Lauranell Burch (aka Nell Burch) Makes False
Criminal Accusations Against Patient Advocate Glenn
Hagele
Lauranell Burch flat out lies. There simply is no
other way to say it. Not only does she lie, she lies
and at the same time provides the evidence that she
is lying.
In June 2006 Lauranell Burch emailed doctors certified
by the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
claiming that
Glenn
Hagele had "threatened" to publish her "social security
number and other personal information". If it was not
enough that she lied about "threats" to herself, she
even went so far as to claim that Glenn Hagele had "threatened"
to "publish the private information of (Burch's) elderly
mother, Linda Harrison".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Glenn Hagele has stated clearly that he would publish
no information if it were against the
law to do so. It is against federal law to publish someone's
Social Security number and private personal identity.
Glenn Hagele knows it is against the law to publish
a person's personal identity because Lauranell Burch's
housemate
Brent Hanson and
Lauranell Burch did publish Glenn Hagele's
name, address, date of birth, California driver's license
number, Social Security number, and similar information
about Hagele's ex-wife. See
Brent Hanson Publishes Glenn Hagele's Personal Identity
and Lauranell Burch Publishes Glenn Hagele's Personal
Identity This is the kind of person Lauranell Burch
invites into her home. This is the quality of individual
with which she closely associates...but that is another
issue.
Glenn Hagele has never ever threatened to
do something illegal against Lauranell Burch or her
mother, or anyone for that matter.
As evidence that her claim has validity, Burch points
to this posting that Glenn Hagele made in the alt.lasik-eyes
newsgroup. The relevant portion of the posting is reprinted
here.
Brent Hanson stated:
"In fact, it is perfectly legal to publish
unedited court documents." (that include personal
identity information)
Following are all of Glenn Hagele's statements in
this thread. None of these responses are to known aliases
of Lauranell Burch, but are to other participants in
the thread and known accomplices of Lauranell Burch.
"If Hanson is correct, then the only thing
keeping public documents that include the Social
Security numbers of...
Brent Hanson
Lauranell
Burch
a few others
[edited and links added]
...from being published is decency. I would think
these people would want to convince Hanson that
he is wrong. In fact, I'd say they all need to immediately
convince Hanson he is wrong and he should do something
about being wrong."
Later in the thread Glenn Hagele stated:
Perhaps you believe that it is appropriate
to publish someone's Social Security number on the
Internet, but the US Attorney General's office does
not. That is a good thing too, because you and your
mother both have public documents with your Social
Security numbers on them.
Later in the thread Glenn Hagele stated:
Though multiple litigations and criminal
investigations Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com is
being held accountable for his actions. Holding
Hanson accountable is not the issue. The issue is
if you believe Hanson is correct and it is acceptable
to publish the personal identity information of
another person and that person's spouse. If you
do, then you should have no objection to the optometrist
and surgeons you have targeted doing the same to
you and your husband and your business partner for
that matter. I suppose that all the retailers who
sell your bridal supplies should be included too.
If it is legal and appropriate for one, it is legal
and appropriate for all.
Do you believe it is legal and appropriate
to publish someone else's Social Security number
on the Internet? If not, then do you believe your
accomplice Brent Hanson is lying when he claims
it is okay? Do you believe Hanson has acted inappropriately?
If not, why?
If you agree that Hanson has acted legally
and appropriately by publishing my personal identity
and similar information of my ex-wife, then what
objection would you have if your former doctors
- or anyone - did the same to you, your spouse,
and your associates?
Let's all be equal about this. If Hanson
is right (he is not), then everyone on that list,
their family, friends, associates, business partners,
all of them should have their identification information
published on the Internet. And then everyone can
thank Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com for convincing
us that such acts are legal and appropriate. Actually,
I imagine that your husband and business partner
would be thanking you.
This is why we have laws and this is why
people should abide by them. Even people with poor
Lasik outcomes. If not, you end up with anarchy.
Later in the thread Glenn Hagele stated:
I don't see where anyone has questioned providing
a personal history of a bad outcome. In fact we
have the URLs of websites with bad outcome information
on the Bad Lasik web page at
http://www.USAEyes.org.
Our sister website ComplicatedEyes.org goes into
great detail about bad outcomes.
Accurate and truthful information - be it
good or bad - should be disseminated freely.
I don't see where anyone has questioned publishing
public documents. It is only the personal identity
information, including Social Security number, driver's
license number, etc. that is at issue.
Your accomplice Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com
has stated that it is legal and appropriate to publish
anybody's personal identity if that information
can be found on a public document. If Hanson is
correct (he is not) then why shouldn't the doctor
you have targeted with your website publish your
personal identity, including Social Security number?
Why should that doctor not publish the personal
identity of your mother, clients, business associates,
social contacts, etc., if Hanson is correct?
If you believe Hanson and think it is legal
and appropriate for someone to publish my personal
identity information and the identity of my ex-wife,
then why would you not be subject to the same treatment?
If Hanson is correct (he is not) then you, Berschadsky,
Cofer, Zickefoose, Burch, etc. and anyone you or
they work with or know would be subject to the same
treatment. If you believe Hanson is wrong, then
it may be in your best interests to point out to
him that he is wrong, and he should do something
about it.
I'm sure that by Tuesday there will be greater
clarity for everyone after a long weekend of thinking
about whether or not Hanson should be publishing
my personal identity and if theirs should be published
as well.
Later in the thread Glenn Hagele stated:
You can go on and on about other issues and
try to change the subject, but you still have not
responded to the point at hand and the subject of
this thread. That point is if Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com
is correct that it is legal and appropriate to publish
someone's Social Security number, then why should
the doctor you have targeted with your website not
publish your personal identity, including Social
Security number? Why should that doctor not publish
the personal identity of your mother, clients, business
associates, social contacts?
If you believe it is legal and appropriate
for Hanson to publish my identity and the identity
of my ex-wife, then why would you not be subject
to the same? Either Hanson is correct (he is not)
and you, Berschadsky, Cofer, Zickefoose, Burch,
etc. and anyone you or they work with or know would
be subject to the same treatment, or Hanson is not
correct and he should remove my identity immediately.
Maybe this is a decision you cannot make
on the spur of the moment. Perhaps you should use
this long weekend to talk this over with Hanson,
your family, your business associates, accomplices,
and attorney. Three days should be enough time to
come to a conclusion, don't you think?
Later in the thread Glenn Hagele stated (edited to
include only comments relevant to personal identity
publication):
I do not see how acting within the law is
problematic and I have never suggested that anyone
should act outside the law. The question is whether
Hanson is correct and it is legal and appropriate
to publish someone's personal identity on the Internet
(it is not), or if he is wrong and it is illegal
and should stop violating the law. Either way, everyone
should be treated the same. If it is legal, then
all of Hanson's accomplices and associates and their
associates should have no complaint if the people
they have targeted publish their information.
Either publishing you and your mother's personal
identity is legal as Hanson has claimed it to be
(it is not) and your "family judge and attorney"
would really have nothing to say, or it is not legal,
Hanson is lying, Hanson is violating the law (he
is) and nobody should be publishing anybody's personal
identity.
Ask your family judge and attorney for an
opinion on the publication of a person's Social
Security number that is included in public documents
and then have a chat with your buddy Hanson. Don't
you agree that if Hanson is acting outside the law
he should stop? If Hanson is acting within the law,
then why shouldn't the doctor you have targeted
publish your personal identity, that of your mother's,
your friends, your business associates, etc.?
The entire thread is available at
http://tinyurl.com/hng8y.
No reasonable individual would see these statements
individually or combined as Glenn Hagele stating that
he would publish someone's identity. In fact several
times through the thread Glenn Hagele affirms that publishing
someone's Social Security number is illegal and that
no one should act outside the law.
Lauranell Burch has stated falsely that Glenn Hagele
intends or "threatened" to publish her personal identity
and that of her mother. As evidence Lauranell Burch
provides Glenn Hagele's statements that actually clearly
prove Lauranell Burch is lying!
Not only is there no validity to Lauranell Burch's
accusation, but a legal opinion from counsel of the
Washington DC law firm Arent Fox has determined that
Lauranell Burch sending these false accusations to doctors
certified by the Council
for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance may be
criminal in the state where she resides, and Burch's
acts are very likely actionable in civil court for defamation
and/or intent to interfere in professional relationships.
