Glenn Hagele claims special privileges unavailable to important government officials
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
which is false:
"It is a federal crime to publish a person's Social Security number
without authorization. It is a California state crime to publish a
person's driver's license information without authorization. Hanson and
Zickefoose had no authorization for either."
In fact, it is perfectly legal to publish unedited court documents.
For example, it is perfectly legal to publish the following:
-- SSN of Porter Goss, former CIA director, on the following court
document: http://www.opcva.com/watchdog/Goss2.pdf
-- SSN of Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, on the following
court document: http://www.opcva.com/watchdog/clp-dot-p2.pdf
-- SSN of Jeb Bush, current Governor of Florida, on the following court
document: http://www.opcva.com/watchdog/jeb-qcd-p1.pdf
According to http://www.virtualchase.com/people/public_records.html
"Public information consists of personal or private information that
has become public because: It was disclosed in a public record (e.g., a
Social Security number (SSN) in a bankruptcy filing) or It was
volunteered it (e.g., a private telephone number given to a store
cashier)."
Hagele has never cited any so-called Federal law that "prohibits"
publication of un-edited public records, because there is none. He
simply tells lies to suit his own purpose, expects people to belive
him. Hagele thinks he is supposed to have more privileges than
Governor Bush, Colin Powell, and Porter Goss, all important government
officials.
So which of the following court records does Hagele prefer to have
published?
------------------------------------------------------------
- Edited documents from my web site
------------------------------------------------------------
- http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/hagele-bankruptcy.pdf
- http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/hagele-tax-liens.pdf
- http://www.lasikflap.com/crsqa/district-attorney-vs-hagele.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------
- Un-edited documents from someone else's web site
------------------------------------------------------------
- http://www.lasikflap.com/crsqa/hagele-bankruptcy.pdf
- http://www.lasikflap.com/crsqa/hagele-tax-liens.pdf
- http://www.lasikflap/crsqa/district-attorney-vs-hagele.pdf
serebel
Glenn - USAEyes.org
that include the Social Security numbers of...
Sandra Keller
Brian Keller
Ariel Berschadsky
Brent Hanson
Hunter Williams
Lauranell Burch
Linda Harrison
Paula Cofer
Dean Kantis
Elvira Galindo
Richard Zickefoose
Dominic Morgan
a few others
...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.
Ragnar
Is it illegal for a cellmate to order another cellmate to change his
name to Brenda and sit when he pees?
Time will tell.
On 25 May 2006 17:29:15 -0700, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
DAK
DAK
At first in speaking with you way back in September, 2005, I thought
you were a respectable
person providing a nice website that informs the patients of Refractive
Surgery and other eye
disorders...
Since then, I have discovered otherwise...
I hope that any of the disorders that all of us "post lasik" people
have, never happen to anyone
that you know, any member of your immediate family or any family, and
not even to you. I hope
you never have to experience the painful, visual hell that we all have
to live with daily, because our
doctors flat out "lied" to us, as they swiped our credit card for
$3,000 and told us that "we were not
at risk" and that they have "done 20,000 procedures or whatever..."
Now with that being said, you have spent the hours of your waking life
trying to quiet the "helpless" and
the "innocent" patients who have had their lives destroyed after paying
a doctor to do so. Most if not all
of these patients, including myself, have been destroyed, have had
their lives turned upside down, and on
top of that, you want to "ruin and quiet" them by using certain tactics
that I would say are really unethical
and cruel.
I don't know if you have a family of your own, I don't know what
principals or character that you stand for
or raise your own children by, but if this is what you have become
because of $$$, what does that say about
your character or level of integrity?
If you continue to what you have been doing, you will continue to hurt
those that need the most help. If this
had happened to you, what would you have done? You are quite good on
the internet and are using your skills
to hurt those that were hurt the most, that have had their lives
ruined, that couldn't sue the doctor or insurance
companies because they were pushed outside the statute of limitations
to sue, because many doctors lie and
stick together, and now on top of that, you want to pull the trigger
and shoot them and end their lives?
If this is what you are all about, I will make it a mission to inform,
educate and update monthly every single doctor
in the USA and every single radio, tv show, and news team and advocacy
group from coast to coast and you will
turn me against you as well.
Now, I like to think there is good in the world and good people out
there that are looking for a way to help the people
that need it the most, the patients, and not the people who are able to
"pay off" their mistakes with fancy lawyers, etc...
So, I ask you Glen, what is your level of integrity? Where do you
stand? Are you a role model for your children? And
one last question Glen, would your mom, dad and your grandparents be
proud of you today, right here and now?
Would you be proud looking back on your life? Is this the legacy that
you want to leave behind?
I hope that you took an honest couple of minutes to think about what
you are doing and what you
have become, and honestly look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself
some honest questions about
where you are today in life...
I do wish you well. I do not wish any ill-harm on anyone, as I don't
want anyone to wish that on me.
I hope you have changes coming in the near future which show a
"different side of Glen Hagele" and
one that shows some mercy, empathy and sympathy for all of those that
are suffering and thinking about suicide
because of what doctors have done to them, when it truly did not have
to happen...and on top of that, the
doctors left them by the curb after stealing from them and promising
them the world!
Do you believe in Christianity? Do you believe in a "judgement day
coming?" What do you think about this?
I sincerely hope and pray that nothing like this ever touches close to
your home...for if it does, how will you react?
Best Regards,
PS-one test or challenge Glen...I would be willing to pay you $250, if
you would be willing to put vaseline in your eye to
smear your vision and drops of citrus juice in your eyes to burn your
eyes once every hour on the hour and round the clock
to help you simulate what we all are going through daily...
Thus, illustrating somewhat of what it is like to see/feel distorted
vision "post lasik", if you would be willing
to take the challenge and do that for 30 days? Would you be willing to
try to see what it is like to be one of us
for 30 days? I am a man of my word as anyone can attest...Are you up
to the challenge? You would have to prove to me
that you did this all day long for 30 days in order to get
paid...nothing else!
Glenn - USAEyes.org
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.
I'm sure you don't agree with Brent Hanson that it is legal and
appropriate for them to be published...or do you? Do you believe that
your Social Security number should be published on the Internet? Your
mothers? Should the doctor who is the target of your website publish
your Social Security number and your mother's on a website and on this
newsgroup? If not, why not? Hanson is telling us that it is all right
and proper. If you don't agree, you saying your buddy Hanson is a
liar? If you believe it is okay for Hanson to publish my and my
ex-wife's personal identification information, then why shouldn't the
doctor you have targeted publish yours and your mother's? Please, tell
us your logic.
It is a pity that you (or anyone) had a bad Lasik outcome. Clearly it
has distorted your view on things, but having a bad outcome is not
justification for unconscionable or illegal acts.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Sandy
Brent Hanson? I, for one, have asked Brent not to do something that
he turned around and did anyway. No one else should be punished for
the actions of one person that we seem to have no influence over.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
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.
DAK
First, what does "patient advocacy surgeon certification" mean? Are
you working in the best interests of
both the Lasik Surgeons, the Suffering Patients, and the FDA to help
keep harmony when problems arise? I'm not sure I understand your
tagline...Please show me what government agency gave you the right to
"certify" a surgeon? I would really like to see this and how you offer
proof that you have helped to make our world a "safer place" for both
the doctor and the patient...I would contribute to this cause!
For if so, if you are so concerned about the damages being done to
Lasik patients, and you care so much about
that that you are working diligently with the FDA and their department
of Medical Devices and you are working so
effectively and diligently, warning doctors to "not reuse blades" and
blah blah blah...I would like to support your cause and I believe in
it!
Do you believe that is okay to be a Lasik surgeon, mess up a paying
patient's eyes, and then not inform the patient "proactively" that such
a mistake was committed so that the patient's could at the very least,
get some money to help cope with the medical costs and pains involved
in getting well?
Do you believe that is okay for a doctor to "strong arm" innocent
paying patients into suing them as in my case, because I posted "public
lawsuits" on 50+ patients that are prosecuting Nick Caro and Saint
George Corrective Vision Center? So let me think this through and see
if I understand this, it's okay for a doctor to sue a patient when
things go wrong to try to quiet the patient, but it's not okay for an
unhappy
patient to try sue a doctor?
If this is not true and you are sooooo involved in the safety services
that you provide to past, present and future Lasik
injured patients, please show me one thing that you have done to help
spread the "bad news about lasik" versus trying
to be a doctor or hang around the "doctor groups?"
I understand your concern about your social security number being
viewed by everyone in the world and I would be upset about that as
well. However, I believe that Brent Hanson has done no harm in trying
to "get the real word out about Lasik" and all of this would never had
happened if you would just let patients "vent their post lasik
problems" online to help them feel better...
I do find it disturbing that you would again, bring innocent patient's
names and put them on that list! Feel free to publish what you must
and the doctors as well. I will warn you though Glenn, that many of us
together can focus 100% of our efforts on the publisher with an
enormous amount of time and money behind us, on multiple layers of
lawsuits. Do as you wish Glenn. Only you know what you or anyone else
is willing to gain or lose by anyone's actions! If you like to be
around a lot of attorneys, keep doing exactly what you are doing and
see what happens from a legal perspective...
PS-you did not even have the courtesy to answer my questions nor did
you take me up on my offer...my offer for $250 still stands and if you
are so concerned about all of us, I would love to get your help in
working with the FDA, doctors and patients that are complaining, to
make sure the "standard of care" is greatly improved so everyone is
protected! Does my offer sound like a caring person or an insane
lunatic? I think it's the first choice...
DAK
PS-the issues between you and Brent are between you and Brent. What
the real issue is about, is everyone who doesn't believe in Lasik is
starting to take a toll on business and the doctors are upset about it,
and they want you to do something about it!
GOD forbid a doctor has to downsize to a Honda from their BMW, so they
can do the right things in life! GOD forbid that this goodness
happens. Wouldn't that be nice if you were part of that Glenn? I feel
like this is Star Wars and i'm trying to convince you that there is a
good side to Darth Vader, and that you should come over to the good
side of the force...
What kind of medical treatment do you want for your eyes Glenn? Do you
want some doctor "re-using" razor blades on your eyes or your
children(s) eyes Glenn?
Glenn - USAEyes.org
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, Keller, 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?
Glenn - USAEyes.org
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,
Keller, 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.
Sandy
the internet, nor anywhere else. I don't know if Brent is lying, and
that is why I asked you to clarify; but I do realize that while
something can be legal, it may also be immoral and/or inappropriate.
I would appreciate it if you would not label me as Brent's accomplice,
because that is a patently false statement about me.
serebel
Oh please, Hanson and Keller are in bed together. Hanson posts his
garbage and Keller pops up to swear to it.
KELLER IS HANSON'S ACCOMPLICE!!!!!!!!! And her husband is stupid.
serebel
of crap DAK is.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>Dean Andrew Kantis is blaming Glenn for his outcome, what a sorry sack
>of crap DAK is.
I had absolutely nothing to do with any of these people's surgery.
Nothing. They did not use affiliated surgeons. I did not tell them to
have Lasik - I've never told anyone to have surgery. As far as I know
none used the information at our website to become better informed
before surgery (perhaps they should have). There simply is no direct
connection with any of these folks and me or the organization I
founded, but they attack me as if I did something to cause their
situation.
Ragnar
been nothing but an evil presence and a chronic liar.
Too bad he is going to jail instead of you.
Ragnar
vehemently for years.. until it was pointed out and proven that you
blatantly lied... SE created both your websites for you to post your
venomous nonsense.. and your garbage is still bein posted on the home
page of those websites. Why don't you ask Cofer to remove your story
and name from those websites? Ask her right here in this newsgroup.
That might just give you a shred of credibility.
Ragnar
for Hanson. Hanson's vision might not be great.. but his nose still
can smell Keller.
Speed Racer
Lasik Gang:
Obviously we are dealing with some sick individuals: Glenn, Ragwar and
Serebel. These people will never comprehend what we go through until
something happens to them personally. I have no doubt that something
eventually will happen in one's life, and then and only then will they
reflect on these emails. Nothing is getting done on email as you can
see. This is a complete waste of everyone's time.
Glenn, for the last time, quit stereotyping everybody because Brent has
gotten the best of you, made you look like a terd, and has made you
look like a dog on the internet. That is between you and him. Your
analogy is like a golf ball and a grapefruit....either way, you are
again diggin a deeper hole for yourself in which to fall deeper and
deeper down into...you have lost any reputation if you ever even had a
respectful one.
I really feel sorry for you. You are an absolute disgrace of a human
being to say the best! Don't bother replying, because I could care
less of what you have to say and you really don't matter as a
person...Your actions have earned this!
I dare you to publish my mother's information on line! You can deal
with our family judge and attorney! Are you going to bark all day
little doggy, or are you going to byte!
Ragnar
complications are the end of the world..
Let me clue you in on some things... Everyone has a high likelihood of
suffering a few of the following... Blindness, deafness, cancer,
cataracts, divorce, diabetes, death, amputations, heart attacks,
headaches, rotten teeth, hemmoroids, gall stones, kidney stones, heart
disease, etc.
Frankly, nobody really cares about your problems EVEN if they are
REAL!
This newsgroups is supposed to be a place to get some good information
about LASIK.. that is impossible unfortunately. At best, it is an
ongoing battle to keep evil malcontents from misleading people into
making bad decisions. For instance, Keller has recently recommended
using Alphagan long-term, and to go to a country in South America for
LASIK instead of having it in this country. Both are terrible ideas.
If you want sympathy, just forget about it. You will find that people
who seem sympathetic don't really care about your problem. They are
just stroking your emotions to gain favor with you.
Now stop whining.
On 27 May 2006 05:33:55 -0700, "Speed Racer" <dka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Glenn - USAEyes.org
wrote:
>Obviously we are dealing with some sick individuals: Glenn, Ragwar and
>Serebel. These people will never comprehend what we go through until
>something happens to them personally.
Since I did have a little short-term trouble after my PRK (my fault,
totally resolved) I do have a small understanding of surgery-induced
problems. Since I have worked with scores of people who have had
complications that range from minor to major, I have empathy for their
plight. One does not need to have direct experience to posses
understanding and empathy.
>Glenn, for the last time, quit stereotyping everybody because Brent has
>gotten the best of you, made you look like a terd, and has made you
>look like a dog on the internet. That is between you and him.
What is between Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com and me is being
resolved with the proper authorities and courts. Similarly, where
others are involved the same resolutions are being sought. That has
nothing to do with whether or not it is legal to publish someone's
personal identity. If it is, then everyone should be expected to be
treated the same.
>Your
>analogy is like a golf ball and a grapefruit....either way, you are
>again diggin a deeper hole for yourself in which to fall deeper and
>deeper down into...you have lost any reputation if you ever even had a
>respectful one.
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.
>You are an...
Everyone has a right to their opinion, however there are scores who
disagree. Visit http://www.usaeyes.org/guest/response02.htm where
people who have actually visited our website and used our services
comment.
>I dare you to publish my mother's information on line! You can deal
>with our family judge and attorney!
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.?
Sandy
Ragnar wrote:
> You didn't want to be labeled as being SE's affiliate.. and denied it
> vehemently for years.. until it was pointed out and proven that you
> blatantly lied... SE created both your websites for you to post your
> venomous nonsense.. and your garbage is still bein posted on the home
> page of those websites. Why don't you ask Cofer to remove your story
> and name from those websites? Ask her right here in this newsgroup.
> That might just give you a shred of credibility.
>
>
I volunteered time and money, but that didn't make me a representative
of SE. You may have tried to prove otherwise, but you were never able
to accomplish that, because it's just not true.
SE did not create my websites. I don't know why you insist on stating
this, but it's not true. Do you think that I am not capable of
building a website? Try FrontPage sometime--it's simple to learn.
I removed the diary I kept of my lasik disaster before I gave up the
site. I asked that my picture be removed shortly after, and it was. I
would prefer that anything remaining of my information be removed and
that the site be updated with newer studies and stories of more recent
lasik disasters, but it is not within my power to make that happen.
I don't care about my credibility in this group any longer. It doesn't
affect my "real" life one bit whether you or Glenn or serebel believe
what I say. I have spent a lot of time correcting your misinformation
and I seriously don't have the time to spare. I am spending 12-16
hours a day working and not getting enough sleep because we're in peak
season right now. I have a new contact lens that has been sitting at
my OD's office for several weeks. My car hasn't been washed in weeks,
I have a zillion errands to do and no time in which to do them. I
haven't been able to get a break and leave town because I need an
internet connection to run my business. I finally got a wireless
notebook card installed today and here I am 100 miles from home, taking
a weekend away from home, although I do need to get some work done.
There are so many things in my life that are more important than
responding to your nonsense that I am just not going to any longer.
Challenging Glenn on what CRSQA's real agenda is is one thing, but
things have become extremely ugly around here lately when personal
lives were dragged into the newsgroup. I do no appreciate it being
revealed that I was divorced (when I was 21), nor that there were bad
business dealings (if you can call a bride suing because she didn't
like the color of her bridesmaid dresses a black mark on my business).
I don't appreciate being threatened with publication of my SSN just
because someone else has chosen to do that to Glenn. I am not that
person's accomplice. I have acted on my own, and I have much less to
do with the patients labeled "flappies" or "malcontents" than most of
you would believe--but my responsibilities in my family and my business
prevent me from having the time necessary to engage in the activities
others have chosen to pursue, aside from the fact that I don't have the
desire to.
I think I have made my position clear regarding the non-ethical nature
of posting someone's private information on the internet. Identity
theft is a real threat to all of us, and to give criminals what they
need to perpetrate a crime against a person is not right. By the same
token, I don't feel it's fair that I be threatened with the same when I
am not the one who did it.
All in all, participating in this group has been far more of a negative
in my life than anything positive. I have left a couple of times but
with the continued postings about me by a couple of participants, I
came back to defend myself and ended up staying longer than I intended
to. It is a diversion from my work, which I have to say is kinda like
a soap opera that can be turned on at any time of the day, but I am not
getting anything positive out of being here, so it's time to
go---hopefully for good.
I'm going to go rake some pine needles now with my kids, breathe
heavily some fresh air, and think about other things.
Ragnar
What a liar you are Keller.
Both of your websites - which you recently declared were not yours and
you had nothing to do with.. were created by and registered to - and
are STILL registered to Paula Cofer - who is a lunatic who was the
pincushion for the prick who founded Surgical Eyes at the time of the
creation of those websites.
Your silly story is still on those websites which you claim you don't
control anymore.
I must thank Mr. Hanson for revealing those things. Hanson has his
own agenda which doesn't include your malicious witchery.