Rumer v. Doe et al (2020) - Whoever loses, we win

  • DDoS is active again.

twattycake

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Didn't see these posted, so here you go:
Thanks and added to the OP. This may also be why the response was filed by "Jamie Roe", "Roe" is an accepted stand-in for a party who is known to the Court but allowed to proceed anonymously (if this sounds familiar it's because Roe v Wade was filed by a Roe defendant, her real name was Norma McCorvey).

@AnOminous does this insulate Rumer from complaints under HIPPA/other patient privacy laws if it turns out she shared patient information with her attorneys? The judge's order is retroactive so anyone looking at the updated docket on ECF/PACER is not going to be able to see the defendant's real name anymore.​

Judge Chad isn't having this lmfao.
This is like Kiwi Farms fanfiction come to life, the presiding judge in a troon/butcher legal fight is literally named Chad.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net

@AnOminous does this insulate Rumer from complaints under HIPPA/other patient privacy laws if it turns out she shared patient information with her attorneys? The judge's order is retroactive so anyone looking at the updated docket on ECF/PACER is not going to be able to see the defendant's real name anymore.​
I'm not actually sure about that, but I'm pretty sure there has to be some kind of litigation exception. Once something's in a court record, it's public, although I think the defendant might be able to have such material filed under seal, at least if they had a lawyer. It seems the defendant is at a serious disadvantage here, and I think it's pretty repulsive for a quack butcher like Rumer to sue a patient for talking about being butchered.
 

Useful_Mistake

Trying to teach law to another retard.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to be missing MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY, and it's response. We have the ruling on that, but do we have the original motion? If not, I can get it NVM, the files are restricted
 
Last edited:

twattycake

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm not actually sure about that, but I'm pretty sure there has to be some kind of litigation exception [to HIPAA]. Once something's in a court record, it's public, although I think the defendant might be able to have such material filed under seal, at least if they had a lawyer.
It looks like Rumer is trying to put that genie back in the bottle since she did not oppose the motion to proceed anonymously.

I also looked and could not find a HIPAA exception for doctors as plaintiffs: This site lists out HIPAA exceptions and the closest to Rumer's situation would be "Law Enforcement Purposes" item 1 (responses to court orders) or 2 (to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person) but they're still a stretch. Item 1 would have required Rumer to subpoena herself or one of her own staff and Item 2 only allows disclosure to courts or law enforcement, i.e. not her own attorneys.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to be missing MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY, and it's response. We have the ruling on that, but do we have the original motion? If not, I can get it
Yeah do you have a copy handy? I tried logging into PACER and it says I don't have permission to view the motion.... guess the judge (well, his clerk or IT staff) already started enforcing the seal on documents with the defendant's name.

If I am reading between the lines correctly the defense used the bad reputation of Kiwi Farms to tell the butcher bitch to fuck off with attempting to dox the defendants.
It's not just you, the memorandum states the defendant "asserts that, as a result of this lawsuit, her personal information has already appeared on a notorious internet forum that directs harassment and threats to transgender women." The OP was based on publicly available information but includes a name & address and I can't imagine who else the defense motion could be referring to unless 8chan or ED has its own tranny drama thread.
 

Useful_Mistake

Trying to teach law to another retard.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Yeah do you have a copy handy? I tried logging into PACER and it says I don't have permission to view the motion.... guess the judge (well, his clerk or IT staff) already started enforcing the seal on documents with the defendant's name.
No, seems like I can't access it either
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
It looks like Rumer is trying to put that genie back in the bottle since she did not oppose the motion to proceed anonymously.

I also looked and could not find a HIPAA exception for doctors as plaintiffs: This site lists out HIPAA exceptions and the closest to Rumer's situation would be "Law Enforcement Purposes" item 1 (responses to court orders) or 2 (to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person) but they're still a stretch. Item 1 would have required Rumer to subpoena herself or one of her own staff and Item 2 only allows disclosure to courts or law enforcement, i.e. not her own attorneys.
Wouldnt he defendant waived any HIPAA guarantee by talking about the procedure on a public review site?

It's not just you, the memorandum states the defendant "asserts that, as a result of this lawsuit, her personal information has already appeared on a notorious internet forum that directs harassment and threats to transgender women." The OP was based on publicly available information but includes a name & address and I can't imagine who else the defense motion could be referring to unless 8chan or ED has its own tranny drama thread.
Thats a shame cause we seem to be mostly sympathetic to her since Rumer started this shit
 
Last edited:

twattycake

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Wouldnt he defendant waived any HIPAA guarantee by talking about the procedure on a public review site?
By its own admission the "Rumers Anonymous" blog at the heart of all this is an aggregator of horror stories about Rumer from other patients. To quote the Blog's own first post (link) (archive):

Well quite frankly I'm sick of it, again who I am doesn't matter, I can be anything that you want me to be. The purpose of this blog is to collect stories, whether found on the web or submitted and eventually submit it to every medical board, Hahnemann hospital, and every organization so that this bitch never practices surgery again!
So the author makes it clear that these are stories from multiple people and that s/he may not even be a Rumer patient - even if Rumer could figure out each patient's identity from the description of the complications she'd have no way of proving any of them are responsible for the blog. Her ability to narrow it down to one person in particular means she must have had more information than just the blog itself, and if that "more information" was her own records then she's really close to violating HIPAA.

Thats a shame cause we seem to be mostly on her side here since Rumer started this shit
Yeah but all that nuance is lost outside of this site. We exist and many online communities know it, but they try to avoid mentioning us by name except to call us literal Nazis out on an anti-trans genocide. It's a clever way to avoid the Streisand Effect and discount anything we publish even if it's legit.
 
Last edited:

twattycake

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I have some bad news: There were new filings submitted earlier this week and it looks like the judge's order to block public access applies to all filings going forward other than ones from the judge himself - I couldn't even see a redacted or summarized version. Fortunately the judge still has to rule on any filings Rumer and Jamie make so we can still have a little fun here.

The judge has issued an order denying a second motion to dismiss in response to Rumer's amended complaint (both are attached below). It appears that Miller filed a defense in a withheld document citing CDA 230 (which holds a site owner is not liable for third-party comments - this law is the entire reason any social media or message boards can exist, especially small and controversial ones like us). The judge rejecting this motion does not mean there is no plausible CDA230 defense, only that the idea that CDA230 does not apply to Miller given his specific circumstances is plausible. For those who are not attorneys rulings on motions to dismiss are plaintiff friendly by design and are only ruled in the defendant's favor if the plaintiff has no claim even if every plausible claim in his/her complaint is assumed to be true.

Now let's take a look at this post from the "Rumers Anonymous" Blog. Theatrics aside the post claims that the person who registered the blog was identified via some sort of user lookup and got subpoenaed but claims to have absolute immunity under 230, which also seems to be what Jamie claimed in his motion to dismiss. What this tells me is that Jamie Miller was not some innocent ex-Rumer patient who got extremely unlucky, he is the registrar for Rumers Anonymous. If he also posted on there, or did reviews of the posts, then he is also a user of the site and can be sued as an ordinary user, not the host. What I do not know is how Rumer plans to prove he did that since now she needs proof of a connection between Miller and the site's posters and she has not been able to identify the posters at all.

EDIT: Three things I forgot.

First, Miller's motion to appoint counsel was denied. The judge did not give an explanation and the request to appoint counsel is not publicly available forcing him to proceed as a self represented (pro se) defendant seems fundamentally unfair to me.

Second, presumption of innocence means Rumer should have to prove that Miller is more than just a "provider" of an internet hosting service to win her claim. That being said, Miller is a pro se defendant so he will have trouble winning that argument if Rumer's attorneys are even moderately competent.

Third, this means my theory that Rumer using her own records to narrow down the possible authors was probably incorrect - getting the information from Blogspot explains everything and is entirely fair game despite her HIPAA responsibilities.

@AnOminous could you correct me if I am wrong here and/or call Kathy Rumer a fucking cunt?​
 

Attachments

  • Lolsuit-CDA230.pdf
    129 KB · Views: 19
  • FirstAmendedComplaint.pdf
    186.6 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Third, this means my theory that Rumer using her own records to narrow down the possible authors was probably incorrect - getting the information from Blogspot explains everything and is entirely fair game despite her HIPAA responsibilities.

@AnOminous could you correct me if I am wrong here and/or call Kathy Rumer a fucking cunt?
If the last is true, then your conclusion is probably true. I retain suspicions she used the Blogspot records to have a legally safe way of confirming what she already knew, but without evidence of that, it's a pretty worthless supposition.

I would definitely avoid any physician who acted in this manner. Imagine getting mutilated and then getting sued for discussing your personal experiences. Absolutely shameful and unprofessional.
 

twattycake

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There has not been anything noteworthy on the court docket but it looks like something has been going on behind the scenes: the "Rumers Anonymous" blog which started this whole suit was deleted and the URL is banned from use by future users (archive link).

Unfortunately for Kathy Rumer, autism is eternal and the entire blog has been archived (pages not in any particular order):








I don't know whether the deletion was Rumer's attorneys contacting Blogspot or Miller deleting it in some last-ditch attempt to avoid liability but both seem credible frankly. The only one which was not archived was a post mocking and nitpicking a subpoena from Rumer's attorney to death.

EDIT (Updated 28-08-21): Thank God there are Kiwis who are better about archiving stuff than me, @Hamplanet Fitness screencapped all the funny bits from the one post which was not archived in the OP for the Rumer thread. Semper Fi to all are brave kiwis.

rumers1-jpg.1962682

rumers2-jpg.1962681

rumers3-jpg.1962680

rumers4-jpg.1962679

rumers5-jpg.1962678

rumers6-jpg.1962677

rumers7-jpg.1962676

rumers8-jpg.1962675

It looks like the post mocking the subpoena from Rumer's attorneys has been lost forever. Obviously I don't have it or it wouldn't be lost, but in it the author (unclear if it was Miller, the author of the other posts, or someone who truly is unrelated) went through the subpoena he received and mocked and nitpicked each of Rumer's claims to death. It was funny but in hindsight it was clear he did not expect Rumer to actually make good on her threat.

I was not the person who made the other archives but either way forgive my lack of diligence.

EDIT X2: Added a bit of detail on the now-lost post.

EDIT X3: Jamie Miller has requested to appear via video/telecon for his September 16 hearing rather than in person and Rumer did not object, leading the judge to grant the request (order attached). The hearing will deal specifically with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 matters, and I'm going to ping @AnOminous to explain what that is and whether those hearings are ordinarily open to the public to avoid making a fool of myself.
 

Attachments

  • Butcher says stay home.pdf
    99.5 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Top