TheBailey
soapy mop
No bio...
User ID: 3254
When Biggus Dickus, the uninsured hooligan who happens to have recently changed his name, destroys my vehicle in a collision he caused,
-
What specific good is that court order going to do me?
-
How much of that good would not be got just as well from an Alabama DS-60 clone?
You keep vaguely rambling about how the DMV has some "reason" for treating a common law name change as a boogeyman, a reason that's supposedly so good as to be worth breaking the law to stop, yet have refused to give me any model of why it's any more of a boogeyman than a court-ordered name change.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
That a high roll scenario is being required to enter your name into an overt registry of gun owners does not suggest the 2A is "doing rather well".
Heck, I'm in Alabama, which is the best-case scenario with so-called “constitutional carry”, but I still consider 2A effectively dead considering my only options to arm myself are:
-
Submit my name and address into the federal covert gunowner registry that comprises the FBI logs of background checks submitted by FFLs;
-
Open myself up to entrapment*, which to my knowledge is still a 100% permitted strategy when done with agency approval, by buying from a non-FFL stranger;
-
Buy from a non-FFL non-stranger, which is logistically a massive nuisance since it requires them to have already owned the gun in question for at least a year, or since before I mentioned the topic to them, lest box
21.aof the 4473 render their involvement moot.
*I do not have the firearms knowledge to know with certainty whether a given gun secretly has some illegal modification, nor do I trust my ability to reliably identify a glowie posing an an individual at a gun show.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Should the Alabama DMV do as you ask, just wait for the first news report of "Biggus Dickus in car crash" about the guy who took out his licence in a joke name, has no insurance, and refuses to give any other name other than the one on his licence.
The uninsured cause car crashes all the time, even as it stands. It happened to me, and it happened to many people I know.
If you want to make the case that the DMV's refusal to accept common law name changes is somehow preventing this from happening more often than it does, then please make that case instead of just painting dramatic vignettes about how “it would be bad if a deadbeat caused a crash (and also that deadbeat had recently got a common law name change)”.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
link's not working for me...
Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.
However, it's loading (cached?) on the main public Nitter instance
https [://] nitter [.] net/kanyewest/status/1920387087049572704
[EDIT: had to mangle link because The Motte worthlessly normalizes them]
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
The DMV would likely just grant your request request which would moot the case
I find it extremely unlikely that the DMV would waive policy only for special ol' me, just because I threatened to take them to court over their illegal behavior. Are you saying that, or that they'd predictably chicken out on their half of the case only after the lawsuit is actually underway? In either case, such action seems like it'd just be begging the ACLU to throw together a form letter to get them to repeat it on cue.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
The point is, this particular flavor of “sill[iness]” is not just enshrined in law as a right, but enacting it completely, and without any discretionary approval from the gov't, is also (as far as I can tell, pending any assault on my actual motte in the OP/C,) enshrined in law.
If the law is to be changed (regardless of the reason), it should be changed through the legislature, not illegally by some administrative employee too big for his britches.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
You're claiming that the law as it stands leaves too much opportunity for fraud, we should just abolish the common law name change doctrine, and the DMV is actually kinda doing the right thing here by (illegally) refusing CL name changes and we don't even know how much crime they're prevented by doing so?
If this specimen could just rock up to the local tax office and go "Hi, my name which I am commonly known by is Susie Susan, new licence I can use as legal ID please", you think she'd avoid doing that?
The picture you paint is a strawman. I simply argue that Alabama could—and in fact should, even if it takes a lawsuit to effect them getting off their ass about it—adopt a process like the one the U.S. passport office has adopted for validating & legitimating common law name changes. It's possible to create a paper trail without sticking the little thumbtack of “this is a discretionary license, you fucking peasant” in there, and that this thumbtack has been stuck in by executive fiat, rather than due process is my complaint.
You don't have to argue practicality to me. I already did it, for all the reasons you name. I was only elaborating in reply to this comment asking why I said that what I did is “cowardly”.
Bending over and doing the wrong thing because it's “preferable” to me...
“Regardless of what the other decides, each prisoner gets a higher reward by betraying the other (‘defecting’).”
–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
...doesn't magically make it the right thing.
Most people do not do the bare minimum of things that they are strictly required to do but the things that makes everything the most straightforwards
Suing the DMV would not be "strictly required", either, but if I were to win* it would "mak[e] everything [more] straightforwards" for the next guy who would then only have to fill out an Alabama DS-60 clone instead of waiting for a court order to get approved — so by your own logic, that seems like the right thing to do?
*As a boring tactical matter, I probably wouldn't anyway; I don't have any history of crimes involving moral turpitude, I do have a reasonably well-paying job, and I think my county offers hardship fee waivers for the court order even if I were bereft, so I'd be a pretty poor candidate plaintiff due to the question of standing... but that's just contingent.
REAL ID requires you submit…a chain of custody set of documents from your birth certificate name to your current legal name [when those names are different]. Those are: …
Citation needed; that may be how Alabama has chosen to implement their so-called “STAR IDs”, but it is not what “REAL ID requires”.
Even if you do come up with some argument—which would be prima facie absurd—that a State-authorized clone of the DS-60 form would not fulfill the 6 CFR § 37.11(c)(2) criterion therefore “everyone would be mad at me” if I got the ACLU to force Alabama to do that…
there is probably an easy way to get a non-Star ID that is presumably legal under this interpretation of the law
…that still wouldn't be an argument in favor of the actual status quo of the DMV (I argue, illegally) refusing to apply common law name changes to any ID, STAR or nar.
EDIT: just for the record, your statement of the situation seems to imply that a passport could be used to fill this purpose:
REAL ID requires you submit one of many documents with your current name, which would be your common law legal name in such a case. But to do that you need to get a passport or … a chain of custody set of documents from your birth certificate name to your current legal name.
however, this is false (if you mean it as a mechanistic explanation of the status quo in Alabama); nothing on the DMV website suggests that even a person who brings in all these:
- a birth certificate reading "Joe Cool",
- a valid Alabama ID card reading "Joe Cool" and matching his face and all other information,
- a completed DS-60 evidencing this "Joe Cool's" social transition to "Jo Cooler" and matching all his information,
- a valid passport reading "Jo Cooler" and matching his face and all other information,
- a signed residential lease agreement with "Jo Cooler" current tenant at the address on his current Alabama ID card,
- a utility bill addressed to "Jo Cooler" and matching the address on his current Alabama ID card,
- a burning desire for an Alabama ID card to be issued reading "Jo Cooler"
would have the requirement that he still first convince the Social Security Administration of his new name waived. The DMV would still refuse Jo in this situation, and I'm just trying to figure out if he could sue for that.
EDIT2: I hate that your point here is somewhat solid...
there is no good faith reason to challenge the [current state] ID reqs, … you wouldn't have standing to do that, because its cheaper to [just get a court order].
...since this seems to imply the only action brewing is for some sex offender or fraudster to sue on the basis that he was denied a court order 😬
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Right now it seems to be "this section of the code says A, that section says B, who gets to juggle the hot potato?"
- I'm not aware of any code that actually says either “A” or “B”.
- It seems the court clearly stated that “A, unless otherwise specified” is their interpretation of § 1-3-1.
- I'm not aware of any court cases that either overturned that ruling, or named “B” as their interpretation of any existing piece of the code.
Either go to court so a judge makes a ruling or the state legislature clears this up. What is happening right now is ripe for all kinds of problems.
We are “ripe for” exactly 3 outcomes that I can see: (1) situation stands, sovcits suffer slightly; (2) a lawsuit is filed, probably by the ACLU; or (3) someone opens this can of worms in the legislature.
You seemingly named the latter two as desired outcomes, and I don't get the impression you consider the first outcome to be particularly problematic, so I'm interested to see what “all kinds of problems” you scry here... Am I misreading you? Do you actually sympathize with the plight of a person who wants to change their name, but isn't eligible or can't be bothered to file for a $50 name change?
Or do you just mean that the situation cannot stand, and every possible outcome is going to be slightly problematic?
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Given that Alabama issues real IDs that seems likely.…even if you won, …what you've done…is, essentially, [destroyed] Alabama's implementation of REAL ID.…Now your whole state is mad at you
If any federal regulation actually exists which would prohibit REAL ID cards from being issued in a person's actual legal name, when that name was acquired by a common-law name change—and so far this is just speculation, no-one has found any such rule*—then
- that would be a legitimate, statutory restriction where applicable, which is on “STAR ID” Driver's Licenses
- that would be inapplicable to non-“STAR ID” Driver's Licenses**
AND you have to pay for a passport, AND you have get the court ordered named change to do that.
*I expect no-one will, either, considering that the passport office explicitly allows common-law name changes, Form DS-60.
**I seriously expect these will never be discontinued anyway, because discontinuing them would harm the voting block of “people who live a lifestyle rendering them incapable of fulfilling the REAL ID requirements”.
trying to go for change in the law would work better
You mean getting a bill passed to solidify either “DMV respects common names” or “DMV entitled to do what they want”, so that either way we're not stuck squinting at a 1982 court case and trying to guess whether a lawsuit is warranted?
(But I do agree with @Rov_Scam: with the law as it stands, it seems more likely that the ACLU would address a case of actual anti-transgender discrimination by the judge by simply making the judge do the thing, rather than making the DMV do the thing, if only because it would be a more valuable ideological win.)
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
But why do we want to surrender a freedom we currently have to the government?
On a weaker but more dialed in note: if we are to get rid of that particular liberty out of arguably valid fraud and impersonation concerns, it should be done procedurally, not just by the Alabama License Director invoking the secret “Who Will Stop Me, LOL” clause of the Alabama Constitution to overturn decades of established case law.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
I'm not objecting to the DMV asking for something to evidence the name change, like sworn witness statements; I'm objecting to them requiring, by policy, these particular evidence which includes getting sign-offs from a federal agency that has an axe to grind against common law name changes. That just seems to be laundering their noncompliance.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
I'm filling out this form verbally fellating a judge “praying” that he “grant” a fucking permit for something I (should) have every right to do “without resort to regal proceedings”.
That I rolled over and complied with these (arguably) illegal demands, because it was more “convenient” to do so, is essentially a vote of support for the State to shoot down the guy who eventually tries to make the DMV actually abide by the law, on the basis that it's the "usual process" or something like that.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Arguing that the DMV and whoever else needs to accept the new name based on Alabama law concedes that the probate court was within their rights in denying the name change.
Good point, even the ACLU may prefer to force that angle rather than making the DMV abide by the law...
Even if some federal law prohibits REAL IDs from being issued in the legal name of a person whose name has been validly changed under common law—which I highly doubt—the DMV policy banning common law name changes is not restricted to STAR IDs (Alabama implemntation of REAL ID) anyway; it applies to all photo IDs.
which I highly doubt
EDIT: Looks like I was right; that is instead explicitly allowed.
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
That the federal government does not have any statutory ban on putting common law adopted names on federal voter rolls should have no bearing on whether the state has any statutory restriction barring the department of motor vehicles from accepting certain (otherwise perfectly valid) name changes.
Are you saying you've found some state law that would warrant this refusal?
My issue here isn't about voter registration, though; it's about updating the name on your Driver's License.
Nothing in the Alabama v. Taylor court opinion that I could see relied on the fact that Taylor's issue happened to be the voter registration department and not the department of motor vehicles; the issue was the State refusing to accept a common law name change as valid per se.
court says that your common law name should be honored, but that doesn't mean that the state has to give you an id or anything else if you don't bring the prerequisite documents … So I could see potentially that the court upholds that "we agree that's your name, but you still need docs proving it to get an id or vote"
If the requirement to “bring the prerequisite documents” — when the requested documents expand way beyond what's actually required to show common use — was already deemed illegal in the latter case (to vote), since that policy infringed on established law, why would it be different for the former (to get an id)?
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Spending $50 on a court-ordered name change is probably the simplest way to proceed.
Sadly, I already took this “coward's way out” cutting a check to the local probate court rather than raising the matter the hard way, and am now far too satisfied with my legal name to fuck with it any further; someone else with a similar impulse will need to tackle this.
(I wonder if we'll see the ACLU stepping up on this matter only after someone is actually refused a court order for name change... which they generally only do for sex offenders and other criminals whose “crimes involv[ed] moral turpitude”...)
Alabama Code § 32-6-13 states:
The Director of Public Safety, with the approval of the Governor, shall establish and promulgate reasonable rules and regulations not in conflict with the laws of this state concerning … the enforcement of the provisions of [Alabama Code Chapter 6, Article 1: Drivers’ Licenses] [which includes Alabama Code § 32-6-4, on issuing driver's licenses].
The Alabama supreme court has held time and time again, most recently in State of Alabama v. Catherine Taylor, et. al., that one consequence of Alabama Code § 1-3-1 is the complete efficacy and legitimacy of so-called “common law” name changes (name changes done neither by a court action nor by any specific statutory process) in the eyes of the State:
The order entered by the trial court permanently restrained the State from refusing to allow plaintiffs … from registering to vote “under the names by which they have chosen to be known and have used subsequent to this proceeding.” … We hold that the trial court did not err.
… “Where it is not done for a fraudulent purpose and in the absence of statutory restriction, one may lawfully change his name without resort to legal proceedings, and for all purposes the name thus assumed will constitute his legal name just as much as if he had borne it from birth.”
We are not aware of any statutory restriction which requires that married women not be permitted to register to vote, if otherwise qualified, under the names by which they have chosen to be known and have used; provided, of course, it is not done for a fraudulent purpose.
… in view of the fact that the common law regarding "names" has not been altered by the legislature as far as we know, we adopt the common law of England in resolving this dispute.
… While the State suggests that allowing married women to register in their maiden surnames will create confusion, we believe that the legitimate interests of the State in preventing fraud in the election process can be satisfied without undue cost or harm.
However, the Alabama DMV has this policy currently in force for changing the name printed on Alabama ID cards:
If you have changed your name, you must…present valid name change documents (e.g., marriage certificate, divorce decree, court order or legal name change document), along with proof that your name has been changed with the Social Security Administration.
Now, being required to not just “present valid name change documents”, but have a federal agency pre-approve them, seems to be a central case (I'd argue even more central than voter rolls that no-one even sees) of requiring a person to “resort to legal proceedings” to make “the name thus assumed…constitute his legal name…for [this] purpose”, which would make it a “rule [or] regulation…in conflict with the laws of this state” and thus an illegal requirement for the Director of Public Safety to impose on petitioners seeking to update their ID card to reflect a common law name change.
This is not just a procedural nitpick, but in practice actually a blocker for any person attempting the process, because even if you could somehow generate (and were willing to generate) a paper trail for your common law name change that'd pass ALEA/DMV muster as substantiating the change, the SSA will reject it anyway.
Before I go knocking on the door of the ACLU, or spending a million dollars on a private lawyer to sue the DMV to avoid spending $50 on a court-ordered name change: does this argument seem sound?
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Surely that's more to do with the cultural coercion affecting his “brides”? cf. Elon Musk's quasi-harem, the sheer exploitativeness and power asymmetry seems to disqualify it from really counting as a mutually constructed "romantic" relationship...
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
Sure, a hospital, and maybe my doctor, is going to put on this big show of paranoia when it comes to disclosing my PII to each other.
But if I have definitely "legally" given them "consent" to give my PII and PHI to 3rd-parties that I'm not even able to learn the names of, what reason do I have to think that those 3rd-parties will take similar "precautions"? The only thing those 3rd-parties have to do is make sure they don't literally have my legal name in the same CSV file as any specific diagnoses when they get hacked, and I'll be none the wiser.
My workplace offers as a benefit genetic cancer screening. I thought this would be a neat thing to check out, since I'm really unsure how much of the skin and breast cancer in my extended family is just due to their shitty lifestyle. But the screening company's privacy policy did not inspire confidence, so I sent them this e-mail:
How do I opt out of “Health Information Exchange” sharing?
How can I know when my information is used for “Research”?
How can I get copies of the IRB approval?
If the final research paper is paywalled, are the involved patients entitled to a free copy of it? 😁
I see that you share patient health information with an undeclared list of Service Providers, Medical Providers, Public Health Authorities, Other Parties, Business Partners, Affiliates, Subsidiaries, Advertising Partners, and various "API and SDK providers".
Assuming you maintain records of this sharing, how could I request a complete account of it, including:
- Exactly what information was shared;
- The legal name and address of the 3rd party the information was shared with;
- The date the information was shared;
- The specific purposes for which the information was shared;
- Any specific constraints on when the 3rd party must delete the information;
- A complete list of “4th parties” the 3rd party is authorized to share my information to, including legal name and address?
The reply I got back did not address most of my questions, and only claimed that
- they don't actually traffick information to HIEs at this time (that was just boilerplate from the privacy policy they blindly copy-pasted from a legal document repository);
- all their studies are done internally at this time; and
- "[Our company] does not sell or share any information ... with any advertising partners. We will be updating our Privacy Policy to ensure it accurately reflects our commitment to protecting your data and maintaining our trust."
(This was 3 months ago, but their posted privacy policy still explicitly states, "We may disclose your Personal Information with advertising partners.")
TheBailey
soapy mop
1mo ago
If a healthcare facility or employee abuses your personal information in ANY.WAY. the government will absolutely anally violate anyone involved with several rusty implements.
"Abuse" is a matter of opinion; HIPAA means they can disclose it only with the patient's "consent".
Have you ever found a single healthcare provider whose notice of privacy practices contained no clauses which were written to include consent to share health information with an open-ended, undisclosed set of 3rd parties? Please share, if you have.
https://www.uabmedicine.org/legal/notice-of-health-information-practices/
We may use and disclose your medical information to tell you about or recommend possible treatment options or alternatives that may be of interest to you.
… We may use and disclose medical information to tell you about health-related benefits or services that may be of interest to you.
… There are some services provided in UAB Health System through contracts with business associates. Examples include a copy service we use when making copies of your health record, consultants, accountants, lawyers, medical transcriptionists, and third-party billing companies. When these services are contracted, we may disclose your health information to our business associate so that they can perform the job we’ve asked them to do. To protect your health information, however, we require the business associate to appropriately safeguard your information.
See bulletpoint #1 in the post you're replying to. That would entail putting myself on the gun owner registry (that doesn't technically identify as a registry.)
Maybe they don't care yet; I just can't stand to be in the registry when the upcoming generation of boiled frogs who has their anchoring bias reset starts coping about bubbles actually forming on the bottom of the pot.
More options
Context Copy link