National
Gay Obama officials, HRC named in ‘racketeering’ lawsuit
Former Bush official Scott Bloch sues 25 people and groups
Two gay Obama administration officials and the Human Rights Campaign were lumped in as defendants with former Bush administration operative Karl Rove and more than a dozen others in a federal racketeering lawsuit filed by anti-gay Bush official Scott Bloch.
John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (Blade photo by Michael Key)
The 64-page lawsuit, filed last week in Fairfax County Circuit Court, charges the defendants – including former GOP Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia – with conspiring to force Bloch out of his job as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel through a trumped up criminal investigation.
News of the lawsuit, which was first reported by Courthouse News Services, hasn’t been widely reported in major news media outlets.
Bloch and his wife, who is a party to the suit, are seeking $102 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.
Bloch, who served as director of the Office of Special Counsel from 2004 to October 2008, pleaded guilty in April 2010 to a charge of contempt of Congress. The guilty plea followed a lengthy investigation that included an FBI raid on his office and home in May 2008.
The investigation stemmed from allegations that Bloch improperly sought to purge employees in his office who disagreed with him and later sought to cover up possible wrong-doing by hiring a computer services company to “scrub” files from his government office computer.
A federal judge in Washington sentenced him on March 30 to one month in jail in connection with his guilty plea but agreed to stay the sentence while Bloch appeals it on grounds that he didn’t know the contempt of Congress law carries a mandatory minimum jail term of 30 days.
The gay Obama administration officials named in Bloch’s suit are John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and Elaine Kaplan, OPM’s general counsel. Kaplan preceded Bloch as head of the Office of Special Counsel during the Clinton administration.
While working as an attorney in private practice after her term ended as U.S. Special Counsel, Kaplan joined others who criticized Bloch for dismantling LGBT-supportive policies at the Special Counsel’s office that Kaplan established there.
Kaplan and others argued that an existing U.S. civil service law protected federal workers from discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation through a provision that barred bias for non-work related factors. Bloch, upon taking office after being appointed by President George W. Bush, reversed Kaplan’s policies, saying he disputed the assumption that the civil service law could be interpreted to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In his lawsuit, Bloch alleges that the Bush White House demanded that he back off from reversing Kaplan’s polices at the Office of Special Counsel, saying White House aides threatened to arrange for his dismissal if he failed to comply with their request.
Bloch and his wife, who are representing themselves in the case, filed their suit under a federal statute called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The statute allows both criminal and civil charges to be brought in cases where the government or a private party alleges that others conspired to commit an illegal act or to damage a person or a business through a “criminal enterprise.”
Other parties named as defendants in the lawsuit include the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Special Counsel, the National Treasury Employees Union, and several government watchdog groups, including the Government Accountability Project.
Elaine Kaplan, OPM's general counsel (Blade photo by Michael Key)
In his lawsuit, Bloch names Berry as a defendant only in his capacity as director of the Office of Personnel Management, making no allegations that Berry played a role in Bloch’s forced resignation as head of the Office of Special Council during the Bush administration.
However, Bloch repeatedly alleges in the lawsuit that OPM as a government agency “conspired” with others in the Bush administration to force his ouster because, among other things, he was investigating possible breaches of government ethics rules by Bush White House staffers, including Karl Rove, and officials with other government agencies.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan was a party to the alleged effort to oust him from his post as head of the Office of Special Counsel in her role as general counsel to the National Treasury Employees Union, which opposed Bloch’s policies and practices at the OSC. Kaplan became general counsel to NTEU shortly after her five-year term as head of the Office of Special Counsel ended.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan joined other organizations and individuals who disagreed with Bloch’s policies and sought his removal.
It says the Human Rights Campaign was among several outside groups that Kaplan and others worked with to discredit Bloch and “conspire” to oust him from office. During his tenure as head of the Office of Special Counsel, HRC criticized Bloch for rolling back his office’s protections for gay federal workers.
“We don’t believe this case has any merit,” said HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz.
“[F]rom 2005 to the present, both as counsel for National Treasury Employees Union, and plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, that in her current role as general counsel of OPM, [Kaplan] is conspiring with or has conspired with third parties to damage plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged, improperly, illegally, and against the Ethics in Government Act, both as to her involvement in previous issues as Special Counsel of the OSC, and as general counsel of OPM with conflicts of interest, personal and official, and to conspire to harm plaintiffs…,” Bloch says in his lawsuit.
The lawsuit charges that Kaplan and those she allegedly conspired with sought to “disrupt official investigations, undermine official functions in the Office of Special Counsel, divert loyalty of employees away from Scott Bloch, and otherwise seek to undermine and harm plaintiffs in their reputation and family life.”
Berry and Kaplan or a spokesperson for the Office of Personnel Management couldn’t be immediately reached for comment on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit can be read in its entirety on the Courthouse News Service website: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/29/Bloch.pdf
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
National
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence to take place April 10
Campaign began as student-led protests against anti-LGBTQ bullying, discrimination
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence will take place on April 10.
The annual Day of Silence began as a student-led protest in response to bullying and discrimination that LGBTQ students face. It is now a national campaign for the LGBTQ community and their allies to come together for LGBTQ youth.
It takes place annually and has multiple ways for supporters to get involved in the movement.
Glisten, originally GLSEN, champions LGBTQ issues in schools, grades K-12. Glisten’s mission is to create more inclusive and accepting environments for LGBTQ students through curriculum, supportive measures, education campaigns, and engagement, such as the Day of Silence.
There are three main ways for the community to get involved in the Day of Silence.
Glisten has a Day of Silence frame, a series of pictures used as profile photos across social media that feature individuals holding signs. The signs allow for personalization, by providing a space to put the individual’s name, followed by filling in the prompt “ … and I am ENDING the silence by…”
Participants are encouraged to post the photo on social media and use it as a profile picture. The templates can be found on Google Drive through this link.
Using #DayOfSilence and #NSCS, as well as tagging Glisten’s official Page @glistencommunity, is another way to participate in the Day of Silence.
Glisten also encourages participants to tag creators, friends, family and use a call to action in their caption, to call attention to the facts and stories behind the Day of Silence.
“Today’s administration in the U.S. wants us to stay silent, submit to their biased and hurtful conformity, and stop fighting for our right to be authentically ourselves,” said Glisten CEO Melanie Willingham-Jaggers. “We urge supporters to use their social platforms and check in with local chapters to be boots on the ground to help LGBTQ+ students feel seen, heard, supported, and less alone. By participating in the ‘Day of Silence,’ you are showing solidarity with young people as they navigate identity, safety, and belonging. Our voices matter.”
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
