Charges Dropped Against Head of MS-13

Handel on the Law. Marginal Legal Advice.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty, the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio f and good morning everybody,
bill Handle.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Here.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
It is a Saturday morning, and it's three lovely hours
of which I get to give you marginal and I
think I'm being generous to myself horrible legal advice and
tell you you hopefully have no case. Sometimes you do
and I tell you, okay, you got to go to specialists.
Yeah you got something there you I don't know, or

(00:33):
I think you do. But those are hopefully few and
far between. In the meantime.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
Excuse me.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Here are the phone number. Here is the phone number.
I keep on saying these are the phone numbers. They're not.
It's eight hundred five two zero one five three four
because that used to be long distance and we had
a local number. Eight hundred five two zero one five
three four is the number to call. And top of

(01:00):
the hour is always always the best time to call,
especially when the show starts, because we're starting a new
show after Dean Sharp and usually it's not the same
people who are calling in. So the number eight hundred
five two zero one five three four, and you will
get right in and there are times, and possibly today

(01:23):
we'll go for two hours without you able to get in.
That happens more often than not. And when we come
back or I lock out and I don't give the
phone number, that means we have a full board. Eight
hundred and five to zero one, five, three four. This

(01:45):
is handle on the law, marginal legal advice, where I
tell you you have absolutely no case.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
Here is a really.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Weird one with the Department of Justice and a defendant
and the defendant's attorney. So there is a man who
is alleged to be a major leader of the MS
thirteen gang, and he was arrested and he is now

(02:24):
on the verge of being deported. So here is the issue,
and this is the counterintuitive issue. The Justice Department is
dropping the charges against him even though they arrested him
and are convinced that he is a major leader of
the MS thirteen gang. And why are they dropping the

(02:45):
charges Because if he has charges, if he is looking
at being prosecuted, he's not being deported. He is dealing
with a criminal justice system here in the United States
and will go to prison at the end of the
prison term than he gets deported. Is the way it
works where would he be sent to El Salvador. Let

(03:08):
me tell you that's not where you want to go.
El Salvador. The prisons are brutal. You've seen that in
the news lately. It is just brutal. Eighty people, eighty
men to sell two bathrooms lights on twenty four to seven.
When they're let out of their cells, they are hunched over,

(03:32):
they're shackles, so they literally are almost crawling. Brutal in
El Salvador. Far better here in the United States. So
you have the Trump administration dropping charges. Okay, now we
can deport him easypas. His attorney is asking the Trump
administration to reinstate the charges. So hang on a minute.

(03:58):
Prosecutor dropping charges, defense attorney saying no, no, please keep
the charges in place.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
And the reason is.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Really simple because if the charges are in place, he's
being tried, he stays in the United States and he'll
go to a American prison. If he is deported, he
gets to go to an l Salvadorian prison, which is far,
far worse than anything you can possibly imagine. So it
makes a lot of sense. You don't see this very often. Okay,

(04:27):
phone number, we saw some lines open, so let me
give you the phone number eight hundred five two zero
one five three four. Eight hundred five two zero one
five three four that.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
Is the number to call.

Speaker 1 (04:41):
And then just before we take a break, let me
throw one more story out after out to you, and
then we'll take our break. The House Republican House, of course,
as you know, it is controlled by well the President,
and you would think that big business banking has a

(05:02):
huge influence on all manner of legislation. And that's precisely
what happened. So you had the Biden administration considered more
consumer friendly, you have the Trump administration considered less consumer
and more business friendly. And with that in mind, the
House voted last week to overturn a rule that would

(05:25):
have limited bank overdraft fees to five dollars, following the
Senate and moving to dismantle the regulation that the Biden
administration put into place and where it was about to
go in and the Biden administration estimated it would save
consumers billions of dollars. Why because right now overdraft fees

(05:46):
are thirty five dollars a pop.

Speaker 3 (05:51):
If you overdraft by two.

Speaker 1 (05:52):
Dollars, you are now in overdraft and it's thirty five dollars.
The administration. Nope, can't go more than five dollars. And
these are junk fees. And now these the companies make
so much money on these chunk fees, like the airlines
with luggage fees and paying extra for going in the

(06:16):
emergency exit or city next to a partner. All of
that is junk fees, well, junk fees that the banks charged. Well,
this is one of them, overdraft thirty five bucks. And
by the way, they automatically give you. It's hilarious. You
go to the bank, you open up an account, or

(06:37):
you open up a credit card, and they will automatically
give you overdraft protection, hoping that you go past the limit.
All right, let's go ahead and take a phone call,
or let's take a break. The phone number eight hundred
five to zero one five to three four, eight hundred
five to two zero one five three four. This is

(06:59):
handle on the law.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
K I am six forty jill. Handle here. It is
a Saturday morning.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
The phone number here eight hundred five two zero one
five three four, eight hundred and five to zero one
five three four, and welcome back. It's handle on the law.
Marginal legal advice where I tell you you have absolutely
no case. Okay, Debbie, we'll start with you. Hi, Debbie,

(07:27):
welcome to handle on the law.

Speaker 4 (07:29):
Thank you Bill. My parents day in their eighty My
dad have a history of gambling, and they own their
home outright and also a commercial building outright. He wants
to take money out with the intention of gamble. So
can my mom give me the power attorney so that

(07:51):
I can act on her behalf?

Speaker 3 (07:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (07:55):
But what are you gonna do if you want to
take money out? It's his money? Also, I know the
power of attorney.

Speaker 3 (08:03):
Just lets you write the checks.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
And not on his account, on her account, and you
can also there's a joint account you theoretically could by
the way you're allowed to gamble away your money. Now
she can, she can go in and ask for a conservatorship,
but I don't know.

Speaker 4 (08:24):
It's Uh, that's not a way. I'm trying to trying
to find a way to protect her just in case
he gamble on.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
No, I understand, I understand you for a conservatorship, which
is probably not going to happen.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
Is all the money joint.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
Money, Yes, all the money, all the joint accounts where
either one of them, either one of them can remove
the money. Correct?

Speaker 4 (08:48):
Correct?

Speaker 3 (08:48):
Okay. Now, is there.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
Is their retire money going into a joint account? Does
he get does money come from him into to a
retirement account of some kite?

Speaker 4 (09:04):
It's still Reasian. We don't have they don't have a
retirement accounts. They just own buildings outright, and they just
own their home outright.

Speaker 1 (09:12):
And that's okay, okay, the buildings, the rent from the buildings,
does it go into a joint account? Yes, yes, okay,
Well she can clean out the account uh and put
it in an account in her name, but every month
she's going to have to do that at some point.
He's not going to be very happy about it.

Speaker 4 (09:32):
He has been doing that, and she told us about it,
and he abused her when she asked about the money.
He's all right, you've got a.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
Mess on your money.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
Yeah, you've got You've got a mess on your hands.
I'm going to suggest you start with a trust in
the state attorney to see what you can do in
terms of wrapping up his inability or his ability to
just clean out accounts and go gamble. That's very Asian,
by the way, isn't it? With gambling?

Speaker 3 (09:58):
Are you Chinese? Y?

Speaker 4 (10:01):
My mom my mom is Chinese? My dad is Vietnamese.

Speaker 1 (10:06):
Okay, so what your mom's side is the gambling? Wait
a second, it's your dad's gambling, uh and he and
he's Vietnamese and your.

Speaker 3 (10:15):
Mom is Chinese.

Speaker 1 (10:17):
Yes, oh that's all that should go the other way,
you know that.

Speaker 4 (10:22):
Yes, yes, yes, yeah, but.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
Okay, Mom, that's a little unique.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
Okay, Uh, fair enough. That's what I would do.

Speaker 4 (10:31):
Contact Do I contact a family attorney or trust him?

Speaker 3 (10:35):
I would?

Speaker 1 (10:36):
I would start with a trust in, a state attorney,
a family You know, you can try with a family attorney,
a divorce attorney and try to go that way. Yeah,
but you're gonna have to do some uh some research
and find the right attorney because I don't even know.
I mean, this is a mess. You have the right
to gamble away your money. No one can stop you.
On the other hand, gambling away your money, uh to

(10:58):
the harm of a spout, that's not allowed. And so
what you have to do is do exactly what you said,
and that is how do I protect my mom from
basically losing everything? And then make point out the fact
that your dad is Vietnamese and your mom is Chinese,
so people will think us the other way around. In

(11:19):
terms of gambling.

Speaker 3 (11:22):
Mary, Hi, Mary, welcome Hello Mary?

Speaker 5 (11:25):
Hello?

Speaker 1 (11:26):
Yes, hello, Yes.

Speaker 3 (11:28):
I want to grab you before you die, so let's
hurry this up. Mary.

Speaker 6 (11:34):
I want to know.

Speaker 7 (11:38):
If I need a new idea, and I have tried
to get one, but they keep telling me I need
more information.

Speaker 1 (11:53):
Okay, So you need a new ID because it's you're
already a triple figures in terms of your A and
it's just rolling over.

Speaker 3 (12:02):
Do I have that right?

Speaker 1 (12:03):
And they don't have the ability to do three numbers
on there in terms of age?

Speaker 5 (12:08):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (12:08):
Okay, excellent. What kind of information do they want? Mary?

Speaker 7 (12:13):
Okay, they want my first divorce information and my second
divorce information.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
Okay, so you pull those records? Are public records, Those
are public records. You can pull those out now.

Speaker 3 (12:31):
All you need.

Speaker 1 (12:32):
All you need is basically a computer with internet connection.
Do you know what a computer is? Mary?

Speaker 7 (12:39):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (12:41):
Okay, we're starting on the right track.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
Okay, do you have anybody that has access to a
computer that can just go online and pull those records?
Because all you need is go to the recorder's office
and they have it all there. Okay, that's all you do.

Speaker 6 (12:57):
Could turney help me with it?

Speaker 5 (13:00):
No?

Speaker 1 (13:00):
Yeah, attorney could at six hundred dollars an hour. Mary,
this is easy. Also, you know what I would do
is is back to the computer. Those are the things
that came in the seventies. I know that matter. Do
you remember when there were did you use rotary phones?
Do you remember those?

Speaker 3 (13:20):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (13:21):
Do you remember do you remember when they well, let
me go back Lindburg Baby, when the Limburg baby was
kidnapped in nineteen thirty four, do you remember that? Of
course you do.

Speaker 3 (13:33):
Okay, let's go back even further.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
All right, Mary, here's what I want you to do
is have anybody who is oh computer savvy. That's number one. Also,
there are organizations that help elder people, and you want
to just look at nonprofit helping elder people. They're all
over the place, and their nonprofit you don't pay any
money and you'll get all the information you needs.

Speaker 3 (13:56):
That's how you do. You'll be fine, Mary, You'll be fine.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
Okay, just do a quickly, very quickly like today, this
is Handle on the Law.

Speaker 2 (14:07):
Say five, you're listening to Bill Handle on demand from
fi AM sixty and I just stopped.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
On my copy and I'll just figure this out in
the next break that's what happens when you've been doing
this as long as I have, and you're a complete
pro phone number here eight hundred five two zero one
five three four eight hundred five to two zero one
five three four, welcome back, handle on the law, marginal

(14:39):
legal advice where I tell you have absolutely no case.
Let me get the icon working here, boy, this morning
is really interesting. Uh, Andrea or Andrea? Hello?

Speaker 8 (14:52):
Hello, Yes, yes, I have a question about unions. Can
you speak suit? I'm a coucal.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
Sure of course union's gonna be sued. What what is
the union being sued about? What does the union do wrong?

Speaker 8 (15:05):
They're not exercising.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
Okay, hang on, there was noise in the background. They're
not exercising what due diligence?

Speaker 8 (15:14):
Due diligence with regard to addressing some issues that are
beginning to affect my relationship with my supervisor.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
Uh.

Speaker 8 (15:22):
They keep saying we'll wait until something happens, but that's
only making matters worse.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
Okay, all right, let me ask you this, Uh, what
do you want to happen?

Speaker 8 (15:33):
I want the issues to be addressed? Were there?

Speaker 3 (15:35):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (15:36):
So you want so you want the court to say
to the union address these issues, right.

Speaker 8 (15:42):
No, Well I want I want that to be continuously
put in a position where it's causing frictions between me
and my supervisor.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
Well, okay, between you and your supervisor. What let me
ask you, what does the union have to do with that.

Speaker 8 (15:58):
They're supposed to protect me as far as my contract
regard to.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
My work environment with Okay, why wouldn't it be between
the company and you and you would go to HR.

Speaker 3 (16:09):
Why would the union get involved because.

Speaker 8 (16:12):
My HR is kind of being their hands are kind
of tie because there's some friction between the head of
the organization and my HR director.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Okay, So just being curious about this, all right, and
you expect the judge to go in and order that
the company changes procedures or and or reduce or eliminate
the friction between a couple of people that somehow you
are unable to do your work or you're feeling uncomfortable.

Speaker 8 (16:43):
Well, my conserasive, I don't want to independent position where
I have being asked to terminate MYZ.

Speaker 1 (16:49):
No, I understand, but what is the here's the problem.
Why aren't you saying, can I sue my company bill?
How do I sue it? They're making me uncomfortable. There
are people there that are scoring up my job. Why
wouldn't you go against your company as opposed to you
going against the union for not getting involved for they say,
for example, that's a personnel matter. That's not our matter.

(17:12):
You're just looking at the wrong people to sue. And
let's talk about your damages. What are your damages? Are
they making you feel uncomfortable? Have they promoted someone over you?
What exactly is happening to you?

Speaker 8 (17:27):
I'm sorry, didn't hear the lasted.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Okay, what exactly is happening to you that you want
the union to get involved? Specifically? What is happening to you?

Speaker 8 (17:35):
It's affects and emotionally?

Speaker 3 (17:37):
What is affecting you physically?

Speaker 1 (17:39):
What is affecting you physically? The tension? Okay, that's not
a union matter that you going in and saying the
tension is too great and then starting a legal action,
which is what people do right now. Uh, And you
can't be fired and they have to deal with and
you have to go to doctors. You know, you can't
just say the tension is too great.

Speaker 3 (17:59):
I mean you've got to have a doctor.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
And you okay, and the doctor is willing to write
a note saying you can't work because of the tension.

Speaker 8 (18:10):
The doctor's writ a note saying that what's going on
is diffecting me and causing.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
So okay, done. What you have is a worker discrimination suit.
That's what you have.

Speaker 8 (18:22):
The yeah, yeah, host the work environment is nothing new
with your union. It's against your company. Okay, So that's all.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
That's not complicated.

Speaker 3 (18:37):
Wow, you know the union. Give me a break. Kevin, Hello, Kevin, welcome,
Hey Bill.

Speaker 9 (18:45):
I filed a small claim suit against a business. The
agent of service was a lawyer at a law office.
I'm wondering who do they have to send to represent
the business since they can't send a lawyer.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
They sent an employee from the from the corporation or
the business.

Speaker 9 (19:03):
So that's down down.

Speaker 3 (19:05):
Yeah, it could be a lawyer. It could be it
could be a lawyer.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
But I've got news. If a lawyer walks in, a
lawyer can't represent the business as an attorney being hired
as an attorney. Now, a lawyer can say I'm an employee. Uh,
that you can do, And let me tell you something.
Small claims court doesn't do not like lawyers in there.
They really don't, especially if lawyers start throwing in your honor.

(19:31):
That's hearsay or your honor. There's no foundation or throwing
in rules of evidence. The courts don't like that. Small
claims court wants to hear everything and the rules of
evidence are thrown out the window. Okay, as a matter
of fact, I would argue that I want a lawyer

(19:52):
on the other side.

Speaker 9 (19:55):
Well, we'll see, hopefully they'll sell.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
You'll be fine because here's what the judge, here's what
the judges doing.

Speaker 3 (19:59):
Small claims court. All right, tell me your story. What happened.

Speaker 1 (20:03):
Boom boom, boom boom. Okay, you tell me what happened.
Two different stories, of course, and someone's lying. Inevitably someone's lying,
and the judge usually goes down the middle or whatever.
But you start arguing law, You start arguing procedure, as
lawyers do, because half of what happens in a courtroom

(20:24):
rules of evidence, what's allowed, what a witness, what a
defendant can cannot say, what can be held against the defendant.

Speaker 3 (20:36):
Believe me, all those rules.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
Kick in, and anybody even tries to do that in
small claims court gets nailed.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
You'll be fine.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
What happened?

Speaker 3 (20:44):
Why are you suing your business.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
What are you suing for that?

Speaker 9 (20:47):
Well, I made some Neon components for a custom car
for a company, and they stiffed me on the invoice,
and then they broke it, and then they paid me
for the invoice they owed me, but then they refuse
to pay me for the new invoice.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Okay, all right, so there's your lawsuit. What are they
gonna say? What's the defense?

Speaker 9 (21:07):
I got it, Bill, That's what That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (21:08):
I mean, I don't know what.

Speaker 9 (21:10):
They can say. I got invoice paid.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
What they're gonna say, I'll tell you what they're gonna say, Kevin.
They're gonna say, it's not our fault, it's Kevin's fault.
He produced it broken. Uh, it never worked. They're gonna
say anything. They're gonna say. They're gonna say, you you
have a kangaroo out there in the hall that you're
going to leave the courtroom and start screwing your honor.

(21:32):
That's how despicable Kevin is.

Speaker 9 (21:35):
Well, luckily I took plenty of pictures of the you're good,
then you're good.

Speaker 1 (21:39):
Then that's what you do precisely, John, Hello, John, Welcome.

Speaker 10 (21:47):
Good morning, Bill, Thank you for taking my call. Sure,
And anyway, I just have a general question you had
touched earlier, you know, on some immigration points. And I'm
not going to get politically here, but I was just thinking,
is there any statue of limitation on just the basic
crime of being here illegally?

Speaker 1 (22:06):
Nope, nope, No, you're illegal the entire time, and if
they catch you forty years later, you can be deported
if you're illegal.

Speaker 10 (22:17):
I don't know why someone doesn't challenge that, because you know,
shorter murder, there's some pretty horrible crimes that you can
get away with just by laying low for.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
Because because it's a different animal, illegal immigration is actually
even more civil than it is anything else, and.

Speaker 3 (22:32):
Different rules apply.

Speaker 1 (22:34):
And you know, for example, and I'm not going to
get it political, but President Trump is using an act
that was passing seventeen eighty nine, the Sedition Act alien
a sedition act where a president has to claim this
is an invasion and national security is at risk. I'm

(22:54):
just giving you an example and using it in the
immigration issue. Well, you can't use the Aliens Sedition Act
when it comes to murder.

Speaker 3 (23:03):
You can't use it for anything.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
It's only been used three times and it all had
to do with foreigners coming in in one case, or
perceived foreigners coming in once during World War two with
the immigrant or the containment of Japanese Americans when they
were put in the camps.

Speaker 3 (23:23):
And then during World War One it.

Speaker 1 (23:24):
Was used and it was also used by George Washington.
So that's the general answer. Very different. Good question, by
the way, but it's a lot more complicated than just yep,
that usually is. It usually is how are we doing
for time? Oh, let's take a break, we'll come back.
We still have well before we do. By the way,
just a quick word about Zelman's Zelman's minty mints. Now,

(23:48):
what Zelman's is about are these little capsules that are
coated with mint, a nice strong coat, and then you
put them in your mouth, You pop in your mouth,
and when the mint is gone, you either bite into
them or you swallow them, because this is partially seed
oil inside these capsules, and then they go to work
in your gut and that's where bad breath starts can
stay there and no other mint comes close to doing that.

(24:10):
It's a breath freshener, not just a mint. Boy does
it work and for hours and hours that's zelman MINTI
mouth mints, and so here's what's going on through the
end of the month. You can if you buy a
three pack, you'll get an automatic fifteen percent off automatically,
you don't have to worry about codes or anything. Three

(24:32):
pack of Zelman's Automatic fifteen percent off. Go to Zelmans
dot com, Z E, L M I N S. Zelmans
dot com, slash kfi Zelmans dot com slash kfi. This
is handle on the Law. This is KFI. Don't handle
here on a Saturday morning up until eleven o'clock phone

(24:54):
number eight hundred and five two zero one, five three four.
We're on a pretty good bend here. You know, we've
got a lot of calls, but there's still a few open.
So feel free back we go more Handle on the
News or Handle of the Law Marginal legal Advice. Carol.

Speaker 3 (25:10):
There you are, Hello Carol.

Speaker 5 (25:12):
Good morning, Thank you for taking my call. A dental question.
If a dentist is working on one tooth and harms
another tooth, is that a malpractice suit?

Speaker 3 (25:24):
Which tooth?

Speaker 1 (25:25):
Are we talking about?

Speaker 5 (25:28):
The front teeth?

Speaker 3 (25:29):
Front teeth?

Speaker 1 (25:31):
Huh?

Speaker 3 (25:31):
At the front teeth?

Speaker 1 (25:33):
The dentist ruined or caused damage to the front tooth?

Speaker 5 (25:38):
Right correct, but working on the back teeth.

Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, well, I was just going to make fun of
you in terms of where the teeth are, but I
can't because that's exactly the worst case scenario.

Speaker 3 (25:50):
So how far can I go on that one and.

Speaker 1 (25:52):
Still be funny?

Speaker 4 (25:54):
Not very?

Speaker 1 (25:55):
Yes, of course that's dental malpractice, that's medical malpractice. Yes,
how much damage who the tooth was done?

Speaker 5 (26:03):
If calling for a friend and she thinks that she
may have may lose her tooth, she.

Speaker 3 (26:10):
May lose her tooth.

Speaker 1 (26:11):
Now it gets interesting.

Speaker 5 (26:12):
She hasn't yet, but probably.

Speaker 1 (26:15):
So Now does she plan to move to Appalachia, Tennessee,
for example?

Speaker 3 (26:22):
No, see, that would really work there.

Speaker 1 (26:24):
Because you almost have to have your teeth removed, especially
your front teeth when you go there. Yeah. I mean
that's a pretty big deal. And so what's going to happen?
I mean, at best, if the tooth is to the
point where it can't be saved, at least dental implants
are now available and the technology is great. But yeah,
there's dental malpractice all over the place, and it's time

(26:46):
for her to call the dentists and go, hey, I'm
about to lose this tooth. What would you like to
do about it, and hopefully the dentist says, oh, oh,
it's our fault. Tell you what, we're will put in
an an implant at their costs and says.

Speaker 3 (27:00):
Yeah, and some money.

Speaker 5 (27:02):
He has an attitude. Sorry, even he has an attitude
when she's given him instruction about her her all right, well, yeah.

Speaker 3 (27:10):
This is a doctor.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
These are doctors, you know, I mean they're they're obnoxious.
So she wants to make his life miserable. Does the
doctor have a dog?

Speaker 5 (27:19):
You know, I don't know she does.

Speaker 3 (27:21):
You got to find out.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
It's really if doctors have dogs, and it gets much easier.
I know, you get in trouble for doing that, but hey,
you know, uh, you know that's why got met at
baseball bats, et cetera. So let's leave that one alone
for a minute. Uh. Dentists, I mean these doctors and
dentists and surgeons have insane egos, you know that, so
has All she has to do is be aggressive about it. Literally,

(27:44):
I mean, there is this is malpractice on its face,
Carols that simple, and she stands very firm. The problem
is you can go to medical malpractice attorney, but I
don't know if that's enough for u an attorney to
get involved.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
You could ask I would try for sure, Morgan.

Speaker 6 (28:04):
Hi Morgan, Hi Bill, how are you doing?

Speaker 3 (28:07):
Yes, ma'am? What can I do for you?

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (28:10):
So I'm a breast cancer survivor. I had breast cancer
twenty three years ago, and about a year ago I
went to get my mammogram and Anthem denied an MRI.
And it turns out about a here later, I got
new insurance, my doctor resubmitted it, and now I have
stage to breast cancer and I'm undergoing six months of

(28:33):
chemo and I have to have a messectomy. So I
wanted to know if there's anything that I can do.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
Yeah, I would certainly.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
Based on what you say, it's worth talking to a
medical malpractice attorney. The problem is is establishing that had
you had the MRII, you would not be in this position.
You have to connect the MRII to the medical problem
that you have, and they're all kinds the defenses she

(29:00):
would have gotten it anyway. MRIs were not particularly they
weren't called for under these circumstances, because remember, medical malpractice
is not it goes beyond just well here's what the
normal medical care is. Boom, here are the statistics X
number of people get cancer no matter what. And you

(29:22):
go through it and you see you say, I have
stage two cancer because of the MRI not being done
and it would have been caught right there. So let
me ask you this, what if your cancer came back
right after you had the MRI, because when can you
establish that it was that it could be determined that

(29:43):
it was there.

Speaker 3 (29:45):
Because that's a defense.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
I'm sorry, Ah, no, you go ahead.

Speaker 5 (29:50):
Oh yeah.

Speaker 6 (29:51):
So, so it was established by the radiologists that I
had like three hot spots that needed to have further investigation.
And then the oncologist that I'm seeing at City of
Hope literally told me, he said, you know, had you
have the MRI and we found this within a month,
it would have been a lumpectomy and radiation, you wouldn't have.

Speaker 3 (30:12):
Care fair enough.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
Now that is now you have evidence and you have it.
Now they're going to have doctors that go the other way.
Believe me, they don't just roll over. Yeah, but now
you have evidence and you have a doctor who hopefully testifies,
is willing to go to court or are you subpoena
the doctor? And it is going to be asked, is
it possible that this would have happened if the MRI

(30:37):
didn't happen, didn't occur. Well, no, it's because of the
lack of MRI. He has to be that strong. Good
luck getting a doctor to do that. However, you still
go and you get a medical mal you get a
medical malpractice attorney. You absolutely take it to a medical
malpractice atorney because the damages are big enough.

Speaker 3 (30:55):
Absolute no issue about that.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
All Right, before we bail, I want to tell you
a little bit about something called the Pain Game Podcast.
The Pain Game podcast is a podcast that it drops
once a week and it is about pain. As you
can imagine chronic pain, and chronic pain is you're constantly
suffering from pain and it could be debilitating. And the
host of the Pain Game podcast is someone's very special

(31:19):
to me who suffers with chronic pain. Happens to be
my wife. By the way, she's very good at this.
She's a trooper as many people are. I mean, pain
is there all the time, and she deals with it
and helps people deal with it. So, if you have
chronic pain, if you know someone else chronic pain, or
dealing with people who have chronic pain in your family,
let me suggest listening to the Pain Game Podcast. It

(31:42):
really does help and I've seen it work right there,
the Pain Game Podcast. You can follow it on Instagram
at the Pain Game Podcast. And that's the Pain Game Podcast.
Oh it drops well, season three drops in a week,
The Pain Game Podcast. This it is Handle on the Law.

Speaker 2 (32:03):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI A
M six forty