Civil suit claims whistleblower’s private
information
from government documents published as retaliation.
Download a copy of Hagele v Burch
Download
Hagele v Burch Press Release
Within weeks of notifying authorities of what he
believed to be bankruptcy fraud,
Glenn Hagele, of Sacramento
Calif., learned that archived government documents with
his private identity information were being published
on the Internet.
“I was shocked, dumfounded really,” says Hagele,
who is founder of the Council for Refractive Surgery
Quality Assurance (USAEyes),
a nonprofit Lasik patient advocacy. “My name, date of
birth, driver’s license number, bank account numbers,
credit card numbers, samples of my signature, and worst
of all, my Social Security number, were on the Internet
for anyone to see.”
According to a civil lawsuit filed in North Carolina
Superior Court, Hagele’s identity was published by
Lauranell "Nell"
Burch, PhD, who was sharing her Durham home with
Brent Hanson
when he was targeted for the
bankruptcy fraud investigation. Hagele believes
the publication is retaliation for notifying authorities.
The North Carolina
Attorney General sent multiple letters to Dr. Burch
demanding that Hagele’s personal information be removed.
The lawsuit alleges that rather than removing Hagele’s
identity, Dr. Burch made his information available though
other websites. The suit further asserts Dr. Burch used
computer systems of her
employer, the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), to manage the websites.
“The proverbial smoking gun,” says Hagele, “is found
in emails sent to a domain registrar in Thailand that
originate from Dr. Burch’s computer at the NIH. A registrar
handles management of a website’s Internet address.
Hagele says he was not surprised.
“Months ago the NIH was notified of what appeared
to be inappropriate use of Dr. Burch’s NIH computer,”
says Hagele. “Apparently they did not take the steps
necessary to stop her from using NIH computers to keep
my Social Security number published.”
Hagele’s identity information was culled from government
documents filed in the early 1990s, including a child
support notification, a tax lien, and a personal bankruptcy.
“The documents may at first seem embarrassing, but all
tax and support issues were fully resolved years ago
and the bankruptcy of over a decade ago was an undesired
necessity to save the family home,” says Hagele. “Private
information on otherwise public documents is still private
information and should not be published by someone with
a grudge.”
“This is really not so much an issue of whether or
not Dr. Burch can gain access to public documents, but
whether or not it is appropriate to publicize private
information once it was in her possession,” says Raleigh
attorney
Jon Sasser, who is representing Hagele.
That question was recently decided by the North Carolina
legislature, which clarified
relevant law making
it unlawful to “knowingly broadcast or publish to the
public” private identity information including a Social
Security number. The law became effective December 1,
2007.
“Malicious publication of identity is exactly why
the law was strengthened,” says attorney Sasser. “There
is a tremendous difference between legitimate access
to public documents and publicizing someone’s Social
Security number.”
See
North Carolina court orders web pages blocked.
