The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) - Firewire News Case Study: Violent Terrorist ID Theft Ring at UCSF Medical Center

The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) was born of the struggles of one tenacious survivor of domestic violence and stalking. The NCIDP continues her work with the help of many. Read more about the NCIDP...

This is one Case Study of a series run by Firewire News about San Francisco cases.

UPDATE! Another news outlet, local to San Francisco, the SF Weekly, published an article on 09/12/2009 exposing the prevalence of links between cultist organizations and non-profit healthcare agencies in San Francisco, and the use of them as revenue sources for other operations. Is that cult connected to, or itself, the self-described "terrorists that own San Francisco"? Are the plethora of corrupt abuses of survivors of domestic violence by health care and domestic violence agencies across San Francisco all part of the same terrorist, possibly also cult, organization? [SF Weekly article, "Charitable Front", http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-09/news/charitable-front/].

IMPORTANT NOTE: This case study describes one specific incident at the UCSF Medical Center. However, it should be noted that within the terrorist network that "owns" San Francisco and San Francisco health care, every clinic in and around San Francisco shown to be a terrorist cell participating in that San Francisco terrorist network, or behaving like that terrorist network, is tied to UCSF. The links are so consistent as to create the appearance that UCSF is at or near the center of that larger San Francisco terrorist network. This is one particular case from within its own walls.

(Firewire News) - With the knowing and willing participation of their own corporate legal counsel, the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center is a center for the violent theft of patient property – patient identity information. With this lockstep participation in identity theft racketeering embedded into the corporate culture, frontline staff of the Medical Center willingly, almost eagerly, assault patients and steal their identity information for the criminal misuse of UCSF.

As a teaching hospital, the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center is teaching innumerable students to brutalize and violate medical patients across the United States and around the world.

IIULA status:

The perpetrator(s) of this article is(are) known by the NCIDP to have contracted identity information pursuant to the standardized Survivor's Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA) prior to this incident.

Every breach of law perpetrated, as discussed here and noted in the IIULA, was well known by the perpetrator(s) to be such breach prior to enactment, and the enactments must be construed to have been committed with mens rea (knowing intent to do violent crime).

A woman attending an outpatient appointment at the UCSF Medical Center was directed to an outpatient registration department. It was claimed that patients could not be seen in the clinic at which they had an appointment and had arrived until they went somewhere else first to register for that outpatient appointment – then went back to the clinic. This byzantine epitome of gross inefficiency isn't the worst of the problem at UCSF, however.

Upon arriving at the outpatient registration department, the registration clerk solicited an insurance card from the patient, which the woman provided. Pursuant to California statutes and federal law, no Social Security Number appeared on the face of the card provided. Moreover, the card contained notice that tender of the card and insurance in no way authorized access to the woman's confidential Social Security Number, and that, indeed, such access was explicitly prohibited to all providers, in this case UCSF. The card further gave notice that all terms and conditions of the standardized Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA) applied and were in force, and that it was a crime to violate these provisions or use any information provided to steal the patient's confidential Social Security Number.

The patient emphasized those notices.

The registration clerk accepted those notices, contracted to the IIULA, and made copies of the insurance card, but bizarrely and inanely solicited a Social Security Number anyway.

Disclosure is always voluntary unless a proper Privacy Act Notice stating that disclosure is mandatory by enumerated federal statute accompanies the solicitation for a Social Security Number. In this case, no such proper Privacy Act Notice was even given. Consequently, disclosure was voluntary, and disclosure could not be made mandatory by law.

The woman reiterated the notices, repeated that all access to her confidential Social Security Number was absolutely prohibited to UCSF, and went on to emphasize that she was a target of domestic violence and had a restraining order against an ex-partner – an ex-partner working at UCSF and who had extensive access to records. The woman further restated what the clerk already knew, that the law protected the woman's right to withhold her Social Security Number without adverse consequences for exercising that right, which in this case was a matter of life-and-death due to the violent nature of the ex-partner that she was trying to remain safe from. She even clarified that her ex-partner had never had access to her confidential Social Security Number during the relationship, and that entering it into her medical records made it readily available to that violent and abusive ex – completely unacceptable and prohibited.

With the most arrogant air, the clerk then immediately proceeded to violently assault the victim, breaching the contract that the clerk and UCSF had just bound themselves to, typing a few keystrokes on a computer screen and within seconds stealing, from some unknown electronic source, the victim's confidential Social Security Number and writing it down right in front of that victim. She had never been a patient at UCSF, so the identity theft conspiracy at UCSF clearly reaches beyond its own walls to outside co-conspirators. UCSF refused to identify the co-conspirators that enabled it to steal this victim's identity.

The victim was so beside herself with the traumatic injury and upset of that vile violent assault by the clerk that she had to leave the UCSF Medical Center immediately, never making it back to the clinic for her appointment.

The victim filed all of the proper complaints, both criminal and administrative. Administratively, UCSF Medical Center has a so-called "patient advocate" department, proven to be one of the grossest misnomers imaginable. In response to the victim's complaint to the "patient advocates", those so-called patient advocates sent a reply advocating for the violent assailant at the registration desk, and the commission of violent identity theft and racketeering crimes by UCSF and its staff.

The so-called "patient advocate" responded that a response to the complaint would be forthcoming, but that it was taking some time as the UCSF legal counsel had been called in to address the assault.

In the face of the federally guaranteed RIGHT to prohibit UCSF access to any Social Security Number without adversity (P.L. 93-579 § 2 & 7), and making it a federal felony to compel such disclosure (42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(8), 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 371, 641, 654, 659, 666, 1001, 1028, 1028A, 1035, 1341,1343, 1346, 1347, 1512, 1905, 1951, 1952, 1957, 1961-1968, 2314, 2315; et. al.; as applicable); the "institutional felony advocates" claimed that UCSF was required by STATE LAW to steal a patient's Social Security Number. NEVER does an inferior state statute override an individual's right GUARANTEED IN FEDERAL LAW, but UCSF didn't even cite a statute! The misnamed "patient advocate" cited a California state agency regulation (CCR Title 22, Sec. 70749) addressing hospitals and mandating that they obtain the Social Security Numbers of hospital inpatients only (remember, the victim was an outpatient, not an inpatient), and only when the patient granted applicable availability of that information. Remember, a regulation can never supersede any LAW whatsoever.

The victim responded to this claim by not only reiterating the superiority of the federally guaranteed right, but also by pointing out the complete inapplicability of the state REGULATION to an outpatient situation in the first place, and including its qualified provision referring to its own inapplicability in the face of SSN withholding by patients. Indeed, UCSF and providers in general have no legal authority to even solicit a Social Security Number from any outpatient under state or any other law.

Now, clearly the UCSF legal counsel could not possibly have been so completely incompetent as to genuinely believe this inapplicable state statute argument had the slightest merit in the face of numerous federal statutory citations, common law citations and case law citations. Yet the UCSF legal counsel actually tendered such argument through the "patient murder advocacy office". AND WHEN the total inapplicability of that state statute was, in return, pointed out by the victim, the "patient brutality advocacy office" responded again with the exact same claim of "state law requirement", using even the same basic letter, simply omitting the statutory citation for that inapplicable state law. That is, in patently lying about the law to defend the perpetrators, the lawyers themselves, overtly and with mens rea, joined the racket.

No valid, applicable state law was ever cited by UCSF, and the "patient abuse advocacy office" has refused to respond further. Similarly, other superior administrative offices, up to the UCSF president's office, have refused to respond, to date.

The patient subsequently demanded a copy of the Privacy Act mandated access log, as well as a copy of the HIPAA mandated access log. All governmental bodies and agencies, and all state actors subject to any provisions of the Privacy Act, MUST maintain a log detailing who, when and why a person's record was accessed, and what information was accessed, what was disclosed, and to whom and by whom. HIPAA also imposes a very similar mandate upon all health care provider, and both logs must be maintained for state actors who are also health care providers. UCSF refuses to comply with its legal obligation to provide these logs to the victim.

Rounding out the corruption, criminal complaints filed with the local state police office were never prosecuted, despite the fact that they were violent assault felonies significant enough to earn the registration clerk and other participants more than 100 years in prison – or even the death penalty if the record or identity theft in any way contributes to the murder of the victim.

UCSF refuses to pay its voluntarily assumed pecuniary debts to the victim, pursuant to the terms of the IIULA that UCSF bound itself to, and is in arrears to the victim for a continuously growing substantial sum of money, as a result.

These are the criminal felons that most endanger our society, the fabric of our nation, and our public safety. These are the corrupt civil servants whose positions of power and access, of public trust, enable them to indulge in their violent criminal sense of entitlement to the lives and existence of others and, in so exercising this mentality of a rapist from that position of public trust, undermine the very meaning and existence of democracy and freedom – and murder innocent victims all along the way. These are the terrorists, "adhering" themselves to enemies of this nation and of freedom itself, that are most succeeding in achieving al Qaeda's ends.

The San Francisco Special Expose Series Case Studies:

A Case of Justice Derailed

The Hate that Kills at Tom Waddell

Rapists Protected by SF Doctors

Terrorists 'Own' San Francisco