NarcononTR Appeals the Public Health Department Decision?

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by Intelligence, May 17, 2012.

  1. Intelligence Member

    Interesting PR Campaign? Second to last paragraph states NN TR has Appealed Decison.

    Well written :)

    http://narconontrsecrets [dot[ com/tag/david-edgar-love/

    • Like Like x 4
  2. Intelligence Member

    Interesting Tags:)

    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

    So what they're saying is you pulled it in, it's all lies and you are an apostate. They really need to get a new song and dance.
    • Like Like x 5
  4. adhocrat Member

    AFAIK, confidentiality rests with the patient, not the therapist. The therapist is ALWAYS bound by confidentiality unless ordered by competent legal authority to divulge data about the client.

    • Like Like x 6
  5. jensting Member

    Oh, really? As soon as a person speaks to another (we assume they mean another person) there is no confidentiality? Please take this to court, OSA. Please.

    Best Regards

    • Like Like x 7
  6. Intelligence Member

    The organization is in for a heap of trouble ahead - serious trouble, and I view this ONLY as a feeble attempt to "handle" the dox I recently submitted to investigators.

    Whoever wrote this ^^^^, was not from their normal writers? Indeed, very carefully worded.

    Now back to work:):):)

    • Like Like x 6
  7. Quentinanon Member

    You are correct. The patient or client is not under any confidentiality obligation. That obligation rests solely with the provider. The scientology crime syndicate cannot dance its way out of this one.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Intelligence Member

    And it appears there will be two more clients filing formal complaints concerning breach
    of patient confidentiality.

    • Like Like x 3
  9. Anonymous Member

    This is sooooo lulzy! Watching the cult make up the rules as they go, and they are going. Going. Soon to be gone.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    In the Unites States Confidentiality is covered by Title 42
    § 2.13 Confidentiality restrictions.

    (a) General. The patient records to which these regulations apply may be disclosed or used only as permitted by these regulations and may not otherwise be disclosed or used in any civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings conducted by any Federal, State, or local authority. Any disclosure made under these regulations must be limited to that information which is necessary to carry out the purpose of the disclosure.
    (b) Unconditional compliance required. The restrictions on disclosure and use in these regulations apply whether the holder of the information believes that the person seeking the information already has it, has other means of obtaining it, is a law enforcement or other official, has obtained a subpoena, or asserts any other justification for a disclosure or use which is not permitted by these regulations.
    (c) Acknowledging the presence of patients: Responding to requests. (1) The presence of an identified patient in a facility or component of a facility which is publicly identified as a place where only alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment, or referral is provided may be acknowledged only if the patient's written consent is obtained in accordance with subpart C of these regulations or if an authorizing court order is entered in accordance with subpart E of these regulations. The regulations permit acknowledgement of the presence of an identified patient in a facility or part of a facility if the facility is not publicy identified as only an alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment or referral facility, and if the acknowledgement does not reveal that the patient is an alcohol or drug abuser.
    (2) Any answer to a request for a disclosure of patient records which is not permissible under these regulations must be made in a way that will not affirmatively reveal that an identified individual has been, or is being diagnosed or treated for alcohol or drug abuse. An inquiring party may be given a copy of these regulations and advised that they restrict the disclosure of alcohol or drug abuse patient records, but may not be told affirmatively that the regulations restrict the disclosure of the records of an identified patient. The regulations do not restrict a disclosure that an identified individual is not and never has been a patient.
    §290dd–3. Confidentiality of patient records
    (a) Disclosure authorization
    Records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to alcoholism or alcohol abuse education, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States shall, except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, be confidential and be disclosed only for the purposes and under the circumstances expressly authorized under subsection (b) of this section.
    ) Continuing prohibition against disclosure irrespective of status as patient
    The prohibitions of this section continue to apply to records concerning any individual who has been a patient, irrespective of whether or when he ceases to be a patient.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    From above
    (b) Unconditional compliance required. The restrictions on disclosure and use in these regulations apply whether the holder of the information believes that the person seeking the information already has it, has other means of obtaining it, is a law enforcement or other official, has obtained a subpoena, or asserts any other justification for a disclosure or use which is not permitted by these regulations.
  12. adhocrat Member

    I just remembered. A few years ago I'm at the clinic for a meeting and I happen to see my therapist as she walks by. She ignores me.

    The next time I see her I ask her about it. Her response "We cannot say 'Hi' without breaching confidentiality. It means we know you and therefore the likely inference is you are a client."
    She can respond to my greeting, but not initiate one.

    scientology could never understand that level of respect for a client.
    • Like Like x 6
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. DeathHamster Member

    Scientology has trouble with spacing. They meant "the rapist".

    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Zak McKracken Member

    You know,
    at least some of the problems faced by residents could have occurred because you failed to "deliver enough" quality tech yourself.

    Get those stats back up.
    We expect to see two more Narconon facilities shut, by May 31.
    If we catch you falling behind, no more porcupines for you!
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Anonymous Member

    Another Narconon side effect - delusional.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. anon walker Moderator

    Really? Not even with a full History of Confidentiality Agreements on offer?

    They seem to be really fond of providing a History of Whatever the Fuck We're Talking About. It's one of their less endearing traits.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Intelligence Member

    • Like Like x 2
  18. Anonymous Member

  19. Anonymous Member

    eleventy. WTF are you talking about?
  20. Intelligence Member

    Update Just in 11:06am this Morning (Minutes ago) :)

    Wonder who they Appealed to - LOL - the Government doesn't know about it:):):) Too Funny!

    Launched new web site for Government to view if NN TR does Appeal:)

    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Herro Member

    It may just be that the paperwork hasn't been filed or processed yet.
  22. Intelligence Member

    Yes, that and anything is possible - - in Com with government just in case I need
    to send another batch of Dox that I already have prepared, but I think it's a moot case now.

    The ONLY way to succeed in an Appeal, is to change their Tech and hire a Staff with University dgrees
    and a whole mess of other issues.

    Even their 500 member Law Firm, Heenan and Blaikie is not representing them as before - - they have
    a one man lawyer and that's it.

    No money to even pay their staff and Source says in financial problems big time.

    I'm not concerned and onto other projects that include ABLE and the COS and Charities Commission etc :)

    • Like Like x 2
  23. Intelligence Member

    Data just in who wrote/published Article about Non-breach of Patient Confidentiality:

    server ip address:
    Leblanc, Roberta
    2 Fyne Court
    Duncraig, Western Australia 6023
    thats the registrant or the owner of the domain

    http://www.alcoholaddict [dot] info/
    They are from NN TR thats one of their introductory sites.
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Anonymous Member

    My guess is sthat Roberta's letter of baaaaaaaawwwww is about as close as they'll ever get to a legitimate appeal but it would be amusing to see what they might come up with regarding evidence of Narconon's proven effectiveness.

    They could try going all tone 40 with their made up statistics but the damn stupid wogs just don't respond to command intention like they're supposed to. Stupid stupid wogs. Stupid wogs. Stupid. Wogs.
    • Like Like x 3
  25. Anonymous Member

    I'm just glad that David is working for our side.
    • Like Like x 10
  26. Anonymous Member

    When you find the author of
    "disentitles him to client confidentiality"
    please encourage more of same.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Even if we were to take what they said as correct about you giving up you confidentiality, where exactly do they think it is ok to smear you with it?
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Anonymous Member

    So awesome, it clears lanes in other countries!

    • Like Like x 3
  29. RolandRB Member

    It's all covered in the book "Introduction to Scientology Ethics".
  30. adhocrat Member

    And never forget #12 of the Code of Honor
    say it with me
    "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. BlooAnon Member

  32. RolandRB Member

    Auditors are just as respectful. They wouldn't do a spider impression with their fingers when they walk past you if you had previously originated in your auditing that you were once eaten by a giant spider on the planet Thraag while you were bending down for a crap.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. RolandRB Member

    Did they rename "Clear Body; Clear Mind" to "Clear Mind Clean Body"?

    It's a good web page and a focussed resource apart from that.
  34. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Andre Ahern released confidential information concerning a Toronto mom’s Son, who was a patient at Narconon. Ahern states to CBC TV,….., “… when he arrived he was in a psychotic state. But you know what, we are not responsible for his condition when he came — for sure,” said Ahern.
    Also, Ahern released and published on several websites today, confidential patient case file information about David Edgar Love who was interviewed on the same CBC TV show. The Narconon Trois-Rivieres law firm, Heenan and Blaikie, informed Narconon to keep Love’s information off the internet and to remove all videos of David Love. Narconon abided my the request and all was removed until yesterday’s expose of the incompetent and unqualified staff at the Scientology Rehab in Trois-Rivieres.

    Question: Is Andre Ahern a doctor? Was David Love evaluated by a doctor? Where does athority come from to say "psychotic state"? Sounds like another smear attack.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. RolandRB Member

    Black PR him and then you'll get your accreditation back!
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Sadly that is how they are used to getting their way. They think Canada is the US
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. grebe Member

    Request Roland's avatar with the Bad Advice Dog background. Top text: "Black PR critic." Bottom text: "Narconon recertified!"

    Cuz Roland, you do the bad advice schtick like no one else.
    • Like Like x 2
  38. jensting Member

    Exactly! There can be no patient/doctor confidentiality since narCONon staff and leadership have no medical qualifications! See, nothing to worry about.

    Best Regards

    • Funny Funny x 1
  39. Anonymous Member

    In the good old US of A, its Title 42, see post # 10
  40. Herro Member

    Well if they meet the accreditation criteria and don't hide that the whole program is based on Scientology methods, I see nothing wrong with them reopening.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins