Liability Release Form Mooring: Fill & Download for Free

Any answer is obviously speculation. Several facts seem clear and several assumptions seem reasonable:Facts:Indictments are in play. Someone will pick up the ball on these.Substantial evidence revealed by 3rd parties is also in play, and there can be no doubt that Mueller has all of this evidence and more.The lack of prosecutorial action on several of these rather astonishing revelations is NOT evidence of prosecutor disinterest. It’s evidence of a methodical effort to assemble unassailable evidence and to assemble a unified case against multiple parties. The truth and proof are related but proof has a much higher standard.Assumptions:Comey already demonstrated the FBI practice of poison pills and death switches - leaving an evidence trail for others to follow in the event of one’s demise. McCabe has done the same. Mueller has, no doubt, created similar evidence trails that will succeed him and be handed off to people he trusts.Mueller won’t just roll over and go away. Assuming that the evidence he has in hand is substantial and convincing, he won’t let Trump walk if he’s guilty.I suspect that one of the mechanisms to keep the investigation moving will entail strategic leaks…as in “Deep Throat” and similar methods to keep enough information flowing that the GOP will be forced to abandon Trump and take the lead on prosecuting impeachment and/or obstruction of justice charges.Another mechanism is to hand substantial bits of evidence to friendly members of Congress. The GOP made the mistake of issuing indefensible statements to the public - and in so doing, breaching national security. If the evidence from Mueller is strong enough, some members of Congress may follow this precedent and release some of the evidence on the premise that relatively low-level “secrets’ don’t take priority over what could be breaches in national security at the highest levels.Finally, the McCain/Graham factor. These guys put up with a lot for party. But there comes a point that the inevitability of impeachment or worse will force their hands to become the spokesmen of justice and integrity. Whether their saber-rattling on the subject of Mueller is evidence that they are already there is anyone’s guess. But we are close, and when the party leadership begins to roll over on Trump, the trickle will become a torrent. Trump is a long-term liability for the GOP, and they will find a way to distance themselves from him and preserve the party.I suspect too much “water is over the dam” to stop Mueller’s investigation, even if Mueller is relieved of duty. I also suspect that Trump and the TEAGOP are rushing headlong to “accomplish” as much as possible before he loses power.Remember that, in “Watergate time,” Nixon didn’t resign until the equivalent of August of THIS year. These things take time. Trump’s and Nixon’s playbooks have been different, with Trump learning from Nixon’s mistakes. So things seem to be the same, but different.That sums up my speculation.

Just today, I got abused by some guy responding to my rant about invisible anti-vaxxers on the internet peddling rubbish and undermining medical authority out of ignorance. In contrast to the concerned parents and genuine skeptics (who I have no problem with - we all fear uncertainties) I find this sort of pretentious prattler absolutely vile.I don’t mind the ‘doctors are dumb’ crap. That’s fine. There are many more intelligent and capable people than me. Sydney University doesn’t tend to give free academic scholarships through medical school to idiots, but I guess in my case their selection system just failed. No system is perfect.However, it’s another thing entirely to say this:1. Just because you are doctor and/or passionate about diseases does not make what you say true.I know a lot of doctors. They are never the smartest people in the room. They are not the ones on the cutting edge of biology and science. They are practitioners of theories given to them. Anyone can read and memorize the same ideas.And those ideas are always changing because we just don’t know as much as people think we do. Our society has been guilty from the beginning of throwing brute force solutions at problems without seeing all the externalities.This is our history. Across the board, we get stuck in ruts with suboptimal solutions and just keep going with them. This is a topic for another discussion, but it effects us in every area of life from government, housing, waste, transportation, community, communication, and of course medical.Just look throughout history at all the silly things doctors have said and done. Not a decade goes by without something being changed or recanted all together in the medical community. This is just how it is. It is almost 2020 and we still don’t know how the brain really works.Yes anyone can memorize big words and ideas from books they read at school and then relate those ideas with perceptional bias in experiences they have on the job, but the reality is that we still really don’t know. What is scary is when someone gets this fanatical about something that can’t be known for sure. Both sides need to ease up. We’re all just trying to make the best of it here.That starts off true, and descends into a woeful washout. Medicine is about memorising big words? Doctor’s don’t do research? Guidelines and their evidence bases aren’t updated at rates that are only increasing? I’ve had three measles directives sent to me from public health this year. It’s kind of on my brain. Here’s one of the media releases (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/alerts/Pages/measles-alert-20190314.aspx) and the fact that Two babies too young to be vaccinated were infected breaks my heart.I really worry that this guy thinks I just won a spelling bee and got given a license to kill for it. I know the silly things doctors have said and done! I’m one of them! How does anyone think anything gets better? All science is a mistake. Think about it. If it weren’t it wouldn’t change.But something in this comment (full stream here: https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-been-filled-with-blind-rage-and-why/answer/David-Moore-408/comment/97658168) got my goat:Again, I don't care if you vaccinate or not. I will give you a secret though: you are more likely to get hit by lightening twice than die of Measles. What scares me is this level of fanaticism for something you obviously don't fully understand. It isn't logical. I am sorry that you were traumatized by certain events on your job, but that doesn't make your opinion any more factual.Now, that’s medical advice. That person has just quantified a material risk of an infectious disease. I’m happy to be replaced if someone can do better, but now I’ve been undermined (apparently I don’t really understand my responsibilities) - so I make an offer:Hello (Commentator’s name removed - link above).This comment is just a thinly veiled insult and you must not have actually read my whole article including the edits, nor any of the top comments.Congratulations on your qualifications in artificial neural networks and web design.If you did some research, then you would find that between 1989 and 1991 in the USA:“A total of 123 measles-associated deaths were reported during this period (death-to-case ratio of 2.2 per 1,000 cases). Forty-nine percent of deaths were among children younger than 5 years of age. Ninety percent of fatal cases occurred among persons with no history of vaccination. Sixty-four deaths were reported in 1990, the largest annual number of deaths from measles since 1971.”Pinkbook | Measles | Epidemiology of Vaccine Preventable Diseases | CDCSo, given that you cannot predict exposure to the measles virus in a lifetime any more than you can predict exposure to an electrical storm, and given that a reasonable estimate of the probability of being struck once by lightning as a resident of the USA is 1:280,000 (Lightning Strike Probabilities) it’s pretty obvious your guess is way off.Yes, medicine is ever-evolving and full of mistakes but like every pursuit we learn from our experiences and adapt following our errors.Perhaps, I hope, you’ll learn from yours here.Please don’t abuse me out of your insecurity. If you think you can do a better job, then just come and do it. We can always use more people who are actually smart to replace us dummies that just learn big words and never question a thing.I should have known what sort of person I was dealing with. This comes back:Regurgitating the CDC is just proving my point here.You seem to have forgotten you have to catch it first.Let’s take the biggest year you mentioned, 1990. (And so we don’t get too scientific we won’t even take into account other external factors that could have caused an increase that year). 64 measles deaths out of a population of 246,800,000. That leaves you with a whopping 0.000026% chance of dying from measles in the year with the most cases.Meanwhile, 20,123 vaccine related injuries and deaths have been reported to the VISP since 1989 giving us an average of over 670 per year - and these are just the ones reported to the VISP.Like a religious fanatic, your rage is caused by an attachment to your beliefs acquired through indoctrination.My hope is that we can all be less emotionally attached to any one idea. This is what will lead us to better solutions in the future. Be well.No, no. you do not get to walk away after saying crap like that. A vaccine injury can be a faint or a sore shoulder (https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf). And where’s the citation for that data? I’m still trying to find it.In contrast, there’s this: Deaths following vaccination: What does the evidence show?If he’d read my comment he’d see that I considered contagion - just like health services were considering it before the outbreak in question. I guess they must have seen it coming, right? I mean, the risk of acquiring measles in 1988 was loads lower - that means the risk in 1991 must have been…Oh shit. That’s right. It changed dramatically very quickly with no clear advance warning apart from vulnerable populations.‘Regurgitating’ the Centres for Disease Control? The one directed by people whose expertise and integrity you dismiss out of hand as if you had the slightest clue about any of their work?I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you had such a stunning career in epidemiology, immunology, health economics and bioinformatics.Oh, that’s right. You don’t. You’re a guy who just thinks he’s smart and has so little insight he can’t possibly understand how little he knows, so you assume you’re superior.I follow the WHO, the CDC and my own TGA became I do have a clue about their work. I am involved and responsible for public health surveillance in my local health district, including measles outbreak responses specifically.If you think what I’m saying here is ironic, because (again) you presume you’re much more intelligent and entitled than me then again, feel free to get qualified.Until you sit on the CDC board (CDC Organization Chart) I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror and wonder if you’re really who you think you are.In the meantime, here’s what explains your attitude: David Moore's answer to Why do anti vax people ignore the vast majority of people who have had vaccinations and are fine and only focus on the exceptions?Yes, I am like a religious zealot here. You presume that because you don’t understand why that I must be wrong.The reason is you don’t understand why. Because you’re unqualified.Get your hands dirty in actual clinical work. Then comment. Until then, the reason you and I will ‘be well’ is because of the efforts of people you’re abusing in your arrogance here. Next time your community is threatened by contagious illness, just remember you know better than the CDC.Honestly. This is like a kid saying ‘why listen to NASA? I built a rocket in my backyard!’No, kid, you built a bomb with wings.David Moore's answer to Why do doctors force you to get vaccines for your children and yourself?So I’ve played my hand and laid my chips. Now comes the bluff:Your response is fitting and actually digs you deeper in the same hole.You also assume too much. If you knew who I was and the colleagues I do sit with, you would find your comments laughable. But hey it seems like you got it all figured out.I do understand why you would try to turn this into a pissing match, I’m just not interested. I realize I will not change your closely held beliefs and thats ok. Theres better things to concern ourselves with.OK, maybe I have. Calling a bluff is dangerous - you could lose big. If this guy brings out a professional profile and publications then I’m screwed. I have checked a lot of his answers already though (it’s like looking under the table).Ok, then name your colleagues and have them take legal responsibility for endorsing your views like I am legally responsible for mine here.If you think a pilot telling you you can’t fly a plane digs them into a hole then so be it. And if you want to see a pissing match, just read your first comment.I call your bluff. Here are my qualifications: BSc(Adv.) MBBS (Hons) FRACGP.What are yours? And who are your colleagues?I understand why you would want to avoid taking responsibility here, because you don’t have any, and people should either realise that or hold you accountable, just as I am accountable in perpetuity here.For the legal record this conversation represents, please state your name, your qualifications and state whether you advise any readers not to comply with their doctor’s advice regarding vaccination, and whether you support the position of the CDC if you are an American.You see, there are consequences for saying things that sound like you are an authority - especially when what is said might influence the actions of a person with respect to decisions regarding their healthcare. What is the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine? - well, informing someone of their material risk of an infectious illness and contravening the Measles Vaccination recommendations of the CDC in an area under their jurisdiction is a possible example. In fact, ‘regurgitating the CDC’ is just about the only thing that absolves one of personal liability for their advice.Furthermore, discussions on social media constitute legal records in perpetuity. There are numerous implications (Social media| Office of the Australian Information Commissioner) which I was quite aware of before I posted my answer to Have you ever been filled with blind rage and why?, and I felt the risk was worth it, because I believe in vaccination as directed by local health authorities that much and oppose the denigration of those authorities by misinformed or malignant individuals.Now, for the call and the show:“Call my bluff” “For the legal record” “comply with their doctor” LMAO. You have no authority here. Get off of your high horse. So you memorized some stuff and got some acronyms. And this is what you keep falling back to. You’re proving my point for me.You think I’m arguing for something that I am not. Or more likely you just interpret it incorrectly so you can spout off some more propaganda.You just don’t get it sir. And you most certainly never will.Ah. Coming up empty. I wonder if this person thinks ‘Laughing My Ass Off’ is an acronym that gives them credibility? Again, apparently medicine involves no critical thinking, no specific Evidence-Based Medicine training involving criticism of publications including guidelines (Sydney Medical Program), no actual ethical insight, no health economics and nothing more that a bit of extra latin and greek mixed with pretentiousness…Geez. I must have gone to the wrong place. If only I’d known that the eight years after my four-year advanced science degree (which, full disclosure, included arts and music units) was actually so easy! Gosh! I really am dumb to have thought I achieved something in that time or the ten years I’ve been in practice!And what did it get me? Liability, that’s what. Because what I say matters, and people need to be able to trust me and my transparency. It is no exageration to say their lives depend on it. If (as occurred in a case I was not involved in at Lismore) a parent believes that type 1 diabetes is cured by iodine drops and that insulin (like vaccines) is a dangerous poison peddled by big pharma then yes, lives are at stake.Just as if someone actually believes that their risk of dying from measles in their lifetime as an unvaccinated individual is equivalent to being struck by lightening twice. If the CDC, with all their expertise and resources, can’t figure out that simple fact then I guess the reason must be that all those doctors didn’t learn anything more than this Measles mnemonicLet's talk about signs and symptoms of measles (That you'll never experience because you are vaccinated!)Prodromal phase of measles mnemonic, "MEASLES"MeaslesElevation of temperatureAcute onsetSpots (Koplik spots)LacrimationEyes are reddenedSneezingEruptive phase of measles mnemonic, "MEASLE"MalaiseErythematous rashAppears brownishAnorexiaSquamation (Desquamation develops)LymphadenopathyExfoliatesComplications of measles mnemonic, "MEASLES"MalnutritionEncephalitisAppendicitis, diarrheaAcute glomerulonephritisSteven's Johnson syndromeLymphadenopathyEffects on respiratory tract (Otitis media, pneumonia, laryngotrachitis, bronchiectasis, primary tuberculosis flare up)Subacute Sclerosing Pan EncephalitisThat's all!Measles measles measles!So Easy! Oh yeah…what do all those big words actually mean, and what should we do if we encounter them? Oh no! For crying out loud…I get it. I really do. There was nothing but ignorant hubris behind that bluff - the sort of thing that makes a kid think they can fly a plane, because pilots just play video games to train, and pilots aren’t all that smart - eh, Peter Wheeler? :)Actually, I do have authority here.Health Practitioners Act 1983 (NI)Are you using a fake name? All I asked for was for you to validate your boasting. You told me if I knew who you were and who your supposed colleagues are then I’d find what I said laughable. Also, if you are saying what you seem to be saying here then you’re giving medical advice. Especially the bit about the risks of measles.I’m waiting. I don’t know who you are, and it looks like you’ve got nothing to show me.I’m still waiting. Show me the money.EDIT: a further replyNo actually you do not. That link is meaningless here as is every other link you posted. Dense and Obtuse come to mind. And it seems you don’t even know what medical advice is. Your ego has gotten the best of you. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I feel bad for the people that have to come in contact with you, especially your patients.You are 100% right in all your beliefs, and you win at believing them. Thanks for the discourse, but it loses interest fast when its all about your ego rather than productive insights. I’m going to carry on now. Be well kind sir.Oh, I don’t deny I’m dense and obtuse, but I’m also not ‘kind sir’ right now:Don’t call me ‘kind sir’ after you started this with an all-out denigration of my entire profession and portrayed the ‘lots of doctors’ you know as mindless rote-learners incapable of critical thought or rational decision-making.You told me if I knew who you were then I’d change my tune.I’ve googled your name and various permutations of artificial neural networks and relationships to MIT. I found nothing, and I went past the first pages each time, believe me. You also didn’t reference the data you cited, and I can’t find it (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist).Unless you have something to say for yourself that validates all the childish ‘I’m-smarter-than-all-of-you-if-only-you-knew-who -I-was-you’d-see’ then this whole conversation has shown you to be nothing but a fraud. If you say vitamin C is good for a cold that has no implications. If you say someone is more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die from measles in the context of vaccination practices regarding that specific disease then it does.A mother may go and tell her mother’s group about ‘what the clever man said against the silly doctor’.I don’t deny I’m an egotistical bastard, but I suppose then at least we have something in common.You may want to seek legal advice regarding what you say. What is the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine? You might be shocked. If you give any specific advice regarding, let’s say, measles or vaccination practice, then you have taken a position of authority - the position set out by the act I linked that gives me my authority.You may we’ll be outside the jurisdiction of that act, but you will find the relevant law in your state won’t be far off.See, I’m not a fraud. And I don’t bluff.I suggest you delete your comments. My money’s where my mouth is. Stop pretending and stop undermining the people and information sources that the practice of public health depends on.I’m going to follow you just so I don’t miss your vindicating reply, including the names and affiliations of your colleagues - who are imaginary friends until proven otherwise.Also, please name those ‘lots of doctors’ you know. Just two will do. I’m sure they’d be thrilled to see what you say about them.Edit: actually, I’m pretty sure you’re just going to repeat the same bluster. You already had your chance to verify yourself. I’m sick of this and it’s distracting me. I’m going to block and mute you.I do, in all sincerity, wish you health.

I took a look at what is coming up, and frankly, I don’t see too much controversy. Not like we have had in years past. But here are the ones that stick out in my mind.Bank of America Corp. v. Miami and Wells Fargo v. Miami (consolidated)This is actually a pretty important case. It involves who has the right to sue mortgage lenders and housing operators for racial discrimination in housing. It also involves liability in terms of proximate cause. Not a particularly sexy case, but pretty serious. There is a serious split amongst the jurisdictions, so this really needs to be solved. I’m not sure how much attention people will pay to it though. It will be controversial within the business and housing communities, but among the average person? I am not sure they will focus on it or appreciate its importance.Bethune-Hill v. Va. Board of ElectionsThis involves race and redistricting. Could be controversial because it could have a huge impact on future elections. The Court will be determining whether race can be the most important consideration when drawing a district.McCory v. HarrisAnother redistricting case involving race.Bravo-Fernandez et al. v. U.S.Double jeopardy case. Always the potential for major controversy.Jennings v. RodriquezImmigration case. If an alien is subject to mandatory detention, must they be afforded bond hearings with the possibility of release to the US. Also issues related to criminal or terrorist aliens. Here there be controversy. Jennings v. RodriguezLynch v. Morales-SantanaAnother immigration-related case. Can Congress require a different presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children. I.e. can we treat unwed women differently or does this violated the equal protection clause. Lynch v. Morales-Santana Immigration = controversy. Unwed mothers? Is that even a thing anymore? I see a heck of a lot of unwed mothers. So maybe not so controversial. We will see.Moore v. TexasThis is a case involving the death penalty and the standards of intellectual disability. Death penalty = controversy.National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc.Involves issues relating to Presidential appointments. Appointments have become controversial of late. Could be messy.Pena-Rodriguez v. ColoradoRacial bias and impartial juries. Will people pay attention? I don’t know.Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc.It is Apple. People will pay attention. This is a huge case. It could have a huge impact on patents. Will it be controversial? Only among certain people and groups.Trinity Lutheran Church v. PauleyThis is the big one. The controversial case of the season. It involves the exclusion of churches from secular aid programs and whether it violates various Constitutional rights. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. PauleyYou can find all of the upcoming cases here October Term 2016