Walgreens liable for employees big mouth $1.4M

[tod evans]

And when governments employees do the same thing?



Walgreens to Pay $1.4M for Sharing a Patient's Medical Info With Her Ex

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/11/20/walgreens-to-pay-14m-for-sharing-patient-medical-info-with-her-ex/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork

Walgreens has been ordered to pay an Indiana woman $1.4 million in damages, all because one of its pharmacists made some poor decisions while caught up in a love triangle. Walgreens appealed the judgment, which an Indiana judge denied Nov. 14, confirming Walgreens’ negligence in the case.

The summary of events in Judge John Baker’s opinion reads like the plot of a bad soap opera. It starts with Abigail Hinchy (the plaintiff) and her on-again off-again boyfriend Davion Peterson: Hinchy gave birth to Peterson’s son in 2010, but at some point in 2009, Peterson started dating Audra Withers, a Walgreens pharmacist. Throughout her relationship with Peterson, Hinchy filled all her prescriptions at a Walgreens pharmacy, meaning Withers had access to her information.

When the case was tried in front of a jury, evidence showed Withers obtained Hinchy’s private health information and Social Security number, which she shared with Peterson. Peterson then shared the info with at least three other people. The jury found Walgreens vicariously liable for the breach, because it was negligent in training Withers to understand her role in keeping health records confidential, and Withers was “acting in the course of her employment” when she took Hinchy’s data.

“When you’re talking about protected medical history, we’re not talking about a selfie, we’re really talking about something very serious,” said Adam Levin, identity theft expert and chairman and co-founder of Credit.com. “There’s an enormous amount of information there that can be used to commit financial crimes.”

In this case, a Social Security number was compromised in addition to sensitive medical information. That’s a scary thought considering a Social Security number can be used to apply for credit in your name, access other medical records, file for a tax refund, and steal a person’s identity. If you’re worried your Social Security number has been compromised, you should monitor your credit regularly for signs of fraud. You can get copies of your credit reports for free once a year, and you can check your credit scores for free every month on Credit.com.

Employees like Withers are often the weak link in company data breaches.

“You can’t stop someone from doing something stupid, but unfortunately, doing something stupid can impact an entire organization,” Levin said.

Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso told Credit.com that the company plans to appeal the decision.

“We take seriously our responsibility to safeguard the privacy of medical records in our possession,” he said. “The pharmacist in this case admitted she was aware of our strict privacy policy and knew she was violating it. She was appropriately disciplined for her action. We believe it is a misapplication of the law to hold an employer liable for the actions of one employee who knowingly violates company policy.”

[osan]

Given HIPAA requirements and the general hazards of liability for the act of breathing, much less anything more daring, it seems difficult to believe that an operation like Walgreen's would be negligent in this manner. I wonder after the standard of judgment.

And was the employee not held responsible? Is the jury to have us believe she was unaware of the impropriety, if not illegality, of her actions?

This has the stink of deep-pockets all over it. More redistribution in the form of legitimized looting, aided and abetted by a jury.

Take a good snootful folks, and know well in your heart of hearts why America is virtually guaranteed doomed. What hope can there be when the rot has been institutionalized to the degree that even the most reflexive points of common sense are lost in the torrents of bullshit born of the profound corruption of the people of this land? We're toast.

[ghengis86]

Given HIPAA requirements and the general hazards of liability for the act of breathing, much less anything more daring, it seems difficult to believe that an operation like Walgreen's would be negligent in this manner. I wonder after the standard of judgment.

And was the employee not held responsible? Is the jury to have us believe she was unaware of the impropriety, if not illegality, of her actions?

This has the stink of deep-pockets all over it. More redistribution in the form of legitimized looting, aided and abetted by a jury.

Take a good snootful folks, and know well in your heart of hearts why America is virtually guaranteed doomed. What hope can there be when the rot has been institutionalized to the degree that even the most reflexive points of common sense are lost in the torrents of bullshit born of the profound corruption of the people of this land? We're toast.

Yeah, why isn't the person who broke the law held accountable? Oh yeah, she doesn't have millions like Walgreens. Aaannnndddd now cough syrup just went up in price a little bit to cover for the criminal actions of an individual.

[FriedChicken]

If they can prove that the employer had any knowledge that this was going but ignored it than I agree with the judgement.
As it stands it seems that criminal charges should be brought up against the employee and any settlement paid by her.

An investigation to see if her employers knew anything about it would be a good idea.

[Suzanimal]

I doubt Walgreens was in on it. Why in the hell would they risk litigation for a stupid love triangle? I think the pharmacist knew exactly what she was doing and she should be the one held accountable.

[osan]

If they can prove that the employer had any knowledge that this was going but ignored it than I agree with the judgement.

BIG "if" and almost guaranteed not to have been the case. Companies like this do NOT like paying out such sums. Even less yet do they care for the bad publicity it brings them. I do not for a moment assume they were in knowledge. Had they known, first thing they would have done, at the minimum, is begin an EEO case against the employee. More likely they would have fired her on the spot with cause and if they were keen to cover themselves, they would have referred her case to a local prosecutor or US attorney for violations of federal criminal statutes. No way is an operation like that going to sit idly by, much less be complicit.

Unless there is something truly vital omitted in the OP, this verdict is bullshit and the judge denying the appeal, a corrupt moron.


As it stands it seems that criminal charges should be brought up against the employee and any settlement paid by her.


Agreed, but she ain't got the deep pockets, so Walgreen's gets to suck it. I would sue that bitch into perpetual poverty, making sure she died in tatters for this.


An investigation to see if her employers knew anything about it would be a good idea.

Rest you assured that has already been done - standard element of the process of discovery.

[Cissy]

Walgreens has been ordered to pay an Indiana woman $1.4 million in damages, all because one of its pharmacists made some poor decisions while caught up in a love triangle. Walgreens appealed the judgment, which an Indiana judge denied Nov. 14, confirming Walgreens’ negligence in the case.

Poor decision? Try "committed a crime".

A poor decision is loaning** your coworker $20 when you know that the coworker dodges bill collectors. Is it a crime to loan your coworker the money? No. Is it a good idea? No.

Is it a crime to violate HIPAA. YES.

**Loaning, not gifting. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it would be a good decision to gift said coworker the money.

[Kilrain]

The information was provided to Walgreen's and Walgreen's should be held responsible for safekeeping it. Just like how a bank is liable if one of its employees steals from my account.

Of course, the amount seems very, very, very high, but the basic principle seems sound to me.

[presence]

How is it 6 years of "Accredited Education" for the PharmD didn't make this person personally responsible?

[Kilrain]

How is it 6 years of "Accredited Education" for the PharmD didn't make this person personally responsible?

She should be, but it's Walgreen's that should need to come after her for what she did. The "victim" goes after Walgreen's, Walgreen's goes after the "perp" - that's how it should be IMO.

[Verdictcorrect]

In my opinion verdict was correct. They should know it's a possibility among all the stores they have with strict policy that it's assumable that at some point an employee will do this.they can afford safeguards to only access certain info. It was according to some past cases that certain criteria or in so many aspects of using company info to complete the tort that employer is liable. Yes the employee should have consequences as well. I think if employees are sentenced to jail time others will think twice. However, that doesn't compensate the plaintiff only Walgreens can do that. Suppose a depressed mom in ongoing custody battle with a wealthy abusive ex admits herself to 6floor for major depression from loss of kids. A nurse at hospital who's friends with the ex uses hospital computer to reveal to ex before court that the mom is on 6floor. The ex tells the court why she's in the hospital calling her unstable. The mom then looses visitation due to the information. She wouldn't harm her kids. Any mom in this situation would have depression. Shouldn't hodpital be liable. They promised privacy from their employees. They don't have securities in place to keep 6floor patients out of main hospital registry. The act is malice oppressive and I would think within scope of employment. Shouldn't hospitsl compensate based on negligence and respondent superior. Didn't they allow that nurse to cause a woman in extreme emotional pain to furthermore to suffer.

[angelatc]

There is no right to privacy, and HIPPA is an infringement on free speech.

[PRB]

"vicariously liable" the magic words of a nanny state, somebody is responsible for something they didn't do.

they must've found out the actual criminal has no money, so goes after the deep pockets.

[PRB]

There is no right to privacy, and HIPPA is an infringement on free speech.

Yep. And Ron Paul agrees with you. Gag orders are BS.

Walter Block
"There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy:"

This page has been removed, but the text has been reposted somewhere
https://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

[Weston White]

You are mistaking the right to remain free from reasonable invasions of privacy and confidentiality, which each entering and crossing the realms of tort law and criminality.

Providing further explanation:

Is there a Difference Between Confidentiality and Privacy? (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/is-there-a-difference-between-confidentiality-and-privacy.html)
Invasion of Privacy (http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy.html) (Defined (http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/invasion-of-privacy.html))

[PRB]

You are mistaking the right to remain free from reasonable invasions of privacy and confidentiality, which each entering and crossing the realms of tort law and criminality.

Providing further explanation:

Is there a Difference Between Confidentiality and Privacy? (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/is-there-a-difference-between-confidentiality-and-privacy.html)
Invasion of Privacy (http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy.html) (Defined (http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/invasion-of-privacy.html))

Confidentiality is an agreement between 2 people, violation would be a violation of the agreement.

There is no per se inherent right to privacy or freedom from invasion of it.

[Anti Federalist]

Meh, call it theft and fraud then.

[Anti Federalist]

There is no per se inherent right to privacy or freedom from invasion of it.

Of course there is when it comes to government:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

[angelatc]

Meh, call it theft and fraud then.

Her employer might be able to call it data theft, but the pharmacist did not engage in fraud to obtain the information, and the victim willingly provided the information to the pharmacist.

[Weston White]

Confidentiality is an agreement between 2 people, violation would be a violation of the agreement.

There is no per se inherent right to privacy or freedom from invasion of it.

A breech of confidentiality it what this incident pertains to. Our nation is one of common law and it has set forth privacy as a right--not every fundamental humane right is explicitly enumerated throughout our Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

P.S. The entire Bill of Rights was an afterthought to acquire favor to finalize ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

[Anti Federalist]

Her employer might be able to call it data theft, but the pharmacist did not engage in fraud to obtain the information, and the victim willingly provided the information to the pharmacist.

Yes, to be used for specific purpose.

If I enter into an agreement with you, in which such and such is agreed to be used for "a" and you then use it for "b" to harm me, then that would be fraud, in my mind anyway.

[angelatc]

Yes, to be used for specific purpose.

If I enter into an agreement with you, in which such and such is agreed to be used for "a" and you then use it for "b" to harm me, then that would be fraud, in my mind anyway.

How was the victim harmed? Besides getting her feelings hurt, I mean.

(note that the article says the victims SSN was "compromised" but I think that's sort of a mealy mouthed way around it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

"vicariously liable" the magic words of a nanny state,


And you love it!

[Weston White]

And you love it!

Not only that he is McLovin' it and dancing around above it!

[PRB]

Of course there is when it comes to government:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Interpreting that as privacy is the bullshit that led to Roe vs Wade.

[osan]

Interpreting that as privacy is the bullshit that led to Roe vs Wade.

You've given us your conclusion, now show us the logical support.

[PRB]

A breech of confidentiality it what this incident pertains to. Our nation is one of common law and it has set forth privacy as a right--not every fundamental humane right is explicitly enumerated throughout our Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process



P.S. The entire Bill of Rights was an afterthought to acquire favor to finalize ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

citing Roe v Wade on a liberty forum? LOL

[PRB]

You've given us your conclusion, now show us the logical support.

Sorry, because I thought we were on a liberty forum that doesn't welcome baby killers.

There is no right to privacy, Ron Paul said so.

Right to privacy was wrong, it has led to Roe v Wade (legalized murder) and Lawrence v Texas (legalizing sodomy by force of federal government).

Need a simple syllogism?
1. There is no right to privacy
2. Laws based on false premises are wrong
Ergo
3. Laws based on the premise of privacy are wrong

[osan]

Sorry, because I thought we were on a liberty forum that doesn't welcome baby killers.

Perhaps you thought incorrectly.


There is no right to privacy, Ron Paul said so.

When did he say this and in what context?

Assuming he did, he would then be wrong, unless one is going to accept the premise that one man holds claims to life superior to those of another. Such being accepted, onus then falls upon one to explain in detailed deconstruction the basis. Good luck with that one.


Right to privacy was wrong, it has led to Roe v Wade (legalized murder)

You repeat your non-sequitur. I see no evidence in fact. Repetition of a non-proof does not by magic or any other mechanism convert it into proof.


and Lawrence v Texas (legalizing sodomy by force of federal government).

Sodomy is not a crime, in sé. If you differ, please demonstrate.


Need a simple syllogism?
1. There is no right to privacy
2. Laws based on false premises are wrong
Ergo
3. Laws based on the premise of privacy are wrong

Your syllogism fails based on the very premise (1), the truth of which you have thus far failed to demonstrate.

Feel like I am wasting my time.

[PRB]

Perhaps you thought incorrectly.


So you're saying the liberty movement welcomes baby killers?



When did he say this and in what context?


He was commenting on Lawrence.

The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.



Assuming he did, he would then be wrong, unless one is going to accept the premise that one man holds claims to life superior to those of another.


No. He's right, and he does not believe one holds claim to life higher than another, as far as I know.



Such being accepted, onus then falls upon one to explain in detailed deconstruction the basis. Good luck with that one.


Nobody said that.



You repeat your non-sequitur. I see no evidence in fact. Repetition of a non-proof does not by magic or any other mechanism convert it into proof.

Sodomy is not a crime, in sé. If you differ, please demonstrate.


Sodomy is a crime because the Bible says it is.



Your syllogism fails based on the very premise (1), the truth of which you have thus far failed to demonstrate.

Feel like I am wasting my time.

You're the one who thinks sodomy and baby killing is OK, and you complain about wasting your time?

[Kilrain]

Sodomy is a crime because the Bible says it is.


You are wrong because my shopping list says you are.

Really, if you think something "because Bible", that's fine. For you. But you have no business trying to argue with other people.

[PRB]

You are wrong because my shopping list says you are.

Really, if you think something "because Bible", that's fine. For you. But you have no business trying to argue with other people.

Last time I checked this country is founded on principles of Christian values.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.2

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.3

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!4

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world -John Adams

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Sodomy is a crime because the Bible says it is.



How does that square with your Jewish atheism?

[heavenlyboy34]

A breech of confidentiality it what this incident pertains to. Our nation is one of common law and it has set forth privacy as a right--not every fundamental humane right is explicitly enumerated throughout our Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process



P.S. The entire Bill of Rights was an afterthought to acquire favor to finalize ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Your links don't prove your claim. They are about the government. All the courts ruled consistently against a general "right to privacy".

[PRB]

How does that square with your Jewish atheism?

Sodomy is banned in the Old Testament, it's a command Jews, Christians and Muslims can all agree on.

Who's a Jewish atheist now?

[PRB]

Your links don't prove your claim. They are about the government. All the courts ruled consistently against a general "right to privacy".

Actually no, courts have NOT consistently ruled against right to privacy, they've ruled FOR it many times. And the citations DO prove it, but the courts are wrong, Ron Paul said so.

[idiom]

Yep. And Ron Paul agrees with you. Gag orders are BS.

Walter Block
"There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy:"

This page has been removed, but the text has been reposted somewhere
https://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Neither Free Speech nor Privacy exist in a Rothbardian philosophy. And if someone kills you indirectly, that is cool with Rothbard too.

[PRB]

Neither Free Speech nor Privacy exist in a Rothbardian philosophy. And if someone kills you indirectly, that is cool with Rothbard too.

But without government, who would restrict free speech?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Who's a Jewish atheist now?



You.

[PRB]

You.

Where did you get that??? Don't blow your chance to cite your evidences and prove me wrong and call me a liar!

[TheTexan]

What's the plaintiff's problem with SSN/medical-records being compromised anyway, does she have something to hide?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Where did you get that???



From you, the Jewish atheist. Maybe agnostic.

[PRB]

From you, the Jewish atheist. Maybe agnostic.

Where, when and how? Cite please.

[idiom]

But without government, who would restrict free speech?

Everybody who owns property?

Free Speech is a restriction on government. Without government, rights don't exist. All of the so called 'rights' are actually just restrictions on government.

A property owner has the ability to restrict travel, censor speech, restrict weaponry etc.

There is no pursuit of life liberty and happiness in Rothbard land, just property.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Where, when and how? Cite please.


Your Jewish atheism? Agnosticism?

[PRB]

Your Jewish atheism? Agnosticism?

What is the basis for your claim?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What is the basis for your claim?



If you weren't trolling, then you'd be a normal person and confirm or refute.

[PRB]

If you weren't trolling, then you'd be a normal person and confirm or refute.

No, when I deny something you call me a liar, so there's no way I ever win with your accusations. You've not refuted claims you're a child molester either. Your game is to ACCUSE ACCUSE ACCUSE and hope that just maybe i'll fail to notice one accusation and respond to it. It doesn't work that way, you've lied about me before and when asked you have no good answer (You went from not answering to giving an answer that makes no sense and you refuse to explain how you get from one thing to another).

But yeah, when you can't answer my question, you call me a troll. That's your best answer, I'm a troll and you're not. You quote me out of context and continue neg repping me because that's all you're capable of doing. If you had an argument or facts on your side, you'd just post it and shut me up. There's a reason you haven't done that.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, when I deny something you call me a liar, so there's no way I ever win with your accusations. You've not refuted claims you're a child molester either. Your game is to ACCUSE ACCUSE ACCUSE and hope that just maybe i'll fail to notice one accusation and respond to it. It doesn't work that way, you've lied about me before and when asked you have no good answer (You went from not answering to giving an answer that makes no sense and you refuse to explain how you get from one thing to another).

But yeah, when you can't answer my question, you call me a troll. That's your best answer, I'm a troll and you're not. You quote me out of context and continue neg repping me because that's all you're capable of doing. If you had an argument or facts on your side, you'd just post it and shut me up. There's a reason you haven't done that.


Are you a Jewish atheist or agnostic?

By the way, I really think you need help with your lying problem. You keep getting in deeper and deeper just to try to win a debate with me. The trouble is that the more you lie, the deeper you keep digging yourself. It really is pathological.

And it's all because you thought you would not get caught being a paid poster on this forum. Is the money worth it now?

[PRB]

Are you a Jewish atheist or agnostic?


Are you a child rapist, child molester or child abuser? See? I gave you THREE options!



By the way, I really think you need help with your lying problem. You keep getting in deeper and deeper just to try to win a debate with me. The trouble is that the more you lie, the deeper you keep digging yourself. It really is pathological.


That's your problem, you keep accusing me of lying so you interpret everything on the basis of me lying.




And it's all because you thought you would not get caught being a paid poster on this forum. Is the money worth it now?

Still waiting on proof.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Are you a Jewish atheist or agnostic?



Are you a child rapist,...




That's your reply to my question? Equating Jewish agnosticism with child molesting?

[PRB]

That's your reply to my question? Equating Jewish agnosticism with child molesting?

You're right, it's not a fair comparison. I actually have proof of you admitting you're one. Can you say the same for me?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You're right, it's not a fair comparison. I actually have proof of you admitting you're one. Can you say the same for me?

I am asking you the question. Are you a Jewish atheist or Jewish agnostic?

[PRB]

I am asking you the question. Are you a Jewish atheist or Jewish agnostic?

I asked you too! Are you a child abuser, child molester or child rapist?

http://38.media.tumblr.com/350b88cb9db73615255ad4700bf61f2e/tumblr_n50qv6jBuD1skh0gdo1_500.gif

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Ah, I knew it. He's diverting with his cute picture.

Aren't the people on the ZippyJuan account Jewish too? How about your buddy TheCount? Could it be that you are all with the National Jewish Democratic Council or similar organization?

[PRB]

Ah, I knew it. He's diverting with his cute picture.

Aren't the people on the ZippyJuan account Jewish too? How about your buddy TheCount? Could it be that you are all with the National Jewish Democratic Council or similar organization?

and I predicted that you won't deny being a child molester. Yay for me?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

and I predicted that you won't deny being a child molester. Yay for me?

If you think I'm a child molester, then why don't you turn me in?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I actually have proof of you admitting you're one.


No, you are lying. Again. That is the difference between you and me. I posts mound of evidence showing that you are trolling this board, while you post nothing.

Here are some quotes about your trolling. These are from your multiple threads. Combine that with all the other evidence and it becomes obvious as to why you are here.




I may be a troll, but I'm not flooding.


<p>
I was going to say eduardo or someone in the religion forum has made dumber troll threads, but I reckon you're right now that I think about it.&nbsp; Fire11 threads are pretty close.</p>

This wins for dumbest troll thread ever.

It's a silly brand of trolling.

I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone...On top of everything PRB simply lies.

Worst troll attempt in a while.. Merry Christmas op.

(Tool)

I guess it's too bad you weren't around to troll the authors of that document with that question. The mirth you would have created.....

Troll thread??


Trolls gotta troll.

PRB's trolling...




No Internet trolls back then...






My you are a soulless troll, aren't you?

[PRB]

If you think I'm a child molester, then why don't you turn me in?

Because I don't know your real name.

[PRB]

No, you are lying. Again. That is the difference between you and me. I posts mound of evidence showing that you are trolling this board, while you post nothing.


Now we're getting somewhere, so there's SOMETHING I can say and do to get you to post evidence. That wasn't so hard, was it?




Here are some quotes about your trolling. These are from your multiple threads. Combine that with all the other evidence and it becomes obvious as to why you are here.

Until you post your "all other evidence", I won't agree with your conclusion here just yet. But see? This is how you answer a question, find the posts and threads you claim exist. Now that you posted this, you don't see me going 'post it, you can't find any' anymore, do you?

You post multiple people who have said I was trolling, I won't say they're all wrong, I accept that accusation for purposes of those posts. That doesn't mean I always am, which even you've admitted.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Until you post your "all other evidence",....

I guess you STILL haven't noticed that your posts are the evidence.




I won't agree with your conclusion here just yet.


Oh look, another perp pretending that he's the judge.



That doesn't mean I always am [trolling],...

At first, you named only three categories of people you belittle, including conspiracy theorists and hyperinflationists. I've now posted five more of your trolling threads, with different categories. Keep moving the goalposts.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Because I don't know your real name.

You don't need someone's real name to turn them in. You said you worked in a law office and said you have prosecutors friends, so I would assume you know that.

[PRB]

I guess you STILL haven't noticed that your posts are the evidence.


Or, more accurately, I don't agree and admit that counts as evidence.



Oh look, another perp pretending that he's the judge.


Because accusers are always right.



At first, you named only three categories of people you belittle, including conspiracy theorists and hyperinflationists. I've now posted five more of your trolling threads, with different categories. Keep moving the goalposts.

You're conflating trolling with belittling. Nice slick move here, thinking I won't notice?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...thinking I won't notice?

You keep thinking I'm writing this for you. Fine; keep on talking, loose lips.

[Verdictcorrect]

I wish someone would reply to me verdict correct on my question. There have been many following posts but all seem like arguments. I would love y'all's opinion on the matter I posted about the hospital nurse and her disclosure of mental moms phi for court hearing.

[tod evans]

I wish someone would reply to me verdict correct on my question. There have been many following posts but all seem like arguments. I would love y'all's opinion on the matter I posted about the hospital nurse and her disclosure of mental moms phi for court hearing.

Try to compose your original post in a manner that follows a logical train of thought and it's likely you'll get a response or two.

All I was able to come away with was that you agreed with the verdict.

[LibForestPaul]

I doubt Walgreens was in on it. Why in the hell would they risk litigation for a stupid love triangle? I think the pharmacist knew exactly what she was doing and she should be the one held accountable.

A pharmacist, who went through four years of undergrad, and four years of doctoral study, at a state approved college, and obtained a state license to practice her trade, how could she know, without a one hour training session, that patient data is to be kept private.

[tod evans]

A pharmacist, who went through four years of undergrad, and four years of doctoral study, at a state approved college, and obtained a state license to practice her trade, how could she know, without a one hour training session, that patient data is to be kept private.

You've made a great case for pharmacist liability......

[LibForestPaul]

You've made a great case for pharmacist liability......
More curious why the state is allowing people without this knowledge obtain professional license. Seems negligent, but what do I know.