What court, tribunal, and or investigative agency ensures that information with redacted information when presented as evidence is valid, legal, and not used for misinformation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. What court, tribunal, and or investigative agency ensures that information with redacted information when presented as evidence is valid, legal, ~ and not used for misinformation? 2. Is “.such that a reasonable person could conclude..” as used in whistleblowing retaliation cases and jurisprudence, valid, applicable, given significant consideration, and fair, when applied to subcultures — as in military healthcare is a subculture } within the military, and military is a subculture of U.S. population). Subcultures often have unique } highly specialized attributes, purpose and dynamics — including communications and where the general population “reasonable person” may be devoid of basic information and or familiarity of the subculture that a “reasonable person” of a subcul| ture customarily possesses. 3. In retaliation cases where a common individual is involved, and or, several individuals with common interests and motivation are involved, in multiple situations suggestive of retaliation; why is “merger of factors” that constitutes a nexus not given consideration? 4. End justifies the means, and vice versa. Are military federal agencies immune to legal liabilities for reporting and or submitting untruthful or misleading information when action is backed by commander’s discretionary authority? Nea wy \ | . | : | QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued 5. Can military commanders with discretionary au| thority change definitions and or interpretation of congressional legislative rules or mandates such as the HIPAA privacy rule exemptions? | 6. What has precedence HIPAA privacy rule or Patriot Act? 7. With concurrent and or competing active military } missions, who has priority in the application of Army Regulation (AR) 40-66 (“ ... carrying out , any other activity necessary to the proper execution of the Army’s mission”). Military health services commander (dual health care missioned) or warfighter commander? 8. Can military healthcare commanders with their discretionary authority apply HIPAA privacy rule to withhold and or be passive with sharing significant or relevant soldier protected health information that could be critical for warfighter commanders optimum command and control and to execute national defense and or homeland secu-_ rity missions? 9. More NOTE: I offer the clarification and resolution of numbers 7 and 8 above especially to the Fort Gordon military intelligence and cybersecurity warfighting commanders and unit leaders whom IJ had the privilege and honor to serve as medical readiness liaison, and of whom voiced their frustration with previous lack of support from DDEAMC. I hope and pray they will be empowered. . © ii RELATED CASES | Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (MSPB 1981) Yunus, at 1371; Carney v. Department of Veteran’s Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 446 11 (2014) | LaChance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed Cir. 1999) | Mintzmyer v. Department of the Interior, 84 F.3d 419, 422 (Fed Cir. 1996) Ellison v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 7 F.3d 1031, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1993) | Chavez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 285, 19 (2013) Langer v. Department of the Treasury, 265 F.3d 1259, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Parikh v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 116 M.S.P.R. 197, 14 (2011) Chambers v. Department of Interior, 515 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Aquino v. Department of Homeland Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 35, 13 (2014) Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 MSPR 612, 627, 629 23, 27 (2015) |