Dr. Bex
speaker
498 appearances
7 recordings
1 series
first heard Nov 2024
last heard Jun 2025
Dr. Bex’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
And now what I wanted to do is kind of go through each of the claims that are standing right in front of the court right now, hoping that maybe we can talk a little bit about them and kind of see how we're feeling or thinking. And then that way, when the response comes or things change,
happen, then we can kind of keep going forward with the case and following along kind of in real time from there.
So now they're just going claim by claim and using all like kind of the legal terminology and really stating out why each of these claims should hold in their mind. And then I guess it goes to the defendants to come back and say if there's kind of legal precedent in cases that would justify dismissing any of these. And then the judge kind of decides. But at this point, this is where we stand.
So I'm just going to go complaint to complaint and then kind of let I have some questions for you specific to each one, just because, again, from our experiences and then my experiences, you know, as a physician, I think we kind of have a unique approach. ability to just kind of talk them through, I think, before we know where everything goes from here.
So the first complaint is a violation of federal civil rights. So again, like we talked about, we are in federal court for this case. So a lot of the claims are going to tie back to federal statutes or even amendments to the Constitution or things like this one goes into the American Disabilities Act.
So again, it's all going to kind of tie back to those kind of federal statutes when they make the claims. So the first one is a violation of federal civil rights, and this is on the unwarranted search and surveillance and the invasion of privacy. So the kind of the basis or the gist, if you read all of the parts of this portion of the complaint, are speaking more to the video surveillance.
So like we talked about last time, it was. Those, I believe at this point they were saying 38 days of video surveillance that occurred in the hospital room of Madison, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and involved the surveillance of Madison and her parents at any point that they were within the hospital room.
And the claim states that these efforts or the efforts to do the video surveillance were basically undertaken in an investigatory capacity. So they are saying that it was the express purpose and intent of uncovering evidence of child abuse, if such evidence even ever existed. And then they even say in an effort to uncover or manufacture evidence of child abuse.
So we talked a little bit about this last time, but what are your thoughts on that kind of the word, the parentheses or manufacturer kind of stuck out to me a bit?
I mean, it's it's interesting because I feel like they are sticking very much. Right. And I think we when we read these claims, I've now read so many like I feel like they stick to the script like they they know the terminology. They say things that kind of fit like it is a complaint or it is a breach of this federal statute because of this, this and this.
But that little parentheses or manufacturer that just felt a little bit. felt to me a little bit more emotionally charged or kind of like they were throwing that in as more of a, so maybe you don't think the surveillance is bad, but what if they were manufacturing it, dot, dot, dot. And then it kind of goes on to the next, to the next thing.
And so I think, I mean, to me, it sounds like it's intended to kind of get, kind of grab your attention or make you think, oh, wait, was this intentional or something? But that's my own experience.
And I think the expectation of privacy in the hospital room, I think, again, right now, it seems like it's very hospital dependent based on what the hospital's individual policies are, whether hospitals have private rooms or have double rooms, or how many patients are in a room, because right then and there, you've lost some of the privacy aspect.
For instance, in an emergency room where there may be curtains separating beds, what is the privacy versus... in a case where, you know, it is a private room with its own entrance. And so I think the way hospitals are changing more to having private rooms, which as a mother, as a patient, I think is wonderful.
But does that change, I guess, that overall assumption of privacy that maybe a family or a I guess time will tell or we'll see how this case or other cases go. And I think I just wanted to briefly touch on the different amendments because I think I took government in. high school, at AP government. And so I was like, I'm just going to brush up a little bit.
But I think the three amendments, just for those that have been following along with us, that really come into play in most of these cases are the first, fourth, and 14th. The first speaks to, and it comes into this claim, this idea of the right to intimate association or the right to familial association, meaning, I guess, this idea that
It protects intimate association or your family's association with each other from kind of intrusion by the government. And so this question of if a family is having private conversations within a hospital room and they are assuming, I guess, that they are not being surveilled or watched.
You know, is it OK to be kind of being through this video surveillance, also listening in potentially on private family conversations? The Fourth Amendment is the one that is search and seizure. But they bring this in about kind of protecting a family's home.
So in the sense of if CPS shows up at your door or Child Protective Services shows up at your door, do you have to let them in or in a hospital situation like happened here? They basically called the dad, it sounds like from the court documents anyway, into a room to tell him that his, you know, at that point that the custody had been changed to the to the county of San Diego.
And he did not get to go back in that room from that moment. So this is where the Fourth Amendment plays in, I think, is the seizure aspect, but also the coming into your place that is assumed to be yours or your private space. And then the 14th is probably the one that gets, I think, interpreted in a lot of court cases. So there's a lot of case history that you can go back to.
Showing 101–120 of 498 · page 6 of 25
← Previous
Next →