AdministrativeErasure.org

🧷 When I said “Deny. Defend. Depose.” on the phone with UnitedHealthcare, I wasn’t threatening anyone—I was speaking a truth that made them uncomfortable.

That phrase wasn’t invented by me. It’s already embedded in legal, academic, and cultural conversations about how corporations dodge accountability. It names a real pattern. And I was far from the only one who saw it.

In December 2024, a sharp and controversial article titled “Deny. Defend. Depose: A New Model of Corporate Accountability?” was published on the Peter A. Allard School of Law Blog by a contributor using the name lukaszk. It reflected on the public reaction to the assassination of UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson, and examined why so many people saw his death not as tragedy—but as retribution.

“The words engraved on Mangione’s bullets were about legal procedure and are related to how insurance companies weaponize legal procedure against vulnerable people.”

That article didn’t glorify violence. It interrogated why those words—legal, procedural, bureaucratic—were seen as justifiable targets for outrage. It recognized that for many marginalized people, corporate abuse doesn’t look like a villain in a cape. It looks like a denial letter, a phone tree, an escalation team. A system designed to delay until you break.

That article remains live. But another one does not.

A second piece—attributed to law student Serena Kaul—was also published on the Allard Blog in 2024 under the same title: “Deny. Defend. Depose.” That one is now gone. Removed without explanation.

Kaul’s version wasn’t about vigilante justice—it was about legal architecture. She dissected the phrase as a symptom of deeper systemic failure: how administrative actors use procedure to silence dissent, punish the vulnerable, and make civil rights technically compliant but functionally unreachable. Her analysis warned that institutional actors might one day try to criminalize protest language under the guise of public safety.

Her piece was less visceral, more academic—but no less dangerous to those in power.

It’s no coincidence that her article was taken down. We’re working to recover and preserve a copy for public record.

🔥 UnitedHealthcare Didn’t Misunderstand Me. They Recognized the Pattern. I used the phrase Deny. Defend. Depose. not on a weapon. Not in rage. But on a phone call—while trying to survive.

I used it:

After my hormone therapy was illegally denied

After two weeks of delay and misdirection

While pleading—lawfully—for the medication that Colorado state law required them to cover

UnitedHealthcare didn’t treat my speech as policy critique. They treated it as a threat.

They stripped it of context. They reframed it as “instability.” And they sent my audio, gender status, psychiatric medications, and call transcripts to the Grand Junction Police Department— without a subpoena, without redaction, and without lawful justification.

But as the Allard blog post and Kaul’s removed article made clear:

This wasn’t just my language. It was the language of protest. The language of systems being named. The language of people who have had enough.

We will update this page with a link to the preserved Kaul article if and when it becomes available. Until then, remember:

My words weren’t dangerous. What’s dangerous is a system that treats truth as threat.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This isn’t just about one incident. This is a blueprint. This page explains how a transgender patient trying to refill a state-covered, time-sensitive medication was reclassified as a potential threat—flagged by algorithms, profiled by policy, and handed to law enforcement. It also reveals how the same infrastructure could be used against anyone whose identity, condition, or voice is deemed inconvenient.

🧠 What is "Administrative Erasure"?

Administrative Erasure is the systemic dismantling of someone’s legal or social identity through backend infrastructure—not with force, but with process. It happens when data replaces context. When metadata replaces humanity. When compliance becomes a weapon.

It doesn’t rely on overt criminality. It doesn’t need a judge or a diagnosis. It just needs a system trained to escalate rather than understand.

In Samara Dorn’s case:

A Tier 2, legally protected hormone — estradiol valerate — was denied despite medical necessity.

Her voice, raised in desperation, was flagged as threatening.

Her gender and psychiatric history were quietly shared with police.

Her First Amendment speech was reframed as instability.

All without a subpoena. Without a warrant. Without her knowledge. This wasn’t a glitch. It was policy.

This isn’t healthcare. It’s institutionalized profiling—with trans lives in the crosshairs.

⚖️ Did Samara Dorn make violent threats?

No. And the police confirmed this. Samara spoke out—forcefully, lawfully, and politically—against being denied a medication she needed to survive. She used charged rhetoric, but never crossed into illegality.

According to the Grand Junction Police Department:

No charges were filed.

No threat was substantiated.

The case was closed voluntarily within 72 hours.

“Samara denied needing any support... and stated that [S]he ‘doesn't have any trust with LE’ and would not want to speak with us further without an attorney.”(Exhibit O – GJPD Narrative Log)

This was over before it began. But UnitedHealthcare kept going anyway.

📤 What did UnitedHealthcare send to law enforcement?

Without legal process, consent, or clinical justification, UnitedHealthcare transmitted:

🔊 Five full call recordings, capturing Samara’s voice, emotion, and speech pattern

🗂️ A narrative cover letter, framing her as a reputational and potential public safety risk

🔐 Her full legal name, surgery history, gender marker, and psychiatric medications

⏱️ Metadata logs and escalation notes, flagging her as “distressed” or “uncooperative”

They sent this package not to a patient advocate or case review board—but directly to the Grand Junction Police Department.

“We probably weren’t allowed to send that... but it’s done.”(UHC internal admission)

They also confirmed they hadn’t listened to all the calls before sending them.

That’s not care. That’s data laundering in the service of institutional retaliation.

🧬 Why was she calling UnitedHealthcare?

To refill a hormone prescription: estradiol valerate, prescribed post-surgery and covered under Colorado’s Medicaid Gender-Affirming Care Guidelines.

The facts:

✅ Prescribed on November 25, 2024 by Dr. Joshua Pearson

✅ Classified as a Tier 2 drug — pre-approved by Medicaid

✅ Subject to a 28-day discard rule under FDA/USP guidelines

UHC denied it, falsely citing dosage issues—even though dosage was irrelevant to the 28-day sterility window.

Samara’s care team made multiple override attempts. Samara herself made repeated calls. Instead of correcting the denial, UHC escalated her.

And then escalated again.

🔍 Was there a DHS referral?

Yes. Before contacting local police, UnitedHealthcare referred Samara to the Department of Homeland Security.

“She previously reported the following to the Department of Homeland Security and Detective Janda...”(Exhibit N – Page 2, Officer Daly)

No crime. No emergency. No medical crisis.

But her voice and identity were federalized without warning. The referral was never disclosed to her. She discovered it later through record requests.

This wasn’t a wellness check. It was a federal surveillance event triggered by trans advocacy.

🧠 Was this about mental health?

Only in how it was exploited. Samara did not place her mental health at issue. Her psychotherapist-patient privilege is preserved. No clinician will testify. No diagnosis is relied upon.

Yet UHC:

Disclosed her psychiatric medication list

Included diagnostic codes with gender-related metadata

Let law enforcement interpret that as a threat signal

They didn’t escalate because she was unstable. They escalated because she was inconvenient.

A Protective Order was filed to stop this exact abuse from recurring in discovery.

💥 Why does this matter beyond Samara?

Because the infrastructure is still running.

Because what happened to her could happen to:

Trans people

Disabled people

Poor people

Neurodivergent people

Medicaid recipients

Survivors

Dissenters

If your voice challenges a system trained to deny, you can be profiled.

The algorithm doesn’t ask what you meant. The database doesn’t care if you were right. The handoff doesn’t need a crime—just a trigger.

This case isn’t an outlier. It’s a warning.

⚖️ Is this FAQ part of a settlement negotiation?

No. Nothing in this FAQ—or anywhere on this website—is part of any confidential settlement offer or protected negotiation under Rule 408 or Rule 403. This page is built from:

Publicly filed exhibits

Lawfully acquired police and agency records

Firsthand facts and documented metadata

Constitutionally protected survivor speech

It contains no settlement terms, demands, or offers. It may not be cited as such in court.

📜 Legal Notice – Evidentiary Rules Compliance

This FAQ is a public legal education tool. It is not admissible under:

Federal Rule of Evidence 408¹

Federal Rule of Evidence 403²

Colorado Rule of Evidence 408³

Colorado Rule of Evidence 403⁴

It is protected by the First Amendment and may not be used to prove or disprove liability or damages.

Footnotes:

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 — Compromise Offers and Negotiations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_408

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 — Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403

Colorado Rule of Evidence 408 — Compromise and Offers to Compromise: https://casetext.com/rule/colorado-court-rules/colorado-rules-of-evidence/article-iv-relevancy-and-its-limits/rule-408-compromise-and-offers-to-compromise

Colorado Rule of Evidence 403 — Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time: https://casetext.com/rule/colorado-court-rules/colorado-rules-of-evidence/article-iv-relevancy-and-its-limits/rule-403-exclusion-of-relevant-evidence-on-grounds-of-prejudice-confusion-or-waste-of-time

🕳️ What Is Exhibit Z? Exhibit Z is a sealed archive. It contains documents, images, disclosures, and structured metadata not yet made public due to legal strategy, risk of retaliation, or protective timing under the scope of a pending civil action.

These files are not fiction. They’re not dramatizations. They are redacted, timestamped, and authenticated pieces of a system that tried to rewrite reality.

But instead of releasing everything at once, we’ve chosen precision.

🧠 Why Keep It Sealed (For Now)? Because exposure is a tactic, not just a truth. And some truths only matter when you choose when and how to tell them.

Exhibit Z will be released if:

The Rule 408 confidential settlement expires

Defendants escalate retaliation or misinformation

Key stakeholders deny, minimize, or distort the documented harm

Legal counsel or press advocacy warrants escalation

🔒 What’s Inside? While specifics remain sealed, Exhibit Z is known to include:

Redacted communications from within the insurance system

Evidence of algorithmic surveillance and metadata-based risk scoring

Photographs, timestamps, and third-party confirmation of events and disclosures

Internal contradictions within official records

Proof of a chain-of-custody failure concerning protected health data

⏳ When Will It Open? You’ll know. Because it won’t be subtle.

Exhibit Z is scheduled for partial unsealing after August 11, 2025 unless settlement or suppression agreements remain in force. Full public release will follow if the system fails to take accountability.

🧩 For the Observers, the Press, the Cowards, and the Courts: This page exists as notice.

To those watching from the shadows: yes, we see you. To those preparing denials: your statements are already timestamped. To those trying to contain this: it’s too late.

I Was Supposed to Stay Quiet. I Didn't. They thought I would disappear. They counted on silence. On shame. On exhaustion.

But here I am. And here’s the truth:

You don’t get to erase people and expect them not to respond.

What comes next isn’t noise. It’s resistance—with receipts

This isn’t a warning. It’s a reckoning. And I’m not just here to speak—I’m here to be heard.

---

They called it a “welfare check.”

But I wasn’t missing. I wasn’t a danger to myself. I wasn’t having a mental health emergency. I was a transgender Medicaid recipient who had spoken too clearly, asked too many questions, and reached the end of what the system could tolerate. That’s when the silence began—not a bureaucratic oversight, but a calculated refusal. And that’s when the data started to move.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This isn’t speculation. This is a lived account of what happens when institutional power meets metadata profiling, and healthcare denial becomes a surveillance protocol.

---

What Happened?

This site shares my first-person narrative—because no lawsuit, no headline, and no corporate statement will ever fully convey what it means to be erased while still alive.

• I was denied medically necessary care that had already been approved.
• I was then framed as a potential threat based on private health information.
• That information, protected under HIPAA, was passed to law enforcement.
• There was no emergency. No warrant. No court order.
• There was only a transgender woman alone in her home—suddenly surrounded by armed officers.

---

Why Tell This Story?

Because I survived it.
Because others might not.
Because “administrative erasure” is not a metaphor—it’s a method.
And because the people responsible will never admit what they’ve done unless the truth is louder than their silence.

I’m not here to shame individuals. I’m here to expose a systemic pattern: when someone like me becomes inconvenient, the system withdraws care and escalates control. That’s not medicine. That’s profiling with a clinical face.

---

What You’ll Find in This Archive

• Redacted but verifiable evidence that aligns with the public record
• A survivor’s voice preserved on her own terms
• Legal filings that document the breach, the silence, and the aftermath
• Whistleblower disclosures and internal metadata patterns
• A reconstruction of what they tried to make disappear

This is not about revenge.
It’s about documentation.
It’s about survival.
And this is not a story they wanted told.

But I’m telling it anyway.