Transferring files from Windows 98 pen computer to Windows XP tabl

Mine is a most bizarre request for information and I don't know where to post
it.

To give a brief summary of why and what I am looking for, I filed a
complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (the
governing medical board for doctors practicing in this province) against a
psychiatrist who minimized sibling sexual abuse as a "common occurrence"
without asking any pertinent questions about the abuse (i.e. How old was I .
.. . How old was my brother . . . Etc.). This minimization was the cause for
reinforcing all the negative feelings I had about myself (a common effect of
abuse, whereby the victim blames his/herself).

The College decision favored in the doctor. About a week after receiving
the College's decision, I received a copy of my file as recorded by this
psychiatrist, in which the College based their decision. Within minutes of
receiving this file, I noticed a discrepancy in the content of the file and
had alerted the College right away. When I reviewed it further, I found
multiple differences of what he wrote and what actually occurred. The whole
file had been rewritten from beginning to end, which led me to file another
complaint of fraud. In the course of this investigation, it became known
that the doctor did indeed rewrite my file, not once but twice and he gave
the following explanation:

He had a "pen" computer with Windows 95 and when he bought a new pen
computer with Windows 98, he had no trouble transferring files from one
computer to another. Then in 2002, he bought a "tablet" computer with
Windows XP. He is maintaining that the operating system of Windows 98 was
not compatible to Windows XP and therefore he ran into problems transferring
files forcing him to hand write all his file notes into the new computer.
When I had filed the standard of care complaint against him, he went to print
out the file to send to the College and found that it had a "computer
generated date" on each printout that didn't correspond to the actual date of
the session but rather it reflected the date on which he "rewrote" the file
into the new tablet computer. He felt that I would be upset if I saw this
computer generated date, so he rewrote it again, and sent the College a copy
of the handwritten file to their request for a copy of the "original" file.

The College was willing to believe him to the extent that they ruled in his
favor again.

I am appealing the College's decision and am looking for any holes that I
can possibly find in the doctor's above noted statement. I am hoping to find
that there were *no* issues with transferring files between these two
operating systems, casting doubt on his statement whereby the College is
forced to look seriously at my complaint of fraud. Where would I find any
information about transferring files from Windows 98 "pen" to Windows XP
"tablet" and if there were any compatibility difficulties between them?

"shemar" wrote in message
...

. . . decision favored in the doctor. About a week after receiving
the College's decision, I received a copy of my file as recorded by this
psychiatrist, in which the College based their decision. Within minutes
of
receiving this file, I noticed a discrepancy in the content of the file
and
had alerted the College right away. When I reviewed it further, I found
multiple differences of what he wrote and what actually occurred. The
whole
file had been rewritten from beginning to end, which led me to file
another
complaint of fraud. In the course of this investigation, it became known
that the doctor did indeed rewrite my file, not once but twice and he gave
the following explanation:
.. . .
He had a "pen" computer with Windows 95 and when he bought a new pen
computer with Windows 98, he had no trouble transferring files from one
computer to another. Then in 2002, he bought a "tablet" computer with
Windows XP. He is maintaining that the operating system of Windows 98 was
not compatible to Windows XP and therefore he ran into problems
transferring
files forcing him to hand write all his file notes into the new computer.
When I had filed the standard of care complaint against him, he went to
print
out the file to send to the College and found that it had a "computer
generated date" on each printout that didn't correspond to the actual date
of
the session but rather it reflected the date on which he "rewrote" the
file
into the new tablet computer. He felt that I would be upset if I saw this
computer generated date, so he rewrote it again, and sent the College a
copy
of the handwritten file to their request for a copy of the "original"
file.

The College was willing to believe him to the extent that they ruled in
his
favor again.

I am appealing the College's decision and am looking for any holes that I
can possibly find in the doctor's above noted statement.

1. Your chances appear small. You may lack enough knowledge of
computers to make for yourself those inquiries that may serve your
cause.
2. Many users (perhaps you too) have difficulty learning how to work
with new hardware or new software. In giving the doctor the benefit of
the doubt the College is following the main precedents in this sort of
case.
3. Operating systems have little or no effect on data files e.g. documents.
(But there are differences, e.g. that WinXP can be set to record two dates
for each file, of first creation and last alteration, while Win98 records
only
"Date Modified.") File format is the important character of data files
(e.g.
affects how easily data files can be transferred from one PC to another)
and some software (e.g. MS Word) can be configured to keep a sort of
log of changes made in a file. But you do know what software the
doctor used, or what format his data files had.
4. No difference between "pen" and "tablet" PCs is relevant (even if the
user felt at the time they seemed very different.) All that counts is file
format, which derives from the application software, not the PC's
Operating System (WinXP or Win98: the only link is that some
WinXP software will not run at all under Win98.)
4. Your strongest point seems to be that when the College ordered
that the original files be printed out the doctor did not do this but
supplied
a handwritten and rewritten narrative. But you cannot be sure the
College's judicial body understands #3 and $4 above.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

shemar wrote:
Mine is a most bizarre request for information and I don't know where to post
it.

To give a brief summary of why and what I am looking for, I filed a
complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (the
governing medical board for doctors practicing in this province) against a
psychiatrist who minimized sibling sexual abuse as a "common occurrence"
without asking any pertinent questions about the abuse (i.e. How old was I .
.. . How old was my brother . . . Etc.). This minimization was the cause for
reinforcing all the negative feelings I had about myself (a common effect of
abuse, whereby the victim blames his/herself).

The College decision favored in the doctor. About a week after receiving
the College's decision, I received a copy of my file as recorded by this
psychiatrist, in which the College based their decision. Within minutes of
receiving this file, I noticed a discrepancy in the content of the file and
had alerted the College right away. When I reviewed it further, I found
multiple differences of what he wrote and what actually occurred. The whole
file had been rewritten from beginning to end, which led me to file another
complaint of fraud. In the course of this investigation, it became known
that the doctor did indeed rewrite my file, not once but twice and he gave
the following explanation:

He had a "pen" computer with Windows 95 and when he bought a new pen
computer with Windows 98, he had no trouble transferring files from one
computer to another. Then in 2002, he bought a "tablet" computer with
Windows XP. He is maintaining that the operating system of Windows 98 was
not compatible to Windows XP and therefore he ran into problems transferring
files forcing him to hand write all his file notes into the new computer.
When I had filed the standard of care complaint against him, he went to print
out the file to send to the College and found that it had a "computer
generated date" on each printout that didn't correspond to the actual date of
the session but rather it reflected the date on which he "rewrote" the file
into the new tablet computer. He felt that I would be upset if I saw this
computer generated date, so he rewrote it again, and sent the College a copy
of the handwritten file to their request for a copy of the "original" file.

The College was willing to believe him to the extent that they ruled in his
favor again.

I am appealing the College's decision and am looking for any holes that I
can possibly find in the doctor's above noted statement. I am hoping to find
that there were *no* issues with transferring files between these two
operating systems, casting doubt on his statement whereby the College is
forced to look seriously at my complaint of fraud. Where would I find any
information about transferring files from Windows 98 "pen" to Windows XP
"tablet" and if there were any compatibility difficulties between them?

This query, as set-forth, is more in-line with a legal matter which no
one in this group would purport to provide absolute expert answer for,
therefor a legal disclaimer would be and is necessary. This type of
information request or requested advise regarding potentials which may
be or are within the scope of legal advise, are best handled by an
actual licensed attorney or otherwise authorized party, and whatever
expert testimony or other as might be obtained through proper legal
methods. The same holds true for administrative activities which this
query apparently contains.

Let me provide a general disclaimer and Notice for the responders to
perhaps provide more opportunity for responses:

----
Disclaimer and Notice for *Transferring files from Windows 98 pen
computer to Windows XP tabl*:

The responders to this instance query are in no way or form attempting
to provide expert, free, distinct, or otherwise legal advise in this
matter; nor expert testimony or otherwise to be used outside this
distinct and limited matter wherein this disclaimer has been placed.
The qualifying responses are to be construed in light of honest
attempts to provide opinionated general information regarding operating
systems and/or related matter to the best knowledge of the party, and
therefore not to be found as nor construed in any other form or fashion.

This disclaimer and Notice is not to be construed nor considered as: an
allowance for personal attacks or offensive statements; for matters
outside the scope of this present activity; for matters outside the
scope of this instance; for deliberate attempts to provide false or
mis-leading statements or materials, regardless of the applicability to
the instant matter.

Queries of this type should be addressed towards licensed and/or
otherwise authorized members of the legal profession.

--END

Referencing the above;

Transferring files between devices and computers may affect the dates
of those files depending upon HOW the transfer was done.

The content of those files may be affected by WHEN AND WHERE those
files were accessed, in addition to transference method employed, as in
draft copies verses finalized documents, change from one format to
another or modification of same, or otherwise.

File dates and times may be accessed and modified by various tools
readily available.

Files may also be affected when opening and/or when changed/converted
between differing versions or sub-versions of an application, such as
Microsoft Office.

Files may also be affected when containing external or additional
materials such as data base, template, footnote, forms, or other like
activities.

9X does have the ability to provide both creation and
access/modification dates and times, however those may be affected by
the above mentioned activities, as well as other factors such as direct
transference to another operating system or filing/storage system. Your
attempt to address this a *re-wrote* issue fails on its face.

Moreover, you specifically note there was a change in the OS [9X to XP]
which may or does affect the files due to the differing access and
filing methods, and compatible applications as well.

The administrative review has apparently taken these potential
activities under consideration. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable
doubt [not in a legal sense but in a reasoning sense] that there was a
distinct and decided REAL attempt to defraud you and the administrative
board/school, your appeals to the board/school will likely fail,
regardless of how you word them here or elsewhere.
One could reasonable question why hand-written verses printed was used,
however, that would require more extensive examination. Potentially, a
review of both the actual saved *as printed* from both the *pen* and OS,
verses presented *hand-written* might be of value, however, that may
already have been taken under consideration, or the materials may no
longer be available in their prior form.

Proceeding and proving otherwise will require you to contact a member
of the legal profession as it will apparently require application of
other methods and proofs. You may wish to contact any available legal or
like help group at the school/university for suggestions or advise.

--
MEB
Windows Networking, Diagnostics, and other materials
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and government
http://peoplescounsel.org
-------

That 'pen' computer is probably an early tablet. Some manufacturers (eg,
Fujitsu) called their first tablets 'pen'. So I would recommend asking in a
tablet group.

Whether or not there is an issue with the physical transfer of files from
Windows 98 to XP depends only on the hardware involved. There is no issue
at all with the physical transfer of files from Windows 98 to XP as far as
the operating systems are concerned - a file is a file is a file. But if
there was no common compatible transfer medium (eg, Compact Flash Card) or
if there was no way to physically connect the machines together (eg,
connecting to a common network) then the transfer may have been declared too
difficult.

If the reference to the operating systems being incompatible is taken at
face value, that means there was a conversion problem, not a transfer
problem (how could he know there was an incompatibility unless he had
attempted to access the file?). It is very common that people who switch
from W98 to XP find that they can no longer access their files. Questions
about this in the XP newsgroups are common. For instance, they might have
had MS Works in Windows 98, but their XP came with Office. Unless they are
aware of the problem, it appears that their files are inaccessible. The
solution is actually simple, and any half competent PC tech should be able
to answer it immediately.

For the tablets, the problem might be more significant. As the document is
recorded as a graphic, not text, it is possible that conversion is more
difficult. I would be surprised if it was impossible, but it may have been
difficult enough to make it easier to recreate the files (why you would do
that in the same format, having just experienced such an incompatibility
issue, I don't know, but people have done much stranger things than that
with important files). People in the tablet groups would be up to speed
about accessing W98-format handwritten files from XP.

If that's what happened, the rewrite would have been dated the date it was
actually done, and if he wanted it to look like the original then he needed
to go back and change the dates. Again, that probably isn't too difficult to
do, but it appears that instead he chose to rewrite it by hand once again.
(Note that the dates the file system uses are probably not relevant - the
date that prints on the document is almost certainly a date recorded in the
document, not the date that the OS records for the file).

But I think the point is moot. Whether or not he could have done the
transfer from W98 to XP, he didn't. Similarly, whether or not he could have
forged the dates in the rewritten file, he didn't. Instead he created a
handwritten copy from the copy he had on the XP tablet.

It seems to me that there are two possible issues you could consider. One
'hole' you might investigate is whether it is regarded as acceptable to
provide a copy of a copy (both, presumably, not notarised) in response to a
request for the original notes. I know that when I was investigating
documentation that was required to be maintained by law, any claim that the
original was no longer available had to be supported by evidence, or the
copy would not be accepted. For instance, if it was on a PC that was
stolen, where were the police reports, insurance claim etc? In this case,
where is the account from the PC technician who attempted to do the file
transfer/conversion and failed? The problem here is that it seems that the
copy of a copy has already been accepted as adequate.

The other question that might be relevant is where are the original notes
now? Did they get transferred to the XP tablet and if so can they now be
provided for someone else to view and transcribe (or, as is likely possible)
convert to XP format and print? If they didn't get transferred, is the
original W98 'pen' (or its backup media) available for examination? If the
original isn't available then are there any issues regarding proper keeping
of records that need to be investigated?
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"shemar" wrote in message
...
Mine is a most bizarre request for information and I don't know where to
post
it.

To give a brief summary of why and what I am looking for, I filed a
complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (the
governing medical board for doctors practicing in this province) against
a
psychiatrist who minimized sibling sexual abuse as a "common occurrence"
without asking any pertinent questions about the abuse (i.e. How old was I
.
. . How old was my brother . . . Etc.). This minimization was the cause
for
reinforcing all the negative feelings I had about myself (a common effect
of
abuse, whereby the victim blames his/herself).

The College decision favored in the doctor. About a week after receiving
the College's decision, I received a copy of my file as recorded by this
psychiatrist, in which the College based their decision. Within minutes
of
receiving this file, I noticed a discrepancy in the content of the file
and
had alerted the College right away. When I reviewed it further, I found
multiple differences of what he wrote and what actually occurred. The
whole
file had been rewritten from beginning to end, which led me to file
another
complaint of fraud. In the course of this investigation, it became known
that the doctor did indeed rewrite my file, not once but twice and he gave
the following explanation:

He had a "pen" computer with Windows 95 and when he bought a new pen
computer with Windows 98, he had no trouble transferring files from one
computer to another. Then in 2002, he bought a "tablet" computer with
Windows XP. He is maintaining that the operating system of Windows 98 was
not compatible to Windows XP and therefore he ran into problems
transferring
files forcing him to hand write all his file notes into the new computer.
When I had filed the standard of care complaint against him, he went to
print
out the file to send to the College and found that it had a "computer
generated date" on each printout that didn't correspond to the actual date
of
the session but rather it reflected the date on which he "rewrote" the
file
into the new tablet computer. He felt that I would be upset if I saw this
computer generated date, so he rewrote it again, and sent the College a
copy
of the handwritten file to their request for a copy of the "original"
file.

The College was willing to believe him to the extent that they ruled in
his
favor again.

I am appealing the College's decision and am looking for any holes that I
can possibly find in the doctor's above noted statement. I am hoping to
find
that there were *no* issues with transferring files between these two
operating systems, casting doubt on his statement whereby the College is
forced to look seriously at my complaint of fraud. Where would I find
any
information about transferring files from Windows 98 "pen" to Windows XP
"tablet" and if there were any compatibility difficulties between them?

Jeff Richards wrote:
That 'pen' computer is probably an early tablet. Some manufacturers (eg,
Fujitsu) called their first tablets 'pen'. So I would recommend asking in a
tablet group.

Whether or not there is an issue with the physical transfer of files from
Windows 98 to XP depends only on the hardware involved. There is no issue
at all with the physical transfer of files from Windows 98 to XP as far as
the operating systems are concerned - a file is a file is a file. But if
there was no common compatible transfer medium (eg, Compact Flash Card) or
if there was no way to physically connect the machines together (eg,
connecting to a common network) then the transfer may have been declared too
difficult.

If the reference to the operating systems being incompatible is taken at
face value, that means there was a conversion problem, not a transfer
problem (how could he know there was an incompatibility unless he had
attempted to access the file?). It is very common that people who switch
from W98 to XP find that they can no longer access their files. Questions
about this in the XP newsgroups are common. For instance, they might have
had MS Works in Windows 98, but their XP came with Office. Unless they are
aware of the problem, it appears that their files are inaccessible. The
solution is actually simple, and any half competent PC tech should be able
to answer it immediately.

For the tablets, the problem might be more significant. As the document is
recorded as a graphic, not text, it is possible that conversion is more
difficult. I would be surprised if it was impossible, but it may have been
difficult enough to make it easier to recreate the files (why you would do
that in the same format, having just experienced such an incompatibility
issue, I don't know, but people have done much stranger things than that
with important files). People in the tablet groups would be up to speed
about accessing W98-format handwritten files from XP.

If that's what happened, the rewrite would have been dated the date it was
actually done, and if he wanted it to look like the original then he needed
to go back and change the dates. Again, that probably isn't too difficult to
do, but it appears that instead he chose to rewrite it by hand once again.
(Note that the dates the file system uses are probably not relevant - the
date that prints on the document is almost certainly a date recorded in the
document, not the date that the OS records for the file).

But I think the point is moot. Whether or not he could have done the
transfer from W98 to XP, he didn't. Similarly, whether or not he could have
forged the dates in the rewritten file, he didn't. Instead he created a
handwritten copy from the copy he had on the XP tablet.

It seems to me that there are two possible issues you could consider. One
'hole' you might investigate is whether it is regarded as acceptable to
provide a copy of a copy (both, presumably, not notarised) in response to a
request for the original notes. I know that when I was investigating
documentation that was required to be maintained by law, any claim that the
original was no longer available had to be supported by evidence, or the
copy would not be accepted. For instance, if it was on a PC that was
stolen, where were the police reports, insurance claim etc? In this case,
where is the account from the PC technician who attempted to do the file
transfer/conversion and failed? The problem here is that it seems that the
copy of a copy has already been accepted as adequate.

The other question that might be relevant is where are the original notes
now? Did they get transferred to the XP tablet and if so can they now be
provided for someone else to view and transcribe (or, as is likely possible)
convert to XP format and print? If they didn't get transferred, is the
original W98 'pen' (or its backup media) available for examination? If the
original isn't available then are there any issues regarding proper keeping
of records that need to be investigated?

Uhm, *pen* computer may also be a reference to a *pen drive* storage
media, commonly found and referenced as such, though it may have
actually contained an actual OS as in your pen computer reference.

There may be additional issues such as: *complex/compound* documents
[when is a file not the document, when is a document not the file]
(among other potentials); or factors such as one of the numerous medical
records applications and their handling of documents and data; or
something similar to Omni-Filer, where the finished materials are only
available from within the application as they are stored in multiple
data files [missing one or more? the original is impossible to recover
in its original form], and once accessed again, the document/files times
are changed.

--
MEB
Windows Networking, Diagnostics, and other materials
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and government
http://peoplescounsel.org
-------

Jeff Richards wrote:
That 'pen' computer is probably an early tablet. Some manufacturers (eg,
Fujitsu) called their first tablets 'pen'. So I would recommend asking in a
tablet group.

Whether or not there is an issue with the physical transfer of files from
Windows 98 to XP depends only on the hardware involved. There is no issue
at all with the physical transfer of files from Windows 98 to XP as far as
the operating systems are concerned - a file is a file is a file. But if
there was no common compatible transfer medium (eg, Compact Flash Card) or
if there was no way to physically connect the machines together (eg,
connecting to a common network) then the transfer may have been declared too
difficult.

If the reference to the operating systems being incompatible is taken at
face value, that means there was a conversion problem, not a transfer
problem (how could he know there was an incompatibility unless he had
attempted to access the file?). It is very common that people who switch
from W98 to XP find that they can no longer access their files. Questions
about this in the XP newsgroups are common. For instance, they might have
had MS Works in Windows 98, but their XP came with Office. Unless they are
aware of the problem, it appears that their files are inaccessible. The
solution is actually simple, and any half competent PC tech should be able
to answer it immediately.

For the tablets, the problem might be more significant. As the document is
recorded as a graphic, not text, it is possible that conversion is more
difficult. I would be surprised if it was impossible, but it may have been
difficult enough to make it easier to recreate the files (why you would do
that in the same format, having just experienced such an incompatibility
issue, I don't know, but people have done much stranger things than that
with important files). People in the tablet groups would be up to speed
about accessing W98-format handwritten files from XP.

If that's what happened, the rewrite would have been dated the date it was
actually done, and if he wanted it to look like the original then he needed
to go back and change the dates. Again, that probably isn't too difficult to
do, but it appears that instead he chose to rewrite it by hand once again.
(Note that the dates the file system uses are probably not relevant - the
date that prints on the document is almost certainly a date recorded in the
document, not the date that the OS records for the file).

But I think the point is moot. Whether or not he could have done the
transfer from W98 to XP, he didn't. Similarly, whether or not he could have
forged the dates in the rewritten file, he didn't. Instead he created a
handwritten copy from the copy he had on the XP tablet.

It seems to me that there are two possible issues you could consider. One
'hole' you might investigate is whether it is regarded as acceptable to
provide a copy of a copy (both, presumably, not notarised) in response to a
request for the original notes. I know that when I was investigating
documentation that was required to be maintained by law, any claim that the
original was no longer available had to be supported by evidence, or the
copy would not be accepted. For instance, if it was on a PC that was
stolen, where were the police reports, insurance claim etc? In this case,
where is the account from the PC technician who attempted to do the file
transfer/conversion and failed? The problem here is that it seems that the
copy of a copy has already been accepted as adequate.

The other question that might be relevant is where are the original notes
now? Did they get transferred to the XP tablet and if so can they now be
provided for someone else to view and transcribe (or, as is likely possible)
convert to XP format and print? If they didn't get transferred, is the
original W98 'pen' (or its backup media) available for examination? If the
original isn't available then are there any issues regarding proper keeping
of records that need to be investigated?

Uhm, *pen* computer may also be a reference to a *pen drive* storage
media, commonly found and referenced as such, though it may have
actually contained an actual OS as in your pen computer reference.

There may be additional issues such as: *complex/compound* documents
[when is a file not the document, when is a document not the file]
(among other potentials); or factors such as one of the numerous medical
records applications and their handling of documents and data; or
something similar to Omni-Filer, where the finished materials are only
available from within the application as they are stored in multiple
data files [missing one or more? the original is impossible to recover
in its original form], and once accessed again, the document/files times
are changed.

--
MEB
Windows Networking, Diagnostics, and other materials
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and government
http://peoplescounsel.org
-------

Thank-you Don, MEB and Jeff for your replies.

As I mentioned, I just need enough information to cast some doubt that the
investigation to my complaint wasn't just a "cursory" observation done by the
investigator (who, by the way, is another doctor). Having received all the
material from the investigation, other than the investigator looking at the
doctor's notes on his computer, as well as looking to see what date it was
"created" on, I can find no evidence that questions or issues were raised
about software. I don't know what sort of software he had used in Windows
98, but the "electronic" file from Windows XP was written on a very
simplistic, basic format, similar to this:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-ca/te...33&av=Z SC000
I have asked that the College obtain for me information as to what he was
using for software, but they refuse to comply.

So far, I am able to show the College that the "created" date can be
manipulated simply by disconnecting the computer from the Internet, changing
the date and then saving a file to a CD. To demonstate this, I am providing
them with a CD with correspondence they have recently received from me, which
I have dated back to as far as 1982 and even some up to 2015. I believe this
to be important, as this is what determined that the doctor told the "truth"
as to why he rewrote my file.

This is not a "court" case but rather disciplinary action would be imposed
if he were found guilty of fraud (ie his license revoked). As such, I am
without benefit of a lawyer (although the doctor has one), and the appeal
will be presented by me in front of a College board panel of three (2
doctors, 1 layperson). If I were to win the appeal, then this would go
before a panel of the doctor's peers, where a lawyer from the College would
take over. So the onus is not on me to "prove" that he committed fraud, but
that the investigation didn't do a thorough investigation; thus the main
reason why I am seeking information about transferring files. If there is
the "possibility" that the doctor was lying about compatibility issues and if
the investigator didn't delve deep enough, hopefully this will provide me
with a strong argument for my appeal.

I thank-you all again for being so responsive to my inquiry. I hope I
didn't bore you with too much details.

shemar wrote:
Thank-you Don, MEB and Jeff for your replies.

As I mentioned, I just need enough information to cast some doubt that the
investigation to my complaint wasn't just a "cursory" observation done by the
investigator (who, by the way, is another doctor). Having received all the
material from the investigation, other than the investigator looking at the
doctor's notes on his computer, as well as looking to see what date it was
"created" on, I can find no evidence that questions or issues were raised
about software. I don't know what sort of software he had used in Windows
98, but the "electronic" file from Windows XP was written on a very
simplistic, basic format, similar to this:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-ca/te...33&av=Z SC000
I have asked that the College obtain for me information as to what he was
using for software, but they refuse to comply.

So far, I am able to show the College that the "created" date can be
manipulated simply by disconnecting the computer from the Internet, changing
the date and then saving a file to a CD. To demonstate this, I am providing
them with a CD with correspondence they have recently received from me, which
I have dated back to as far as 1982 and even some up to 2015. I believe this
to be important, as this is what determined that the doctor told the "truth"
as to why he rewrote my file.

This is not a "court" case but rather disciplinary action would be imposed
if he were found guilty of fraud (ie his license revoked). As such, I am
without benefit of a lawyer (although the doctor has one), and the appeal
will be presented by me in front of a College board panel of three (2
doctors, 1 layperson). If I were to win the appeal, then this would go
before a panel of the doctor's peers, where a lawyer from the College would
take over. So the onus is not on me to "prove" that he committed fraud, but
that the investigation didn't do a thorough investigation; thus the main
reason why I am seeking information about transferring files. If there is
the "possibility" that the doctor was lying about compatibility issues and if
the investigator didn't delve deep enough, hopefully this will provide me
with a strong argument for my appeal.

I thank-you all again for being so responsive to my inquiry. I hope I
didn't bore you with too much details.



Hmm, were I you, I would seriously consider discussing this with an
actual legal professional.
IF you have a *real* concern, then many attorneys [or whatever applies
in your nation] offer a free [short] consultation time, where you
explain your side and what materials you may have to support your
intended claim. A true legal matter, rather than a review hearing or
appeal, would be far more effective *IF* you have reasonable cause to
pursue the issue.
Medical Malpractice [your attempt to have a license revoked which
apparently comes from some mistreatment you claim yet have not disclosed
or apprised of here, and which is NOT *just* a disciplinary action] and
fraud [potentially criminal and/or civil activity] issues are generally
well beyond the scope of a normal person. Reading these two postings it
is clear, though you have a desire, you are in need dire of some
professional legal advise.

To delve into your "questions" regarding the investigation or a failure
of the investigator to properly investigate [essentially bringing a
secondary action against that party] and other factors which you have
raised here are apparently beyond the scope of your abilities. As
example: You have posted: in an open public format; matters concerning
an ongoing activity; concerning legal issues; into a computer forum.

Yes, *YOU* need to know the application used. The investigator likely
did find out what that was, yet is not required to put that in a report
as, at that time, nothing was raised pursuant the investigator's
participation or whatever usage occurred, just a responsibility to
review the matter as presented to the investigator; nor was there, at
that time, a question as to the investigator's possible incapacities or
[as you now appear to show] the investigator's active participation in
this supposed fraudulent activity against you. *YOU* need to know much
more than just this though.
You are suggesting in these two writings, that there is, in essence, a
conspiracy to do you harm.

*IF*, as you suggest in your writings [whether you know it or not, or
intend it or not], there is an actual conspiracy, then your apparent
recourse is potentially a legal matter with possible civil damages
recovery and other, not an appeal to those whom you apparently believe
may be part of the conspiracy. This REQUIRES the participation of a
legal professional, or you to know not only computers and how they work,
but also Law, legal forms and formulation, medical malpractice extents,
and far more than I will post here.
Your *simple matter* [which it was for the original review], even
during your hoped for appeal, is anything but that. It is a complex
matter requiring careful preparation and presentation.

Beyond that, as you have found here already, there are even differing
opinions on the basis of your computer related query, e.g., file times,
transfers, and other within the scope of this discussion forum.

--
MEB
Windows Networking, Diagnostics, and other materials
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and government
http://peoplescounsel.org
-------

That template is simply a generic notebook page used for handwritten input,
one of many available for OneNote. It is very similar to other templates
available for similar applications. But whatever application was being used,
it is likely that the document format was standard, and would be accessible
from many other applications. I don't think the application being used is
relevant - the file format will almost certainly be something in common use
across several applications.

You can't demonstrate that he was lying about compatibility issues.
Something as simple as not getting the user name correct in a new XP
installation can make it impossible to access your old documents, and there
are many other possibilities. Some problems would be trivial, others more
complex. Most would be solvable. But it is quite possible that he ran into
a problem that would seem, at the time, to justify re-creating the notes.

But you probably can raise sufficient doubts about that story to question
whether the investigator did an adequate job. I would start by querying
whether the investigator was satisfied that the W98 machine was still
functioning at the date that the first copy was made, remembering that the
most likely reason for buying a new machine was that the old one had died.

To cast doubt on the thoroughness of the investigation, consider the sorts
of questions the investigator might have asked and perhaps didn't. How many
patients were affected? Did he re-create the notes for all of them? How
long did that take him? There must have been a period when at least some of
his records were on one machine and the rest on the other - how long did
this last for, and exactly when did he determine that all records had now
been transferred? What did he do with the W98 machine then (considering
that was still the source for his _original_ notes)? What did he do with
the backups from that machine? Did he seek professional assistance with the
transfer, if not why not or where is the evidence that he did? Did he put
the W98 machine into secure storage against the day that he might be
required to provide those original notes, and if not why not?

And the big question that would worry me if I was investigating - If the
original notes were incompatible with the new machine, why didn't he simply
print them out from the old machine and save them as hardcopy? Even if he
then transcribed them into the new machine, at least with hardcopy he would
have (a) a permanent record and (b) a convenient source for doing the
transcribing (which wasn't about to unexpectedly die). And if he did not
have the capability to print them out, does his method of record-keeping
meet the required standard?

If the investigator didn't ask at least some of those questions, then that
might suggest he has accepted the doctor's story without sufficient care.

But it seems an odd story to me. For many years I ran a business where we
archived medical records to CD. The service was unique in this area,
because we did it on the premises - the documents never left the site. The
doctors loved that feature. But in almost all cases I was not able to
convince the practice managers that they could now destroy the original
paper records, even though we had confirmation from the relevant authorities
that CDs were an acceptable alternative to paper, and even though secure
storage was costing them thousands of dollars each year. (Note that some
records had to be kept for 21 years minimum, and most practices just kept
everything). Given my experience with that attitude, I find it hard to
credit that any practitioner would simply accept that the original notes
needed to be transcribed and that he could then (presumably) throw away
those originals. The people I met in the industry would have kept at least
the backups from the W98 PC forever, even if they didn't know how to access
it.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"shemar" wrote in message
...
Thank-you Don, MEB and Jeff for your replies.

As I mentioned, I just need enough information to cast some doubt that the
investigation to my complaint wasn't just a "cursory" observation done by
the
investigator (who, by the way, is another doctor). Having received all
the
material from the investigation, other than the investigator looking at
the
doctor's notes on his computer, as well as looking to see what date it was
"created" on, I can find no evidence that questions or issues were raised
about software. I don't know what sort of software he had used in Windows
98, but the "electronic" file from Windows XP was written on a very
simplistic, basic format, similar to this:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-ca/te...33&av=Z SC000
I have asked that the College obtain for me information as to what he was
using for software, but they refuse to comply.

So far, I am able to show the College that the "created" date can be
manipulated simply by disconnecting the computer from the Internet,
changing
the date and then saving a file to a CD. To demonstate this, I am
providing
them with a CD with correspondence they have recently received from me,
which
I have dated back to as far as 1982 and even some up to 2015. I believe
this
to be important, as this is what determined that the doctor told the
"truth"
as to why he rewrote my file.

This is not a "court" case but rather disciplinary action would be imposed
if he were found guilty of fraud (ie his license revoked). As such, I am
without benefit of a lawyer (although the doctor has one), and the appeal
will be presented by me in front of a College board panel of three (2
doctors, 1 layperson). If I were to win the appeal, then this would go
before a panel of the doctor's peers, where a lawyer from the College
would
take over. So the onus is not on me to "prove" that he committed fraud,
but
that the investigation didn't do a thorough investigation; thus the main
reason why I am seeking information about transferring files. If there is
the "possibility" that the doctor was lying about compatibility issues and
if
the investigator didn't delve deep enough, hopefully this will provide me
with a strong argument for my appeal.

I thank-you all again for being so responsive to my inquiry. I hope I
didn't bore you with too much details.

shemar wrote:
Thank-you Don, MEB and Jeff for your replies.

As I mentioned, I just need enough information to cast some doubt that the
investigation to my complaint wasn't just a "cursory" observation done by the
investigator (who, by the way, is another doctor). Having received all the
material from the investigation, other than the investigator looking at the
doctor's notes on his computer, as well as looking to see what date it was
"created" on, I can find no evidence that questions or issues were raised
about software. I don't know what sort of software he had used in Windows
98, but the "electronic" file from Windows XP was written on a very
simplistic, basic format, similar to this:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-ca/te...33&av=Z SC000
I have asked that the College obtain for me information as to what he was
using for software, but they refuse to comply.

So far, I am able to show the College that the "created" date can be
manipulated simply by disconnecting the computer from the Internet, changing
the date and then saving a file to a CD. To demonstate this, I am providing
them with a CD with correspondence they have recently received from me, which
I have dated back to as far as 1982 and even some up to 2015. I believe this
to be important, as this is what determined that the doctor told the "truth"
as to why he rewrote my file.

This is not a "court" case but rather disciplinary action would be imposed
if he were found guilty of fraud (ie his license revoked). As such, I am
without benefit of a lawyer (although the doctor has one), and the appeal
will be presented by me in front of a College board panel of three (2
doctors, 1 layperson). If I were to win the appeal, then this would go
before a panel of the doctor's peers, where a lawyer from the College would
take over. So the onus is not on me to "prove" that he committed fraud, but
that the investigation didn't do a thorough investigation; thus the main
reason why I am seeking information about transferring files. If there is
the "possibility" that the doctor was lying about compatibility issues and if
the investigator didn't delve deep enough, hopefully this will provide me
with a strong argument for my appeal.

I thank-you all again for being so responsive to my inquiry. I hope I
didn't bore you with too much details.



Hmm, were I you, I would seriously consider discussing this with an
actual legal professional.
IF you have a *real* concern, then many attorneys [or whatever applies
in your nation] offer a free [short] consultation time, where you
explain your side and what materials you may have to support your
intended claim. A true legal matter, rather than a review hearing or
appeal, would be far more effective *IF* you have reasonable cause to
pursue the issue.
Medical Malpractice [your attempt to have a license revoked which
apparently comes from some mistreatment you claim yet have not disclosed
or apprised of here, and which is NOT *just* a disciplinary action] and
fraud [potentially criminal and/or civil activity] issues are generally
well beyond the scope of a normal person. Reading these two postings it
is clear, though you have a desire, you are in need dire of some
professional legal advise.

To delve into your "questions" regarding the investigation or a failure
of the investigator to properly investigate [essentially bringing a
secondary action against that party] and other factors which you have
raised here are apparently beyond the scope of your abilities. As
example: You have posted: in an open public format; matters concerning
an ongoing activity; concerning legal issues; into a computer forum.

Yes, *YOU* need to know the application used. The investigator likely
did find out what that was, yet is not required to put that in a report
as, at that time, nothing was raised pursuant the investigator's
participation or whatever usage occurred, just a responsibility to
review the matter as presented to the investigator; nor was there, at
that time, a question as to the investigator's possible incapacities or
[as you now appear to show] the investigator's active participation in
this supposed fraudulent activity against you. *YOU* need to know much
more than just this though.
You are suggesting in these two writings, that there is, in essence, a
conspiracy to do you harm.

*IF*, as you suggest in your writings [whether you know it or not, or
intend it or not], there is an actual conspiracy, then your apparent
recourse is potentially a legal matter with possible civil damages
recovery and other, not an appeal to those whom you apparently believe
may be part of the conspiracy. This REQUIRES the participation of a
legal professional, or you to know not only computers and how they work,
but also Law, legal forms and formulation, medical malpractice extents,
and far more than I will post here.
Your *simple matter* [which it was for the original review], even
during your hoped for appeal, is anything but that. It is a complex
matter requiring careful preparation and presentation.

Beyond that, as you have found here already, there are even differing
opinions on the basis of your computer related query, e.g., file times,
transfers, and other within the scope of this discussion forum.

--
MEB
Windows Networking, Diagnostics, and other materials
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and government
http://peoplescounsel.org
-------