement in this.

To answer your question, no, I have not been able to find an attorney here that is willing to take the case.. small town politics

To update you on the recent events...

I learned yesterday that my dispute letter to the Acting Director of the Regional Office for the Office for Civil Rights of the State I live in and my claims have been sent to Washington D.C. for further review. I pointed out in my dispute letter that the Regional Director closed my case before three of my claims were ever given any kind of a fair, impartial and proper review or investiation. Therein depriving me of my due process procedural rights, liberties or privileges.

Among the claims not investigated was the claim of retaliation against the Mayor and the due process claim under 45 C.F.R., Sec.,164.530(d)(f) and 610.021(14), RSMo.

An FBI agent called me a couple of days ago and told me that he was unaware of any federal criminal statute that would apply in the matters. I informed the Agent that I submitted a second complaint of possible criminal activity, since I was told the first complaint has been lost. I listed six federal criminal statutes that I believe the Mayor has knowingly violated in his act(s) or omission(s) constituting retaliation, as follows:

45 C.F.R., Sec., 164.530(g)-(iii) (this is the anti-retaliation statute for HIPAA laws)

42 U.S.C., Sec., 1320d-6 (this is the criminal statute pertaining to violations of HIPAA laws)

18 U.S.C., Sec., 241 (Conspiracy against rights)

18 U.S.C., Sec., 1512(b)(1)(A)(c)(3)(c)(1) (Tampering with a witness, victim or informant)

18 U.S.C., Sec., 1505)(part 2) (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, or committees)

18 U.S.C., Sec., 1035(a)(1)(2) (False statements related to healthcare matters).

I also pointed out in my second complaint to the FBI, as I pointed out in my first complaint that the Mayor did not act alone in his act(s) or omission(s). Keep in mind that the Mayor sent the Chief of Police and the City Attorney a carbon copy of his email on June 11, 2004 and the Chief of Police and City Attorney received a copy of my cease and desist letter to the Mayor on June 15, 2004. The Chief of Police and City Attorney have made no effort whatsoever to investigate the Mayor for criminal acts under any applicable state law, such as 575.060, RSMo, (false statements to public servants) and 575.270, RSMo, (tampering with a witness or victim).

anna

Unfortunately in the wisdom of Congress - with the passing of the newly amended HIPAA laws, a citizen is stipped of their right to file a private suit against anyone involved in a violation of HIPAA laws, which, in theory would include a claim of retaliation... However...

Keeping in mind that the Mayor accessed or had another access the City's computer database to block my ability to email publicly elected and appointed officials and he did so under fraudulent or otherwise decietful claims or terms. The Mayor has also violated 18 U.S.C., Sec., 1030(4), as well as State laws of 569.095, RSMo, and 569.099, RSMo. To-wit appearxs to provide a private cause of action to file a suit against the Mayor even though I do not own or have direct access to the City's computer.

I agree with you that this is an uphill battle and a lawyer would be nice to have. Getting one is difficult as Civil Right Attorney's are not abundently listed in the phone book.

I am typing up a document that I will be sending to a wide assortment of DHHS/OCR personnel and I will send you a (blind carbon copy) for your reading as well.

Ann

While I sent you a copy of the complaint, I thougt I would post it here in case others would like to read it as well.
__________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
[DHHS/OCR Violates HIPAA Privacy Rules & Due Process Procedural Rights]

PRELUDE:

Among the questions being raised in the complaints I have filed with the OCR Region VII Office pertains to the DHHS/OCR investigatory processes and whether or not such intentionally employ's arbitrary government action in the enforcement of HIPAA laws through prejudicial handling of complaints by OCR staff.


SECTION ONE: [OPENING]

The DHHS/OCR is charged with the fiduciary duty to properly investigate complaints of HIPAA violations and holds a legal obligation to serve as an impartial tribunal in the review and decision-making process stages of such complaints. But also in handing out penalties that fairly, yet, appropriately deals with the wrongdoing committed so as not to permit a person or entity that violates the law to evade legal accountability.

Congress enacted the newly amended HIPAA laws and in doing so, imposed substantive predicates to govern the official decision-making processes so as to require a particular outcome to be reached. As a result of this, Congress also created a substantial protected liberty interest, right or privilege, which cannot be lawfully deprived or abridged. So as to protect the people against arbitrary action of the government, see generally Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974). Since, as a matter of principle, "no . . . . shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the [457 U.S. 992, 994] United States; nor shall any . . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


SECTION TWO: [BIASED-BASED ENFORCEMENT]

"The symbol of justice is a woman holding a scale - blindfolded. The symbol does not suggest the woman is free of bias or that justice is blind. The symbol represents the need to blindfold those empowered to administer justice from personal and societal prejudices when exerting the authority and power of office" (Captain Ronald L. Davis, Oakland Police Dept., Region VI Vice President, NOBLE).

According to a published statement by the American Medical Association, "At least for now, the Office for Civil Rights, ("OCR," the agency responsible for enforcing the Privacy Rules) has indicated that enforcement will be compliant-based. Accordingly, OCR will respond to complaints that are filed but will not proactively investigate. If a patient has a complaint that a physician violated the patients' privacy rights, the patient may choose to complain to the physician, to OCR, or to both. If the patient complains to OCR, OCR or the Department of Justice ("DOJ") will likely follow up with the physician to request an explanation and response. OCR/DOJ may ask the physician to implement a voluntary corrective action plan. It is unlikely that OCR or DOJ would make an on-site investigation unless the physician was uncooperative or the government determined that an on-site investigation was necessary" (bold print and underline emphasis added).

As a direct or proximate result of the aforementioned published AMA statement, the lawfulness and integrity of the DHHS is brought into question. For the AMA statement is plainly reflective of a government agency intent upon imposing arbitrary action of the government against a Complainant by or though its' biased demeanors or prejudicial handling of complaints. Of, which serves to selectively enforce HIPAA laws in a light most favorable to corporations and other medical personnel who knowingly violate the law.


SECTION THREE: [DUE PROCESS RIGHTS]

Time and again the United States Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental principle that ""due process procedural rights are meant to "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a . . . . proposes to deprive them of protected interest." See generally Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1982). And "at times, the Court has also stressed the dignitary importance of procedural rights, the worth of being able to defend one's interests even if one cannot change the result." See generally Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67 (1978); see also generally Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).

The DHHS/OCR is therefore without the lawful authority to deprive or abridge these clearly established due process rights, liberties or privileges when such deprivations or abridgements enacts arbitrary action of the government that implements a biased-based enforcement of law(s) or prejudicial handling of complaints.


SECTION FOUR: [CASE IN POINT]

On June 7, 2004 I filed a complaint with the OCR, Region VII Office pursuant to 45 C.F.R., §160.203 for violations of HIPAA laws and named four Respondents. And I provided each of the Respondents a copy of the complaint for their response to the OCR, Region VII Office at the appropriate time.

On June 14, 2004 I filed a second complaint of retaliation against one of the Respondents named in the original complaint, which falls under the scope and provisions of 45 C.F.R., §164.530(g)(1)(2)(i)(ii)(iii).

On June 21, 2004 I filed an amendment to my original complaint and to my retaliation complaint.

On June 30, 2004 the Acting Regional Director, Fred Laing issued his letter of determination, wherein Mr. Laing elected to close the case in its totality. Claiming that Respondent Social Welfare Board is not a "covered entity" and therefore does not fall under the HIPAA laws.

On July 8, 2004 I spoke with Rebeka Pinick, who is an Investigator at the Region VII Office and purported to be unaware of any claim of retaliation or a separate claim filed in the original complaint against the same Respondent despite Mrs. Pinick claiming to have read all the documentation I filed. Mrs. Pinick stated she would pull my file and call me back, yet, knowingly failed or willing refused to call me back.

On July 9, 2004 I filed a letter of dispute with Mr. Laing, wherein I objected to the determination that the Social Welfare Board is not a "covered entity" and I pointed out that three of my separate claims were never provided any kind of an investigation.

The determination letter from Mr. Laing specifically cited claims filed in my June 21, 2004 amended complaint and therein is reflective of Region VII staff receiving my documentation. However, despite having received my complaints, Region VII staff knowingly failed or willfully refused to properly investigate three of my claims, which were separate from the claim involving the Social Welfare Board.


SECTION FIVE: [COVERED ENTITY]

The Social Welfare Board is a large County government agency that provides medical - dental - and mental health services to low income or indigent people and sees a large number of patients.

The Social Welfare Board acts as a quasi-insurance company by paying medial bills for patients with outside physicians.

The Social Welfare Board works close with and has open access to the computer database of the local large hospital/trauma center, which contains all patient records.

The Social Welfare Board has on its board of directors' two employees of the hospital, one being a licensed physician and one being the named Respondent in the retaliation complaint.

The Social Welfare Board is under the supervision of the Department of Mental Health and receives funding from this agency and from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, City and County all of, which derives from public tax revenue.

In the extremely limited capacity of my employment I am a covered entity by virtue of being regulated by the Department of Mental Health and where physicians in their own private practice are also classified as covered entities. It is inconceivable that the Social Welfare Board is deemed not to be a covered entity, when they provide a broader range of services and have direct open access to patient records on the hospital database. As well as having two individuals who are classified as being a covered entity on their board of directors.


SECTION SIX: [CRIMINAL ACTIVITY]

Within the claim of retaliation a series of criminal act(s) or omission(s) was described as allegedly occurring with reasonable cause to believe and supportive documentation. Among them include the following:

The named Respondent knowingly, willingly and maliciously made a fraudulent or otherwise deceitful claim, while acting under the color of law, to mislead - persuade - lure - or conspire with government officials. So as to have one or more of the government officials assist [directly or indirectly] the Respondent in his intended act(s), omission(s) or effects of retaliation. See 18 U.S.C., §241 (Conspiracy against rights); see also 575.060, RSMo, (false declarations to a public servant).

The named Respondent knowingly used his official capacity, office and title to instruct [unspecified] government officials to no longer converse with me and therein knowingly, willingly and maliciously deprived or abridged my civil rights with criminal intent and effect. To-wit the Respondent precluded me from (1) having any and all access to government business affairs, (2) police - medical - and legal services provided to the general public by government officials. And (3) representation from publicly elected and appointed government officials. As the Respondent sent a copy of his written instruction purported to be a "request" to the (1) Chief of Police, (2) City Attorney, (3) City Manager and (4) the Director of Public Health. See 18 U.S.C., §241, see also 575.060, RSMo.

The named Respondent knowingly used his official capacity, office or title to impede, hinder, obstruct or preclude an official proceeding before a federal agency, department or committee, see 18 U.S.C., §1505 (part two). By instructing government officials not to converse with me and therein tampered with actual or prospective witnesses in an official proceeding, see 18 U.S.C., §1512(b)(1)(A)(c)(3)(c)(1) (Tampering with a witness, victim or informant). See also 575.270, RSMo, (Tampering with a witness or a victim). To-wit impeded, hindered, obstructed or precluded government officials from testifying or giving other statements that would substantiate my claims filed with the OCR.

The named Respondent knowingly, willingly and maliciously made his fraudulent or otherwise deceitful claim to government officials with prior knowledge of the involvement of the DHHS/OCR and therefore knowingly, willingly and maliciously made false declarations involving health care matters. See 18 U.S.C., §1035(a)(1)(2).

The named Respondent knowingly, willingly and maliciously made his fraudulent or otherwise deceitful claim to coerce, threaten or intimidate me so as to force or lure me to withdraw my claims, refuse to testify or otherwise absent myself from an official proceeding. See 45 C.F.R., §164.530(g)(1)(2)(i)(ii)(iii), see also 575.270, RSMo.

The named Respondent willingly committed his act(s) or omission(s) knowingly and with malice so as to achieve a personal gain or commercial advantage. Since the Respondent held prior knowledge that he was a named Respondent and therefore stood to substantially benefit from his act(s), omission(s) or the effects of the retaliation in his governmental capacity, title, office or authority, as well as his private employment and his membership to the Social Welfare Board of Directors. See 42 U.S.C., §1320d-6.

The named Respondent knowingly, willingly and maliciously subjected or caused me to be subjected to a blocking of my ability to email publicly elected and appointed government officials and therein receive representation from government officials. Thereby tampering with a government computer and/or software programs so as to alter such in a harmful way that deprived or abridged my civil rights in criminal manner and intent. See 18 U.S.C., §1030(4); 18 U.S.C., §241; see also 569.095, RSMo, 569.099, RSMo. Since the act conducted and harm inflicted rose out of a fraudulent or otherwise deceitful claim made to government official(s) who therein acted upon reliance of the Respondents claim.


SECTION SEVEN: [EQUALITY OF THE LAWS]

Despite the plain demonstration of the likelihood that criminal activity has occurred, Region VII staff made no effort to draw the attention of law enforcement personnel or to investigate such upon their own.

According to Rebeka Pinick, citizens are required to file their own complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as the DHHS/OCR staff will not render any assistance in filing a complaint either in conjuction with the citizen or simply on behalf of the DHHS/OCR.

In assuming the aforementioned position and demeanor the DHHS/OCR preys upon the inabilities and lack of legal education of citizens that might otherwise have complaints of possible criminal activity properly investigated and taken with far more credibility.

In speaking with an Agent of the FBI, the Agent informed me that he was unaware of any federal criminal statute that applies to HIPAA laws or that would apply to the specific set of circumstances I have encountered and as such. It becomes plainly apparent that despite the overt likelihood that criminal activity has occurred in the face of the federal statutory laws I have cited. The named Respondent will evade all degrees of criminal accountability, as well as civil accountability since HIPAA laws preclude a private cause of action and the DHHS/OCR Region VII Office has willfully refused to investigate the claim of retaliation. And from this I will be knowingly and willfully deprived or abridged my substantial protected liberty interest, right or privilege of equality of the laws.


SECTION EIGHT: [CLOSING]

Henry Kissenger once stated, "Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad." Thus, while the DHHS/OCR might not have anticipated that a citizen would raise the kinds of questions that my claims have posed. It does not mean that the appropriate response from DHHS/OCR staff should be to turn blind eyes or impose bureaucratic brick walls merely because DHHS/OCR staff find the prospect of having to investigate another government official "inconvenient".

Unless the AMA has fabricated their published statement, then such can only derive from a DHHS/OCR official telling the AMA that the "OCR will respond to complaints that are filed but will not proactively investigate, " and as such. The immediate cause and effect is to infringe upon the rights of citizens by enacting arbitrary government action under a false pretext that the HIPAA laws genuinely protect the privacy rights of patients. Since DHHS/OCR staff are given an unlawful discretionary authority to act corruptly by refusing to proactively investigate complaints and therein render prejudicial treatment in a light most favorable to covered entities, corporations and other covered individuals.


Respectfully,
Christopher Cross
Complainant
Complaint Tracking No. 04-24130