The equities of this situation are thus:
The person who is working hard to obey the court orders (me) is, in practicality, being punished.
The people who are violating the court orders, or statutory requirements of confidentiality, are being rewarded.
“Sealed” records are not sealed from court personnel, and the notion that a court record (memorandum, order) can be electronically “sealed” is preposterous. From the very description of it, court personnel can open it, read it, and likely even save it, email it, whatever they want.
The notion of “sealing” something means that those who obey the law can’t use it. While those who are breaking the law (the ones we are supposed to be holding accountable in this system) can and do use it.
The sealing of that Supreme Court 12/20/12 order, the sealing of my medical records was intended to protect me. Now it is merely protecting my abusers.
The notion that elected officials can get a court order to prevent me, a member of the public, from discussing their email communications, is not only preposterous, it is prior restraing of my speech.
In the equities, we must consider all positions. If the court order was illegal in the first place, why should I be penalized by the present situation? And why should it have been so very difficult for me, over this past year (a year, people) to get the right information to the right judges without extreme interference? And you now know what I was trying to do. Get more money for the courts, get more judges. Geez, what a terrible agenda.
My duty is threefold: to the public good, to my clients, and to myself. I think I have found a way to serve all three. I’m done sitting at the back of the bus. I’m taking a seat in the front.
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
I ask in the court of public opinion, if you think I am being “contemptuous” for: a) trying to expose problems in the courts that have been festering and harming and bothering all kinds of people for years; b) trying to help people understand what is happening so that we can work together to fashion a solution; and c) trying to speak to the public square from my position of education and experience, if you think that what I am doing is contemptuous, please let me know.
You will have go to “about” and enter your name and contact information. I am not in the mood for anonymous blather. That gets us nowhere. You will have to be man or woman enough to stand up, state your name, and what you think I am doing wrong (if anything) and why.
For all of you chickens out there, who think you can skulk around behind the scenes and go to your buddies to get them to whack me, I simply remind you that you aint done it yet, and I am still typing, and I am going to keep typing until I am stopped.
If you stop me, I remind you, again, that you will be doing it in full view of everyone who is the “public” for purposes of this blog, and that includes, well, the world.
So enough with the slimey slithery stuff. Man up, and meet my criticisms of conduct and practices with the same level of discourse that I am giving to it. If you think I’m wrong about my analysis of a statute, tell me why. If you think my analysis of the law is not what you would do if you were in my position, let me know.
For those less inclined to strike out or cover up, for anyone who wants to say that they either agree with me, or are thinking something similar, or if you merely want to say, hey, keep going, those comments are welcome as well.
I’m going to try to keep my posts short. That should also help, if you want to post, you will have a fairly concise thought to respond to.