Which is more important - keeping James Younger's medical records private, or keeping his genitals intact?
by Alexander C. Baker, J.D. @LegalExpertAlex
A couple of people who oppose "gender affirming care" on children have taken me to task for releasing the "Gender Assessment" of little 12-year-old James Younger. "Don't you know that you're violating James' right to privacy?" one person wrote. A mother named "K.L." messaged me to complain that by violating court orders, our side loses credibility, and that's why we're losing in court.
Nobody has been more critical that I about poor strategy under-charging defendants in de-trans cases. As I said here, the Harmeet Dhillion handling of Chloe Cole and Layla Jade cases is a travesty. She is suing Kaiser merely for negligence, rather than medical battery and fraud.
To cut to the chase, if you think "medical privacy" laws protect anyone but the bad buys, I beg to differ. Look at the DOJ’s Outrageous Political Prosecution of Whistleblower Dr. Eithan Haim. Haim is being prosecuted criminally for allegedly leaking documents proving Children's Hospital in Texas was still doing gender surgeries after they had stated they were not going to, and on the eve of it becoming illegal in that state.
I believe K.L. expresses a view held by a lot of well-meaning people. I'm going to respond to K.L.'s points below, to explain why I think she is misguided, and why we must do everything possible to expose what is actually going on behind the scenes, including – when necessary – publishing documents deemed top-secret.
Breaking down the Gender Assessment
First, though, I want to share some screenshots from the top-secret Gender Assessment, which was conducted by one Danielle Hurwitz, LCSW.
Is there anybody - medical professional or lay person - who is willing to come forward and defend the idea that a 12-year-old boy is now saying:
"I don't really care about my penis. I'm able to pee. I know I'm going to get bottom surgery in the future so I don't really care"
?
Anybody? Is anybody on earth willing to take the position that this boy has not been brainwashed?
Now, if I were come up and tell you, with no documentation, that a little unidentified boy had been conditioned to say "I don't really care about my penis," wouldn't you be skeptical that I was making this up to advance my position?
And what about James' mother Anne Georgulas calling James a girl, and saying "she doesn't like pulling her foreskin down"? Unless you saw Danielle Hurwitz's Gender Assessment from Kaiser, would you even believe that a mother would say such a thing?
Here's another screenshot:
It is true that, left to develop normally, James will develop male sex characteristics (sperm) and male secondary sex characteristics (tall, deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders, etc.). But allowing and encouraging a (then 11 year old) boy to say and believe "I am a girl" ?
Let me see if I have this right... It's healthy to allow a boy to falsely believe he was "born in the wrong body," and that medical science can "transition" him into the girl he was supposed to be, but yet it's hurtful to publish documents showing the truth about what is being done? Really? That's what is best for James?
The "Gender Assessment" next informs us that Georgulas bought James dresses when "she" was still in preschool, and it "made her so happy." And then there is this:
Actually, it's not necessary to visit an endocrinologist, a pediatrician can prescribe puberty blockers, once a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has been made by a mental health worker. It is true that in the Jeff Younger case, there is an injunction that prohibits Anne Georgulas from putting James on blockers without Younger's consent, and that Georgulas is suing Younger seeking a court order to lift that injunction. But this is occurring in Los Angeles Superior Court, not Texas, the case having been transferred in September 2023.
Now, these appalling tidbits:
"Wedge Resection" is a procedure where they slice into one or both testicles and attempt to harvest sperm. According to a 2019 study published at NIH, there are zero (0) examples of a wedge resection resulting in a pregnancy later. ZERO.
By the way, it's false to say that mother and father have 50% medical authority. In fact, mother Anne Georgulas has 100% medical authority, but also is subject to an injunction that prohibits her from imposing "gender affirming care" on James.
For some unintended comic relief, let's consider:
First, social worker Danielle Hurwitz, LCSW reports that James is not attracted to males, or females, or nonbinary (whatever that means), or gender diverse people (whoever they are). But then, in the very next breath, under "define your sexuality," Hurwitz reports that James "notes that she is straight."
Excuse me? I mean, if I claimed – without documentation – that these trans-activist health care providers were reporting sexual orientation for kids who aren't even sexual yet, you probably wouldn't believe me.
Now that the documentation has been made public, doesn't that add a lot more credibility to the claim? Well, not according to K.L. who disapproves of my recent decision to defy court orders to inform the public about the blatant court corruption in Georgulas v. Younger.
If you're not aware, the issue in this Los Angeles Family Court action is whether Petitioner Anne Georgulas should be allowed to castrate her now 12-year-old son, having manipulated this innocent young boy to say (and perhaps believe) things like, "I don't really care about my penis."
K.L. thinks the problem is that our side "lacks credibility." I disagree. I think the problem is our side is "bound and gagged." Let's dig in. K.L. read the previous article "Jail Time for Jeff Younger?" Among other acts of civil disobedience, I published this Gender Assessment record, indicating that social worker Danielle Hurwitz diagnosed 12-year-old James Younger with gender dysphoria on April 23, 2024.
It's worth repeating that James allegedly doesn't care about his penis:
Dr. Haim is being prosecuted partly because he failed to redact the date of visit from the medical records he leaked. Legally, the date of this document – 4/23/2024 – is significant, because it is months after Anne Georgulas filed her action against Jeff Younger. This proves that Georgulas and her attorney Alana Chazan straight up LIED to the Court. Of course, the content of the document is also significant. Should a good parent really teach a little boy to not care about his penis?
Under HIPPA, there is a "right of privacy" regarding medical records. However, even the People's Republic of California recognizes an important exception. When you file a lawsuit where physical or mental injuries or conditions are claimed, you automatically waive the privilege. Because a lawsuit is public, the medical records become public.
K.L. criticizes me:
There are some mistakes about HIPAA and discovery in the article. Records relevant to the case are 'discoverable' by the parties, with the appropriate limited release signers, but they can still be redacted from public records and almost always are, especially where they concern a minor child.
K.L. is correct, but misses the point. Yes, portions of documents are often redacted to conceal personal identifying information. Indeed, if you look at the snippet from James' "Gender Assessment," you can see that his Kaiser Medical Record Number has been appropriately redacted.
But a major part of the overall problem is that "confidentiality,""privacy" and "privilege" are very often used as an excuse to conceal crucial information, i.e evidence, from the public.
A prime example is found in Child Welfare Court, the court system that handles cases where CPS takes children from parents on allegations alone, then conducts a top-secret Star Chamber proceeding where the parent is forced to prove they are worthy of getting their kids back out of the system. More on the kidnapping and extortion racket known as Child Welfare Court below.
In the Jeff Younger case, now there is no public record from which to redact. Did you hear that? The entire case has been deleted. OK? Think about it. Moreover, Georgulas waived privacy rights by publicly disclosing her medical claims regarding the child, on multiple occasions.
K.L. gives lip service:
"There are a lot of irregularities to this [Georgulas v. Younger] case..."
Do you think? The Los Angeles judges have illegally closed the entire case to the public, "sealed" the entire case (as opposed to certain documents), deleted the public record, and summarily denied 5 unopposed pre-trial motions at a top secret hearing, on utterly dubious grounds.
Judge Mark Juhas has already pre-judged the outcome of the case, stating he "is not going to order medical care one-way or the other" and making numerous other statements indicating he is not going to consider the medical and scientific evidence. "I am going to award sole legal custody," says Juhas, "I am not going to manage this child's medical care."
It seem pretty obvious why the Los Angeles Superior Court does not want the record of this case being made public. There was a court reporter present on June 5, 2024 when Juhas said these incriminating things, but all of Younger's multiple requests to obtain the "official transcript" of the proceedings have been ignored. Isn't it good that I recorded the hearing? As to "credibility," do you think anybody would believe me if I just accused Juhas of prejudging the case? Isn't it way more persuasive when you can see and hear this:
K.K. continues:
"...but there are also some routine child-protective measures."
It's true that enforcing the "privacy" of children in Family Court and Child Welfare Court is routine. But the purpose of all these "privacy" measures has NEVER been to protect children, in my view. The real reason for "privacy," "confidentiality" and "privilege" has been to conceal the evidence of how children are being trafficked and abused.
I realize that personal details can sometimes be embarrassing. But exposing messy or embarrassing personal details from a court case is far preferable to a top-secret Star Chamber. Supposedly we figured that out in 1641 when the British Parliament officially abolished the Star Chamber.
K.K. lets the cat out of the bag:
"It's important to understand the difference [between documents you can discover vs. documents you can publicize]. Creative interpretations of law not based on relevant case holdings hurts our sides' credibility when we need it most."
Now we reach the crux. In K.K's view, to achieve "credibility" we must adhere strictly to rules and conform to legal precedent. K.K. equates credibility with obedience. I couldn't disagree more vehemently. I equate credibility with evidence, honesty and, when necessary, disobedience.
Was Rosa Parks credible? She certainly was not obedient when she illegally sat in the front of the bus. She gained credibility precisely because she was disobedient in the face of bullshit Jim Crow law. For whatever reasons, Rosa Parks was publicized. She had a voice.
"Yeah, but you're no Rosa Parks," said K.L. in our phone conversation. I asked her if the people operating the Underground Railroad were credible. After all, they were helping slaves escape, willfully violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. K.L. had no answer, and changed the subject.
What good is credibility, if you never get to speak?
All of the scientific evidence is on our side. However, under the "law," with their "privacy concerns" these woke judges can just ignore the science - like they did to Ted Hudacko, and are doing to Jeff Younger right now.
Hudacko brought medical expert Michael K. Laidlaw to testify in his case, where he lost custody of his son solely because he opposed "gender affirming care." Was Laidlaw deemed a "credible" witness? We will never know, because they simply didn't let him speak.
How the HELL does credibility come into it, when the judge just conducts a top-secret show trial WITH NO RECORD OF THE CASE?
Judge Juhas in L.A. is pulling the same stunt. "I'm not going to decide medical issues one way or the other," says he.
What good is credibility, if you never get to speak?
K.L. says to be credible, we need to cite to relevant case holdings? Or course, supporting an argument with citations to case law is legal writing 101. But again, K.L. misses the forest for the trees.
Along with attorney Tracy Henderson, I wrote a Motion to Set Aside the Star Chamber Order, with numerous citations to relevant case holdings. It was unopposed. Judge Juhas summarily dismissed it at a top secret hearing on July 12, with no court reporter. Same with all our motions. Good grief.
If any other legal experts have a suggestion of what to do now, I'm all ears. But in my view, the point of being polite and respectful to these rulers is over. We are living in a totalitarian state modeled after Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Red China all at once. You have no rights, and there is no law. (And I mean it.)
K.L. asks me to rely on California's Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") § 827, which law is here to condition us believe that only certain special people are allowed to view the top-secret confidential files in a Child Welfare case. While Child Welfare Court is technically a separate court system from Family Court, there is overlap.
More important is that WIC and Child Welfare Court is completely unconstitutional from start to finish. Do you understand that the County takes children first, and then has a Phase I trial to determine whether the Court even has jurisdiction? That's not what we were taught in law school, now is it?
Then, phase II of a WIC trial is where they offer a "reunification plan" with the parent, which includes a SIGNED CONFESSION as a prerequisite of getting a "reunification plan." Did you know this?
Child Welfare Court has always been a top-secret Star Chamber, and it's not OK. Look at the kidnapping and extortion racket that Child Welfare Court has become. If you think that "medical privacy" exists to protect children, think again. "Privacy" is code for "top-secret," and that is all about preventing the people from learning what these criminals are up to.
The entire "transgender" movement is involuntary human medical experimentation. Big hospitals and big pharma are getting even richer, children are being sterilized and mutilated, while the pedophiles and perverts are enjoying a population of young people who are chronologically 18 years old, but physically, mentally and emotionally still prepubescent.
K.L. chides me one last time:
Catching them at their unconstitutional game means crossing t's and dotting i's.
I cannot tell you how many times somebody has said something similar to that. It is as if all the laws are fair and good, and the entire problem with the world is that some people break the law. K.L., do you not realize that everything that happened in Nazi Germany was perfectly legal?
The problem with "gender affirming care" is not that people don't follow the rules. The problem is that almost nobody is willing to break the rules.
Comments