| Man Sues Merrick Garland To
Sell His Kidney, Citing Roe, Will Amend
Complaint in SDNY
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
August 13 –
A man from New Jersey
has sued US Attorney General
Merrick Garland to challenge
the Federal organ sales ban
statute.
On August 13, U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge
Katherine Polk Failla held a
proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it, the only media
there. So it live tweeted the
proceeding, here
(and put document from the
case on Patreon, here)
Judge Failla
begins by questioning standing
- is it enough to simply read
the act, then call a hospital?
Plaintiff's
counsel Matthew Haicken: I
don't want my client to bring
the case from jail.
Judge: Has he
done all he can do, without
running the risk of
prosecution?
Plaintiff's
counsel:
Yes.
Assistant US
Attorney: The plaintiff could
have identified a buy, an
organ, a price... Court
reporter: I have a problem
hearing you. [An ear?]
Judge: The
complaint talks a lot about a
kidney.
AUSA Jennifer Ann
Jude: I'd have to go back and
look. [The Assistant US
Attorney defending Merrick
Garland has not read the
complaint - it says kidney all
over it]
AUSA says venue
is not proper in SDNY. Judge:
But he was going to have the
organ removed here.
AUSA: It has not
ripened yet. Now I've pulled
up the complaint. Sure it
mentions kidneys.
[Inner City Press
pulls the Complaint up: "After
plaintiff ran into financial
difficulty, he became
interested in learning more
about the sale and purchase of
vital organs." It cites Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 US
479 (1965) and Roe v.
Wade, 410 US 113 (1972)
Judge: What
is the plaintiff's venue
argument? Plaintiff's counsel:
I can amend the complaint. For
the AUSA to say he should have
found a buyer and signed a
contract, that sounds like
entrapment...
Judge: I
don't think you have
adequately pleaded venue. You
can amend as of right. I'm not
today going to say there is
venue. If you in response to
the AUSA's letter want to
transfer to NJ, I can sign the
order.
Plaintiff's
counsel: I rest on my written
response.
AUSA: We don't
think his argument comparing
the right to buy a kidney to
the right to sell a kidney is
compelling. Needing a kidney
is more compelling than
needing money enough to sell
one.
Judge: It seems I
can't persuade plaintiff not
to bring his claim, nor the
government not to move to
dismiss. How much time do you
need to amend?
Plaintiff's
counsel: Two weeks.
Judge Failla:
I'll give you three.
Plaintiff's
counsel: I'll take 'em.
Judge Failla:
Since this is the
government's, I mean Mr.
Garland's, motion, I'll ask
you or him to order the
transcript.
The case is
Bellocchio v. Garland, 21-cv-3280 (Failla)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
