To: Loretta E. Lynch, 83rd US Attorney General
US AG Intervene! Utah Courts Support Invasion of Privacy
The Department of Justice should intervene. Utah Judge Shaughnessy blatantly miscategorized an invasion of privacy concerning a black family in Utah.
Why is this important?
To the Office of Civil Rights, Special Litigation, US Department of Justice
When it comes to one black woman in Utah, Utah courts intentionally neglect precedence or misinterpret the facts to coerce an outcome on an that immunizes the white, elite of a religious organization and others at the expense of the law.
Precedence on Invasion of Privacy Torts is clear -The courts have traditionally investigated this questions in 4 or less steps as necessary.
In the case the litigant demanded remedies under 3 of the 4 aspects of the tort, namely:
1. Intrusion of Seclusion
2. False Light
3. Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts
but Utah 3rd District Court chose to lump all the three aspects of the tort under one claim of Defamation instead of testing and discharging all the different categories as they have done in other cases.
In applying this standard, the court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) the
I am the person involved in the Invasion of Privacy case that Utah courts failed to view in the light of the case I cite above.
Regarding the background information of the case:
I requested my daughter's ( then a minor) medical files from Dr. McDonough, who instead of giving the files to me, chose to give them to Bishop Reese of the LDS Holladay 4th Ward. I was very upset about this situation and when I protested the bishop's actions, Kirton & McConkie, an LDS law firm, wrote me a letter that barred me from the Mormon Church property. This letter contained a threat to have me arrested if I did not follow the orders in it. In addition to the order to stay away from the church property, the letter also instructed me to take medication, get counseling and be reviewed by Bishop Poulsen, who would decide whether or when to lift the ban after he had conferred with the law firm. This medication the law firm was instructing me to take was Lamictal, prescribed to me by an IHC Nurse Clinician;this was a major misdiagnosis whose prescription had horrible side effects. A few years later, Dr DeCaria successfully diagnosed me with PTSD--brought about by a traumatic war and violence in Southern Africa--and said no medication was necessary for my condition.
I filed a 3-prong Invasion of Privacy claim and you can follow it here with the documents that I filed with the various courts:
I initially filed this case in the Federal District Court where the court decided they would not hear the case or exercise what they termed "supplemental jurisdiction". I then filed the case in the Third District Court where the court lumped all the 3 parts of the case under "Defamation". It was Kirton & McConkey attorneys who decided that the entire Invasion of Privacy Claim be lumped under "Defamation". I disagree. Defendants, Kirton & McConkey included, obtained my family's private medical files from the health practitioners without my permission. This is a claim on its own. Then they brought this information to publicity. This is another aspect of the claim. The ultimate result of their unlawful activity was to present me in poor light. That is the third aspect of this tort claim.
After the Third District dismissed the case under "Defamation", I requested a hearing in The Utah Court of Appeals to be heard on my claim as I had filed it under 3 prongs. This court returned the case to the lower court where I have requested a hearing over ten times without a response.
All I am asking for is a simple hearing. The US courts as well as Utah Courts have a clear history on this type of a tort case, but they are choosing not to follow the rules. Miscategorizing this case in order to immune Mormon and IHC officials involved in this case is not justice.
I demand that this case be opened and those who broke the law face justice. Religion and State must be separate in Utah or injustices continue to protect religious duties.
When it comes to one black woman in Utah, Utah courts intentionally neglect precedence or misinterpret the facts to coerce an outcome on an that immunizes the white, elite of a religious organization and others at the expense of the law.
Precedence on Invasion of Privacy Torts is clear -The courts have traditionally investigated this questions in 4 or less steps as necessary.
In the case the litigant demanded remedies under 3 of the 4 aspects of the tort, namely:
1. Intrusion of Seclusion
2. False Light
3. Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts
but Utah 3rd District Court chose to lump all the three aspects of the tort under one claim of Defamation instead of testing and discharging all the different categories as they have done in other cases.
In applying this standard, the court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) the
I am the person involved in the Invasion of Privacy case that Utah courts failed to view in the light of the case I cite above.
Regarding the background information of the case:
I requested my daughter's ( then a minor) medical files from Dr. McDonough, who instead of giving the files to me, chose to give them to Bishop Reese of the LDS Holladay 4th Ward. I was very upset about this situation and when I protested the bishop's actions, Kirton & McConkie, an LDS law firm, wrote me a letter that barred me from the Mormon Church property. This letter contained a threat to have me arrested if I did not follow the orders in it. In addition to the order to stay away from the church property, the letter also instructed me to take medication, get counseling and be reviewed by Bishop Poulsen, who would decide whether or when to lift the ban after he had conferred with the law firm. This medication the law firm was instructing me to take was Lamictal, prescribed to me by an IHC Nurse Clinician;this was a major misdiagnosis whose prescription had horrible side effects. A few years later, Dr DeCaria successfully diagnosed me with PTSD--brought about by a traumatic war and violence in Southern Africa--and said no medication was necessary for my condition.
I filed a 3-prong Invasion of Privacy claim and you can follow it here with the documents that I filed with the various courts:
I initially filed this case in the Federal District Court where the court decided they would not hear the case or exercise what they termed "supplemental jurisdiction". I then filed the case in the Third District Court where the court lumped all the 3 parts of the case under "Defamation". It was Kirton & McConkey attorneys who decided that the entire Invasion of Privacy Claim be lumped under "Defamation". I disagree. Defendants, Kirton & McConkey included, obtained my family's private medical files from the health practitioners without my permission. This is a claim on its own. Then they brought this information to publicity. This is another aspect of the claim. The ultimate result of their unlawful activity was to present me in poor light. That is the third aspect of this tort claim.
After the Third District dismissed the case under "Defamation", I requested a hearing in The Utah Court of Appeals to be heard on my claim as I had filed it under 3 prongs. This court returned the case to the lower court where I have requested a hearing over ten times without a response.
All I am asking for is a simple hearing. The US courts as well as Utah Courts have a clear history on this type of a tort case, but they are choosing not to follow the rules. Miscategorizing this case in order to immune Mormon and IHC officials involved in this case is not justice.
I demand that this case be opened and those who broke the law face justice. Religion and State must be separate in Utah or injustices continue to protect religious duties.