| cary
Registered User |
2007-06-26 03:56:37 AM
Re:NOMINATION: "Dr." Andrew B. Chung for the Palmjob Paddle (was Physician impersonator now in federal prison.
Archie Leach < mungez@mo.i>
Quote
In the thread below, Chung thoroughly gets paddled on his blatant,
willful and cowardly misinterpretation of statutes regarding physician
impersonation, and when called on it, trots out the tired old "Without
the Lord, your fantasies are meaningless" line. Game, set.
For this, I nominate Chungfraud for the Palmjob Paddle. Seconds?
I had to trot over to caballista.org (which strangely enough,
is not burning with celestial fire; maybe God needs to get
another browser?) and review the "Palmjob Paddle" award.
Having done so, I'd say that our Andrew is, if anything,
overqualified for this prestigious award. And so I second.
-- cary
Quote
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love14@thetruth.com>wrote:
>convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>>>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>>convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>>>>>Andrew in the Holy Spirit boldly wrote:
>>>>>>>convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Impersonating a physician" -- without offering medical
>>>>>>>>advice -- is precisely as much a federal crime as
>>>>>>>>is "Impersonating a grocery clerk".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A couple of applicable federal laws:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"falsifying electronic source information;"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Source: 18 USC Sec. 1030
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of
>>>>>>>identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid
>>>>>>>or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal
>>>>>>>law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local
>>>>>>>law;"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Source: 18 USC Sec. 1028
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again: nothing specific to physicians. A streetwalker is no
>>>>>>less protected than you by the above.
>>>>>
>>>>>See below.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Impersonating a physician can be deemed a felony under applicable
>>>>>>>state or local law even when no medical advice has been given.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, let's see that law, then. The above says nothing of the sort.
>>>>
>>>>>New York Penal Law 190.26(3):
>>>>>
>>>>>"A person is guilty of Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree (E
>>>>>Felony) when he or she knowingly pretends to be a duly licensed
>>>>>physician or ..."
>>>>
>>>>Hey, we'll skip the part where you said "impersonating a physician
>>>>is a FEDERAL crime", and get right to the part where you
>>>>lie by selective editing, OK?
>>>
>>>Where there is no intent to deceive, there is no lie.
>>
>>Your snipping could not have been any more precise if it
>>were intended with malice aforethought. However, if you're
>>trying to tell me you can't read one sentence of legalese,
>>I suppose I'll accept that.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the first degree when
>>>>he:
>>>>
>>>>3. Pretending to be a duly licensed physician or other person
>>>>authorized to issue a prescription for any drug or any instrument or
>>>>device used in the taking or administering of drugs for which a
>>>>prescription is required by law, communicates to a pharmacist an oral
>>>>prescription which is required to be reduced to writing pursuant to
>>>>section thirty-three hundred thirty-two of the public health law.
>>>>
>>>>It's a crime only if you, pretending to be a physician, write or
>>>>call in a bogus script to a pharmacist.
>>>
>>>That would be up to the Federal Courts to decide.
>>
>>Or anyone who can read a single sentence.
>>
>>Incidentally, why do you have a New York statute showing up
>>in Federal Court? You see some sort of Constituional
>>Issue in the above?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>No doubt snipping that out was inadvertent on your part.
>>>
>>>The entire text of the NY State law code is not required for
>>>understanding the spirit of the law which simply conveys the concept
>>>that it is understandably unlawful to impersonate a physician.
>>
>>If it is, they will explicitly say so. If they do not explicitly
>>say so, then a first-year law school student could get you off.
>>
>>And the "spirit" of the above law is utterly clear: they don't
>>want me calling in a scrip for 100 codeines and a syringe.
>>They don't care if I go to a bar and (pathetically) try
>>to pick up chicks by going "Hi, I'm Doctor Kittrell".
>>
>>
>>>It
>>>remains a fact that physicians have access to the protected medical
>>>information of their patients so that anyone impersonating a physican
>>>is a threat to the privacy of many others.
>>
>>Unauthorized access to private records is without a doubt
>>covered in state and federal laws; there is no need to
>>specify if a pretend doctor does it or a pretend lawyer does
>>it or a pretend insurance investigator does it or a pretend
>>army recruiter does it or a pretend...
>>
>>>
>>>Many thanks, much praise and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
>>>you to continue to unwitting demonstrate that indeed HE has given the
>>>foreknowledge that you will continue to lack both wisdom and
>>>understanding.
>>>
>>
>>And yet, oddly, you're the one who mis-represented, mis-read,
>>and are now grasping wildly in all directions to try to paper
>>it over...
>
>Without the LORD, your fantasies are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
>
>You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor Cary whom I love
>unconditionally.
>
>Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
>
>Andrew <><
-
|
