Introduction

On July 3, 2025, new information came to light when an anonymous envelope was received containing documents that suggest a serious breach of patient privacy and misuse of law enforcement channels. In a chilling exposé that underscores the growing risks to trans patients in the U.S. healthcare system, a sealed envelope marked with Rocky Mountain Health Plans’ (RMHP) return address arrived anonymously at the offices of an unaffiliated third party. Inside were heavily redacted police records and supporting documents referencing a transgender Medicaid recipient, Samara Dorn. The envelope, reportedly sent anonymously from within the Grand Junction RMHP office, bore no sender name—only institutional branding and a local postmark.

While the identity and motive of the sender remain unknown, the envelope’s contents suggest concern from within RMHP about how management characterized—or possibly suppressed—internal risk communication regarding the Plaintiff. The materials indicate that at least one employee understood that the ‘threat’ narrative being constructed by UnitedHealthcare was unfounded, and that the Plaintiff’s actual words were being selectively framed to manufacture a justification for police escalation. The inclusion of HIPAA-redacted police records—paired with the absence of any actual criminal conduct—implies that this employee recognized a retaliatory disclosure was underway, and chose to act not out of solidarity, but to expose an internal fabrication of risk.

The Core Allegation

According to these documents, UnitedHealthcare of Colorado transmitted audio recordings, gender-affirming surgical history, and a psychiatric medication list to the Grand Junction Police Department in January 2025—35 days after the patient’s last phone call. There was no subpoena, no documented emergency, and no legal basis for the disclosure. Internal police memos confirm that HIPAA constraints were acknowledged at the time and that no threat was found. This was not an inadvertent data breach, but a calculated disclosure of sensitive health data without judicial oversight or patient consent.

Envelope Contents

The materials were reportedly sent anonymously by mail in a Rocky Mountain Health Plans envelope, with no return name and no accompanying note. The postmark indicated origin from the Grand Junction, Colorado region. Based on internal context and presentation, the packet appeared to originate from employees who believed that RMHP management had failed to properly inform staff about what was framed internally as an alleged threat by a patient. The enclosed documents include heavily redacted police records referencing “threats made to RMHP after the Luigi assassination.” The phrase itself appeared in quotation marks within the material, which may reflect skepticism or distancing language by the originator or within the records themselves. Many redactions cite HIPAA and other exemptions under Colorado public records law. No cover letter or official explanation was included. However, the envelope’s branded stationery and the documents’ formatting—mirroring internal investigative and metadata protocols—suggest deliberate assembly by insiders following procedural norms.

Political Speech Framed as Threat

Central to the case is the phrase "Deny. Defend. Depose." —a succinct expression frequently used in legal, activist, and trauma-informed civil rights contexts. Dorn invoked the phrase during a call disputing UnitedHealthcare’s denial of her post-operative estrogen refill. Though the phrase is widely recognized in litigation circles as shorthand for a strategic response to institutional harm, UnitedHealthcare appears to have construed it as a dangerous or violent statement, particularly in the politically volatile context following the assassination of their former CEO.

According to internal summaries shared with law enforcement, the insurer highlighted Dorn’s use of the phrase in isolation from its broader rhetorical context. Rather than engage in the standard grievance process afforded to patients disputing care denials, UnitedHealthcare reframed her language as indicative of a threat—using it to justify escalating the situation through internal security protocols and ultimately involving law enforcement. This escalation occurred over a month after the last recorded call, undermining any credible claim of urgency or danger.

The phrase—far from being a call to violence—is a common framework used by plaintiffs, attorneys, and justice advocates to critique institutional resistance and prepare for litigation. Its invocation by Dorn, a pro se litigant familiar with the legal and political systems affecting her, was an assertion of accountability—not aggression. Nonetheless, the insurer's decision to highlight the phrase in its communication with police speaks to a broader institutional posture: one that substitutes political fear and identity-driven bias for good-faith analysis.

This reclassification of dissenting speech as dangerous reflects a broader infrastructure of surveillance and suppression targeting trans individuals. Dorn’s advocacy was interpreted not in clinical context, but in ideological terms. Her frustration—expressed lawfully and within protected speech boundaries—was not seen as a response to care denial, but as a behavioral flag. What should have remained within the domain of patient services or ombudsman resolution instead became a matter for police review.

UnitedHealthcare’s framing thus represents more than a single misinterpretation. It signals a structural tendency to pathologize political speech by marginalized patients. By filtering dissent through a lens of assumed volatility, institutions create a chilling effect—where advocacy becomes suspect, and protected speech becomes a risk factor. Notably, UHC cited the phrase in their own summary of Dorn’s call recordings, cementing it in the police record as if it constituted evidence of threat rather than protest.

Escalation Timeline

The enclosed records show that UnitedHealthcare first escalated the matter to the Department of Homeland Security before forwarding information to local police. Grand Junction Police Department closed the case within 72 hours, explicitly finding no threat, filing no charges, and taking no enforcement action—except for a single non-criminal wellness check. This conclusion is documented in their internal report (Exhibit N), which states that the incident did not meet the threshold for any criminal investigation or public safety concern.

The implications of this convergence—where private insurance acts as an ideological enforcer—are already reverberating through civil rights communities. But what happens next may determine whether this model becomes blueprint or cautionary tale.

This case exists at the intersection of privatized data governance and political targeting. UnitedHealthcare is not a state actor, but in this context, it functioned as one—assuming investigatory authority, creating narrative intelligence dossiers, and bypassing legal process to hand a patient’s full identity to police. By weaponizing protected health information against a trans woman engaged in lawful protest, the insurer blurred the boundary between corporate compliance and state policing.

The actions taken by UnitedHealthcare mirror—and potentially anticipate—the infrastructure proposed under Project 2025, a far-right policy blueprint championed by the Trump-Vance political axis. Project 2025 calls for the dismantling of trans rights, the criminalization of gender-affirming care, and the creation of a centralized, militarized surveillance regime tracking over 300 behavioral, political, and biometric data points per citizen. Dorn’s case demonstrates how insurers like UHC may be acting as early adopters and enforcement proxies of this agenda.

Rather than protecting patient confidentiality, UnitedHealthcare appears to have operationalized its role as a data intermediary to classify and escalate transgender voices that resist medical denial. In doing so, it behaves as a de facto surveillance node—not a healthcare provider. Its use of call logs, metadata identifiers, and sentiment analysis to flag 'threat' indicators aligns with predictive policing models, not medical ethics. And in forwarding such materials to law enforcement without any judicial oversight, it collapses the firewall between private healthcare data and public enforcement power.

This is not mere negligence. It is an emergent model of public-private partnership built around identity-based profiling. The HIPAA violations alleged in this case are not just technical breaches they reflect an institutional impulse to enforce social control on behalf of a hostile political regime. If left unchallenged, this practice could serve as the prototype for digital erasure across multiple domains: Medicaid, mental health services, disability programs, and beyond.

The chilling implications for transgender people—and any politically marginalized group—are profound. This pattern of behavior reveals how dissent can be algorithmically flagged, privacy retroactively voided, and care weaponized as surveillance. UnitedHealthcare's conduct is not merely complicit with Project 2025—it is structurally aligned with its goals. Through metadata, silence, and plausible deniability, a health insurer became a political instrument.

What begins as a denied refill ends in constitutional collapse. And what looks like a care coordination system may in fact be a pipeline to targeted disappearance.

Fallout and Next Steps

The materials are now under review by legal counsel, civil rights watchdogs, and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. If verified in court, they may prompt a regulatory investigation into systemic HIPAA violations and retaliatory surveillance practices by UnitedHealthcare and its subsidiaries.

[End of Draft]

Next sections may include: legal analysis, institutional response, media strategy, whistleblower interview, timeline visual, and political implications under Project 2025.

🧷 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

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 — Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Colorado Rule of Evidence 408 — Compromise and Offers to Compromise

Colorado Rule of Evidence 403 — Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

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.

🔒 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.