Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> Here

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:17:06 -0400
Subject: UpDate: Re: Open Letter To John Carpenter - Gates


 >Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 05:22:07 -0400
 >From: Ann Mulvey <annmulvey@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Open Letter To John Carpenter
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 21:57:04 -0400 (EDT)
 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Open Letter To John Carpenter
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi Jim,

 ><snip>

 >>(and someone correct me if I am wrong - I just don't see it)
 >>... all that demanding is useless and irrelevant. Because, in my
 >>opinion, it is no longer necessary to inform those whose names
 >>and records were sent to NIDS since there were no names sent.<

 >OK...you're wrong.<g>

 >From my homework, by virtue of John Carpenter being an LCSW, the
 >individuals on that list were protected Ethical
 >Standards/Disciplinary Rules of the Missouri State Committee for
 >Social Workers:

 >"(2) A licensed clinical social worker, provisional licensed
 >clinical social worker, temporary permit holder and registrant
 >shall inform clients, at the onset of the professional
 >relationship, of the limits of confidentiality.

Naturally the claim will be made  by Jim and others that it
was not a _professional_ relationship, only a hobbiest type
relationship. By the same token some fool could make the
claim that they only had a hobby relationship with their
spouse because they didn't actually pay them to have sex.


 >(3) A licensed clinical social worker, provisional licensed
 >clinical social worker, temporary permit holder and registrant
 >shall keep confidential his/her therapy relationships with
 >clients including information obtained from this relationship
 >with clients with the following exceptions:
   Again, not professional, just hobbiest.

 >(A) When the client gives written consent;
 >
 >(B) When the client constitutes a danger to him/herself or to
 >others;
 >
 >(C) When the licensed clinical social worker, provisional
 >licensed clinical social worker, temporary permit holder or
 >registrant is under court order to disclose information; or

 >(D) When required by law."

 >[Source:4 CSR 263-3.100 Confidentiality PURPOSE: This rule is
 >promulgated pursuant to section 337.630.2(15), RSMo and sets
 >forth the ethical standards/disciplinary rules as they pertain
 >to confidentiality.]

 >Now Jim, If you can't see the ethical and moral factor of
 >notifying clients when one's files are going to be transferred,
 >then what about the right of the 120 clients to be able to
 >choose for themselves if they want to file a legal complaint?
Obviously Jim's theory in life is that he believes everything JC
says...which is OK, as long as he admits it.  Jim would
claim that JC is claiming a hobbiest type relationship which
would exempt him from the law.  Jim would likely further claim
that since it was a hobby type relationship and the files were
redacted at least according to JC so everything is still allright.
Naturally we will ignore the fact that Jim (in his support of JC)
chooses to disbelieve Gary Hart in his 247 page documented
report has supposedly documented 6 or 7 abductee files
came back from NIDS with all personal information intact.
And we still haven't heard from Budd to tell us why JC
ended up with at least one and perhaps more of Budd's
files.  Not to mention other abduction researchers.

<snip>

 >It must be this sickness that caused you to have posted your
 >request to John Carpenter loaded with put-downs aimed at those
 >of us who are trying to get these families notified. What's the
 >purpose of that?

I was always under the impression that Jim was a defender to the
death of JC and the sale of  the files, so his postings are no
huge surprise..to at least me.

Cheers,
Robert