Update in Schara v. Ascension et al
Who knew that “experts” had special legal status in the United States? Whatever happened to the Rule of Law that applies to everyone?
Last week I asked my subscribers to familiarize yourselves with the murder of Grace Schara at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Wisconsin, part of the Ascension (Health) hospital system.
Mr. Schara reported today, May 28, 2024, that his lawyers were in the process of deposing the defendants who killed his daughter. I urge you to read the article. I’ll only take one excerpt.
The Attorneys for the defendants advised their Guilty clients that they did not have to answer questions about the deadly practices of their co-workers, because they were “experts.”
Finally, and maybe most importantly, are the defense objections based on ‘Alt Privilege.’ They literally told their clients to not answer our attorneys’ questions based on this unlawful privilege granted to the medical community to protect their own. Based on my research, the idea comes from the case, Burnett v. Alt, 224 Wis.2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999). Our medical-profession-supported-legislators codified the idea into law via State Statute 907.06 in 2013. The Statute has to do with Court Appointed Experts. As is typical, the slippery slope has mutated the idea that medical staff cannot testify against their colleagues. I’m including the link here, so you can read the law for yourself: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-907/section-907.06/.
The Statute referred to by Schara has the following language:
As sub. (1) prevents a court from compelling an expert to testify, it logically follows that a litigant should not be able to so compel an expert and a privilege to refuse to testify is implied. Burnett. v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999), 96-3356.
Wait a minute, I thought these people were murderers, not “experts.” Didn’t you read the case Judge? I thought they were defendants. Experts in what, Judge? How to kill people with drug interactions? That’s protected, seriously?
How far does this Statute extend? If a civil engineer intentionally sabotaged construction of a bridge or building, causing it to fall and cause death, could his “expert” co-workers not be compelled to answer questions about the construction?
If some blue collar worker got drunk and ran a red light and killed someone, could any witnesses also be able to not answer questions about it because they claimed to be “experts” in drinking? Or is this Statute just for White Collar Crime in the Medical Community?
I’m not sure where this is all leading, but people have had enough. The protection of the Guilty by our Legal system has to stop.
Charles Wright
They put a lot of effort into that strategy. But the Plaintiffs will hopefully move to compel further testimony and have the judge overrule the objections. They can't be experts and defendants in the same case. I hope.
Man, oh man! Talking about adding insult to injury, literally. Where does it all end?!?