Friday, June 22, 2018

More Concerns In Privatization In Foster Care

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold hearings on the privatization of foster care.

MENTOR is a publicly traded company, just so you know.

Does Privatized Foster Care Put Kids at Risk?

The number of kids in foster care is climbing, and so are public costs. In search of efficiencies, many states have at least partially privatized their systems.

In 2012, when Alexandria Hill was a year old, Texas’s child welfare agency found her parents unfit to care for her. The baby’s biological mother was prone to seizures, officials said, and both parents were using marijuana. So the state authorized a for-profit company, The MENTOR Network, to locate foster parents.

The first family MENTOR placed Alexandria with neglected her; when her biological parents complained after finding her filthy at a supervised visit, the company moved her to another home—that of a 53-year-old woman named Sherill Small. Less than a year later, Small killed Alexandria. She told police she’d been frustrated with the girl and swung her until her head crashed into the floor.

Buzzfeed’s harrowing 2015 investigation into MENTOR exposed the grim repercussions of privatized foster care, detailing Alexandria’s and others’ tragic cases that likely resulted from shortcuts made in the pursuit of profit. Piling too many cases on social workers, for instance, can result in abuse when foster parents aren’t properly vetted or monitored. Among the omissions in Alexandria’s case: MENTOR failed to interview Small’s sisters, who said they would have warned the company about her. (MENTOR denied that it cuts corners to make money.)

The lessons of such an investigation are perhaps even more important today, as more children are entering foster care because of the impact of the widening opioid crisis. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on Children and Families, the number of children in foster care rose almost 7 percentfrom 2013 to 2015, nearing 430,000. In 32 percent of all foster placements parental substance abuse was cited as a factor—an increase of 10 percent compared to 2005.

When a state privatizes foster care, it uses federal, state, and local funds to contract out services, such as locating and monitoring foster parents, to private agencies. In most cases, public agencies still manage children’s long-term outcomes, such as reunification or adoption—but more jurisdictions are shifting even that responsibility to the private sector.

These private agencies are usually nonprofit, making MENTOR, as a for-profit corporation, an extreme example of privatization. Yet nonprofits can subcontract their work to for-profit companies; in states that forbid for-profit entities from administering foster care, MENTOR used this loophole as a workaround. And even in more straightforward nonprofit arrangements, privatization has negatively impacted children.

Over the past three decades, many states have privatized at least part of their foster care systems; some, like Kansas and Florida, have privatized theirs completely. Despite high-profile cases like Alexandria’s—which helped prompt a 2015 Senate Finance Committee investigation that resulted in proposed legislation to strengthen government oversight of foster care—some states and officials continue to see privatization as an antidote to a bloated and inefficient public sector. Kentucky, for instance, recently pledged to investigate whether it should fully privatize its foster care system; private agencies currently provide services for around half of the children in the state’s care. In Texas, a pilot program that privatizes the monitoring of homes identified as at risk for child abuse or neglect is moving forward, despite some lawmakers’ concerns. Proponents of privatization often claim that private entities are more efficient than government agencies, and calls for the privatization of foster care have been no different. Yet Tracey Feild, director of the Child Welfare Strategy Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, questions that idea. Private agencies, she said, have “certainly not done the work for a lower cost.”

Feild, whose Child Welfare Strategy Group provides consulting to child welfare agencies, said that the private sector has in fact brought more resources to the foster care system through, for example, successfully lobbying politicians for funds. Though this might be a positive development, she said the argument can also be made that if those additional resources had gone to the public sector to begin with, it could have solved the problems that spurred calls for privatization. For instance, new resources could be used for services such as more and better substance abuse treatment to keep families intact rather than rely on foster care.

And while public agencies still conduct the initial investigations into abuse or neglect, once a system is privatized legislators often assume they no longer need to give them money. This leaves the public agencies chronically underfunded, making it difficult to monitor their private contractors. “A public agency can be handing out tens of millions of dollars to private providers with very little oversight,” said Feild.

Private agencies can be effective in providing foster care services, Feild says. But they often face a steep learning curve. “If you’ve got the patience and good providers, you can make a go of privatization,” she said. “But it’s not going to take two to three years to improve outcomes. It’s more like 10 years.” Kansas’ privatized system, for example, is quite strong, she noted, as it’s been in operation for over 20 years. (Still, the state is struggling to keep up with cases due to the opioid epidemic and funding cuts.)

In less established systems, the private agencies can get overwhelmed with their new responsibilities—and kids can suffer, languishing in foster care or shelters. “Child welfare workers get crisis focused; they’re worried about getting a child a bed for that night,” said Feild. “So the initial priority for the new privatization provider isn’t the child who may be able to return to his family because the provider has been doing work with the parents. It’s who is coming through the provider’s front door, which results in kids staying longer than necessary.”

Jessalyn Schwartz, a Boston attorney focusing on child welfare and mental health law, added that in these circumstances children are usually placed in what is available rather than what is needed. “And they often don’t get much say in where they end up or how often they move,” she said. “Though privatized foster care is often labeled as a corrective, it’s imperative to better understand it before declaring it as such.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Irish Catholic Trafficking Of Tiny Humans Through Adoption Under Investigation

Keep in mind, these children who were adopted out were considered to be "bastards" of "unwed" mothers of "The Poors", a practice that has been perpetuated for generations.

Have a great day!

Irish adoption files under examination

HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of Irish people are unaware that their parents are not their birth parents after the uncovering of a scandal in which adoption societies, from at least the 1940s until 1969, incorrectly registered births when they gave or sold “illegitimate” children to adoptive parents.

The practice of adoption of such babies was run by religious orders of nuns, including the Sisters of Charity. An investigation of files on children at the Sisters of Charity’s adoption society, St Patrick’s Guild, has revealed that at least 126 people were affected and are now being traced and informed of the situation.

None of the nuns involved in these cases is still alive, and the Guild was closed as recently as 2010.
Ireland’s Minister for Children, Dr Katherine Zappone, has initiated an investigation into the Guild, as well as other adoption agencies, to establish how widespread the illegal practice was. Dr Zappone described the revelations as a failure on behalf of the State, and warned that there could be inheritance issues for those affected as they had been improperly and illegally registered as children of people to whom they were not related by blood.

She said that she had personally wrestled, as did her colleagues, with the question of whether the people affected should be told at all, but concluded: “People have a right to know who they are.”

Closer examination of the 70,000 adoption files held by the state child and family agency is now under way, and the Garda authorities have been notified.

Dr Zappone plans a two-stage investigation, beginning with a sampling, and following up with a full-scale inspection of files.

Some adoption support groups say that, despite repeated requests, the State ignored calls for a comprehensive investigation into what the Coalition of Mother and Baby Homes Survivors described as “the tip of a very large iceberg of fraud, forgery, baby trafficking, child abduction and criminal activity by rogue Irish adoption agencies”.

The falsification of adoption records by the Guild had been reported to every minister for children since 2001, the Adoption Rights Alliance said, but no action had been taken. Barnardos has called on the government to legislate so that all adopted adults over the age of 18 have a legal right to their full information.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

New Political Campaign Fundraising Activities In Michigan

Due to the precipitous conditions of Michigan's economy, political candidates have had to resort to creative fundraising practises for their campaigns.

I wonder if Zyburski is going to call "attorney-client privilege" for his legal defense.

Coke bust snags Macomb judicial candidate
A candidate running for judge in Macomb County has a date with a federal judge Tuesday after being charged in a cocaine trafficking case.

Prosecutors unsealed the criminal case Thursday against Paul Zyburski, 57, after wiretap and other evidence showed he was using a phone to facilitate drug trafficking.

Zyburski, a veteran criminal-defense lawyer in Mount Clemens, was charged in the midst of an election campaign for a judicial opening in 39th District Court, which covers Roseville and Fraser.

“Right now, these are only allegations. We are going to conduct a thorough investigation,” Zyburski’s defense lawyer Joseph Arnone said Friday. “He is going to maintain his innocence and the presumption of innocence that he is entitled to.”

Zyburski became embroiled in the drug case last fall after the FBI's Macomb County Gang and Violent Crime Task Force started tapping the phone of accused drug dealer, and A&A Dynasty party bus operator Antonio Lewis, 53, of St. Clair Shores.

Lewis was identified by investigators as distributing cocaine across Macomb County, typically packs of 1.2 grams that he would sell on or near the party bus, according to federal court records. He was indicted on drug conspiracy and other charges in May alongside a third man, Demetrius Alderson.

Investigators learned Lewis was using a particular phone number to coordinate drug deals and obtained a wiretap in November 2017 to monitor his phone calls, according to court records.

Lewis was in frequent contact with one phone number that a subpoena showed belonged to Zyburski, according to court records.

Zyburski could not be reached for comment Friday. He was campaigning for the six-year judicial post as recently as Sunday, according to his Facebook page.
Zyburski is running against four others, including Macomb County Commissioner Kathy Tocco.
On Nov. 27, investigators monitored text messages between Zyburski and Lewis.

Zyburski texted Lewis, writing "Yo...I'm getting ready to go to Columbia can you get me in the mood."

"K," Lewis replied. "How many."

"2," Zyburski texted.

The two exchanged more messages in the ensuing months and arranged drug deals at Macomb County restaurants and a tennis court, according to court records.

On Jan. 20, investigators monitored more text messages and believe Zyburski ordered cocaine for himself and a female.

"...can you stop by I got some 18 year old broad coming here so you know," Zyburski texted Lewis, according to court records.

"1?" Lewis replied.

"Actually 2 sounds better if you got it," Zyburski texted.

"K omw," Lewis texted, using the acronym for "on my way."

In all, the FBI alleges Zyburski and Lewis used phones more than 30 times to engage in drug distribution. If convicted, Zyburski could be sentenced to up to four years in federal prison.

He is scheduled to make an initial appearance in federal court Tuesday.

“One of the unfortunate things about being a criminal defense attorney, especially if you’re successful, is it’s not uncommon for people to make accusations against you that are just not true,” Arnone said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Senate Addresses EB-5 & Its Child Welfare Fraud Issues

Chuck Grassley is a bit passionate in his opening statement that the nation is in its third administration where nothing has been done to address updating immigration policies.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is speaking upon child welfare, or rather the removal of children from parents, but, once again, horribly fails to address foster care and adoption.

Slowly, the nation is learning about child welfare law, but they better hurry up on that learning curve, because the fraud schemes continue to grow, as do the off shore bank accounts and money laundering through child welfare NGOs through real estate.

Dilly, dilly!

Make sure to click the link, below, to learn more about the origins of the EB-5 complex fraud schemes that also fund political campaigns.

The Sordid Tale Of Michigan Privatization: From Emergency Manager To Russia

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: The Sordid Tale Of Michigan Privatization: From Emergency Manager To Russia
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee “Citizenship for Sale: Oversight of the EB-5 Investor Visa Program” Tuesday, June 19, 2018 

 Good morning. I would like to thank Director Cissna for being here today for this very important hearing on a topic that goes to the very integrity of our nation’s lawful immigration system. 

Before I begin my formal remarks, I want to remind both my Democratic and Republican colleagues that the purpose of today’s hearing is to conduct oversight of a particular immigration program, the EB-5 Investor Visa. 

Our general, annual oversight hearing for Citizenship and Immigration Services is a separate hearing which will happen in September. 

Today, we should focus on the very important and persistent issue at hand: fixing the beleaguered EB-5 Investor Visa Program. Congress created the investor visa program in 1990 to stimulate our economy through job creation and capital investment. 

In 1992, we created a “pilot program” which allowed petitioners to pool their investments in regional centers designated by USCIS. 

Since the regional center program’s creation, interest in the EB-5 program has grown. 

Today, almost all EB-5 petitioners invest in one of 903 approved regional centers. 

As interest in the EB-5 Regional Center Program has grown, so have cases of fraud, corruption and threats to national security. 

There are many, many well-documented examples of the inherent problems in this program. 

In fact, over the last five years, I along with several of my colleagues, have written over 30 oversight letters highlighting the various vulnerabilities of this visa program. 

Because I have consistently raised awareness of the rampant fraud and abuse of this program, I don’t need to tell you about the ex-wife of China’s third most wanted government official who pled guilty to committing EB-5 fraud by submitting false documents as part of a scheme to escape to the U.S. with stolen funds. 

I don’t need to tell you how Homeland Security Investigations discovered a group of Iranian operatives attempting to infiltrate the U.S. and facilitate terrorism through an illegal procurement network back in 2013. 

I also don’t need to detail the concerns with exporting sensitive technology, investment fraud, or other criminal activity. 

So, I’ll only mention some of the most egregious recent cases. 

This past January, a group of over 120 Chinese nationals sued an Idaho real estate development company and claimed they were fraudulently coerced into investing over $60 million. 

The real estate company in question allegedly promised there was “zero risk” to invest in their specific EB-5 project, a claim that clearly violates the program’s requirements that capital be at risk. 

As a result, this specific EB-5 project was terminated by USCIS and the investors’ immigration status was jeopardized—all because this project misrepresented themselves in order to gain quick, easy money. 

In May, the SEC barred two EB-5 companies from selling securities after it was discovered the companies’ president and manager fraudulently raised $22.5 million in EB-5 capital from Chinese investors. 

According to the SEC, these two companies were supposed to use the raised money for the development of a condominium complex. Instead, the companies’ President and his wife stole more than $12 million in order to purchase homes for themselves. 

Finally, and also in May, two Maryland residents were charged with defrauding 31 immigrant investors and using money intended to create jobs after Hurricane Katrina for personal gain. 

The indictment claims the duo contracted with New Orleans to create a $15.5 million investment fund, but instead used the money to buy themselves vacation and rental properties. 

Several months ago, my staff was briefed by officials from the Department’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate on its recent EB-5 National Security Concern Assessment. 

Unsurprisingly, the report found that the program is susceptible to Ponzi schemes and financial fraud, and warned that current vetting by law enforcement systems may have missed national security concerns due to insufficiencies in vetting and data collection. 

I hope today we have the opportunity to hear about the improvements made as a result of this review. Today, in spite of this ample evidence of fraud and corruption, and the concerning national security loopholes, the EB-5 “pilot program” continues to operate exactly the same way it did 25 years ago. 

However, it’s not for a lack of trying. For the past four and a half years, I’ve worked in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion with Senators Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte, and then-Ranking Member John Conyers to reform this program. 

Our staffers have spent countless hours, often working nights, weekends, and holidays, to produce consensus reform packages. 

Each and every time we’ve gotten an agreement at the last minute, powerful, well-connected EB-5 industry groups have torpedoed our efforts. 

For the last year, my staff, along with Chairman Goodlatte, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Flake’s teams, worked around the clock to produce an EB-5 reform package. 

Everyone made numerous concessions in order to reach a deal, and we produced a reform package that was fair and that everyone agreed to. 

Our reforms had the unanimous support of Invest in the USA, the largest EB-5 trade association. 

Our reforms had the support of the EB-5 Rural Alliance, a group working to ensure that rural America has a fair shake at attracting EB-5 money. 

But, these reforms weren’t acceptable to the big moneyed New York industry stakeholders who currently dominate the program. 

And because big money interests weren’t happy with these reforms, they didn’t become law. Let that sink in for a minute. 

In spite of the fact that reforms were agreed to by Congressional offices and had the support of the largest EB-5 trade association, they didn’t become law because a few EB-5 businesses with a lot of money used their political connections and influence to block them. 

While legislative reforms are absolutely necessary, thankfully there is much the administration can do on its own to end corruption in this program. 

Since January of last year, there have been pending regulations at the Department of Homeland Security, which would modernize the program and ensure capital is actually flowing to rural and underserved urban areas. 

As of today, those regulations still have not been implemented. 

I’m looking forward to a fulsome discussion with Director Cissna on all of these topics. I’m hoping he can shed some light on steps USCIS is taking to crack down on fraud and abuse in the program. 

I’d also be curious to hear his thoughts on potential paths forward for legislative reforms. 

Finally, and most importantly, I hope Director Cissna can provide an update on the status of the pending modernization regulations. As I have stated very clearly in several bicameral, bipartisan letters, the administration should finalize the modernization regulation as soon as possible. 

That regulation is a critical and necessary step towards reforming this troubled program. I now turn to the Ranking Minority Member for her opening remarks.

SCOTUS Rules On Preservation Of Evidence In Private Data

Image result for supreme court of the united statesThe issue with warrants and data have been previously addressed in Congress, but long forgotten, well, that is unless you do a metatag keyword search of data on my blog.

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. on H.R. 699, “The Email Privacy Act”

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. on H.R. 699, “The Email Privacy Act”
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

If SCOTUS rules law enforcement needs warrant to search private cellphone data, then, I shall assume, it applies to emails, and the emails & cellphone data of private corporations, because, after all, "corporations are people, too".

See, if law enforcement does not follow proper procedure in securing evidence in a criminal proceeding, then all that evidence can be thrown out which is why the Hillary Clinton email investigation is going through meticulous scrutiny in DOJ and FBI internal policies and operations.

One just might want to get this one right because this looks like we now have a backdoor into some regulation of those Public Private Partnerships and anything else dealing with privatization when it comes to national security, be it domestic or foreign.

What is interesting to keep in mind, in child welfare proceedings, there is an exception called "exigent circumstances" dealing with children where Child Protective Services will obtain personal information without need of warrant.

Supreme Court rules law enforcement needs warrant to search cellphone data

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that law enforcement in most cases has to obtain a warrant in order to search and seize long-term cell phone records that would show a person's location.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the Fourth Amendment's protections against an unreasonable search protects people from having the government acquire their cell-site records from wireless providers in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, to make up the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented along with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

The case before the court centered on Timothy Carpenter, who argued the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure when it obtained records from his wireless provider revealing his location over 127 days.

Authorities used the data as evidence at his trial to convict him of a string of robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio from December 2010 to March 2011.

The government claimed it was well within its right under the Stored Communications Act of 1986 to obtain the records through a court order, which requires police to show reasonable grounds to believe the information is relevant to their criminal investigation.

For a warrant, police have to show probable cause that the crime occurred. <===right there is the purpose of OIG investigations.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Carpenter, upholding the district court ruling, sentencing Carpenter to 1,395 months in prison.

The court held that no search occurred under the Fourth Amendment because Carpenter had no reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location records held by his service provider.

In reversing the lower court ruling, Roberts disagreed. He said Carpenter did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

“As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his familial, political, professional, religious and sexual associations,” he said. “These location records hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’”

Roberts noted that location data has become so precise that it gives the government a near perfect surveillance. Unlike with GPS tracking, he said police don’t even need to know in advance who they want to follow or when.

“Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may — in the government’s view — call upon the results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment,” he said.

"Only a few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.”

In a dissenting opinion, Kennedy said the court's ruling puts needed, reasonable, accepted, lawful and congressionally authorized criminal investigations at risk in serious cases.

"And it places undue restrictions on the lawful and necessary enforcement powers exercised not only by the federal government, but also by law enforcement in every state and locality throughout the nation."

But Roberts said law enforcement can obtain an exemption from the warrant requirement in urgent situations.

“Lower courts for instance, have approved warrantless searches related to bomb threats, active shootings and child abductions,” he said. “Our decision today does not call into doubt warrantless access to CSLI [cell-site location information] in such circumstances.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Bill & Bob Battle Michigan Child Protection Attorney Client Privilege Law In MSU Investigation

Bill & Bob battle in the arena of Michigan Child Protection Law.

See, it is like this.

In Child Welfare, anything dealing with the "best interests of the child", whether that be financial, physical or in this instance, all of the above, MSU, being a public university, does not have to turn over anything the Michigan Special Prosecutor requests.

Oh, you dare to challenge me on this position?

Well, riddle me this:  How does a parent access her children's educational and medical records from the State of Michigan, to enroll them in school, after the children were Legally Kidnapped, drugged, raped & tortured in foster care for years?

Last time I checked, Bill....Schuette, that is, said that since foster care is privatized, the parent must hire a private attorney because it is a civil matter.

Last time I checked, poverty was one of the criteria to put kids in foster care, meaning, No money, no justice as "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) have no civil rights.

Alas, Bill....Schuette, that running a gubernatorial campaign and still has friends in D.C., and Bill...Forsyth, that is.... knows stuff, so I am putting my money on him.  Smooches!

Engler is scared, and rightfully so, because I am on a mission...

In the spirit of fuchsia...

MSU obstructing probe, prosecutor says

A special prosecutor has threatened to seek a search warrant against Michigan State University for documents investigators believe are “critical” in determining how school officials handled allegations surrounding disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.

Go Bill. Go Bill...Forsyth, that is.

The attorney general's office said MSU is "wrongfully withholding information" as well as constructing its communications in a way that obscures them for review. But the university countered that it is cooperating, while asserting attorney-client privilege in withholding some documents and redacting parts of others.

Oh asserted attorney-client privilege.  You should really follow my work more closely.

The accusations are made in a series of letters exchanged beginning in April between William Forsyth, who was appointed in January by Attorney General Bill Schuette to oversee the independent Nassar investigation at MSU, and Robert Young, a former state Supreme Court chief justice who now serves as general counsel for the university.

Notice how the word "accusations" is plural.

Schuette named Forsyth in response to a request from the MSU trustees for an independent investigation of the school's actions regarding Nassar, a former MSU physician who is serving a de facto life term after pleading guilty to sexual assault and child pornography charges.

For a few plausible reasons why Schuette named Forsyth you can peruse over here.

The Detroit News obtained the letters through a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General's Office.

NOTE TO THE DETROIT NEWS: Nice job on adopting the process of embedding docs!

Andrea Bitely, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s office, said she could not comment on whether Forsyth had obtained the search warrant he threatened in the June 15 letter. Forsyth said he has not received the documents he needs to do his review, alleging that the university's initial response was to provide scores of "irrelevant" documents, such as the school's bedbug control policy.

Bedbug policy is a much more serious issue than the welfare of children.  My goodness, you have John Engler at the helm, damn it!  You should know he does not care about tiny humans of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) unless there is a substantial opportunity to "maximize revenues" through privatization, as Engler is the King of Privatization, you know.

Reached Wednesday night, Emily Guerrant, an MSU spokeswoman, defended the school's response to the investigation but declined to discuss Forsyth's statements.

Related image
"Oh, Engler, are you covering up your
personal, corporate inurement from your
public office, again?"
"Without knowing more specifics on what exactly MSU is accused of withholding, it's hard for me to comment," she said. "We have handed over more than 75,000 documents to the AG's office, and have been thoroughly cooperating with their investigation."

MSU is a public university, which means that even I should be able to get those requested docs through a FOIA...or did Engler privatize MSU when no one was looking? That Engler is so crafty!

The dispute between the special prosecutor and Young, Interim President John Engler's hand-picked legal counsel, comes amid growing calls for Engler's ouster. At least two trustees and multiple political leaders have called on Engler to resign for insensitivity toward Nassar's victims, and one trustee has implied he would try to convince colleagues to fire the former governor at Friday's meeting of the Board of Trustees.

Joel Ferguson, vice chairman of the board, declined to comment on the letters Wednesday night. The other members of the board did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Though Forsyth said he met with Young in late March, in an April 11 letter to Young, he accused the university of continuing to block his investigation by behaving in a manner that "impedes this office's ability to fully evaluate the propriety of the university's assertions of privilege."

At the heart of the issue is the university's privilege log, which list the documents MSU claims it can legally withhold. According to Forsyth, the log totaled nearly 200 pages as of June 15 and covers more than 1,500 emails. Forsyth questions whether all of those documents qualify for protection.

Bill...Forsyth, that is... how many times do I have to tell you that child welfare was privatized in Michigan by Engler, which means that he is not "obstructing justice" as you may think, he is invoking privacy in Child Protection Law.

In a May 24 letter to the MSU Board of Trustees, Forsyth asked the university to reconsider its assertion of privilege, saying the Nassar case is "unparalleled in our time" and the university "stands at the very center of those events."

"You must decide whether it best serves the interest of the people of the State of Michigan — to whom you owe a fiduciary duty — to withhold information in response to an inquiry by the State's Attorney General," Forsyth wrote "If you decline to waive the University's privilege, it will be virtually impossible to determine MSU's role in the the events surrounding the Nassar matter."

In a June 8 letter, Young responded that Forsyth is overstepping his authority.

"It is shameful for the Attorney General to demand access to the university's legal advice because we both understand that you are not entitled to that advice and no court in the country would ever compel the university to give you access," the MSU lawyer wrote.

Young added that the university is working closely with the state, and only a small fraction of documents have been held back as privileged.

"The fact is we are and have been cooperating," Young wrote. "To date, MSU has produced 46,245 documents to your office. Of these, only 256 documents have been fully withheld as privileged and another 176 have been produced partially redacted for privileged communications: fewer than one percent."

Forsyth wrote back June 15, saying his concern that the university was trying to circumvent the investigation had been heightened because of a communication between trustees chairman Brian Breslin and other board members.

"Our concern that MSU might be improperly withholding information was heightened by an email produced by the university from Chairperson Breslin to his fellow trustees discussing non-privileged information but directing them to copy legal counsel on their response in order to 'protect client privilege.'"

Young’s reluctance to release the communications runs counter to the university’s promise to cooperate with law enforcement, said John Manly, a lawyer who represents the majority of women and girls who sued MSU, USAG Gymnastics and other institutions for failing to protect them from Nassar's sexual abuse.

Hang in there Bill....Forsyth, that is.... I believe FinCen has this "attorney-client privilege" issue covered.

Manly added that Breslin's advice to trustees to copy attorneys on their communication to avoid its disclosure is evidence of further “obfuscation and stonewalling.”

“If you wonder how Larry Nassar happened under this board, well, that’s your answer,” Manly said.
The special prosecutor asked in April for a judge to review of documents for which MSU claims attorney-client privilege to determine whether they should be revealed or protected.

"These concerns are of critical import because the Privilege Log reflects that numerous emails involving key individuals in our investigation (for example, members of the Board of Trustees, former President Simon, Vice President Bill Beekman, Provost June Youatt, and Associate Provost Terry Curry) have been withheld," Forsyth wrote Young on April 11.

One document involving former MSU gymnastics coach Kathie Klages is specifically called into question.

"For example, the Privilege Log states that Document MSU-AG-0132987 has been withheld based on the 'attorney-client privilege,' Forsyth writes. "The document is described as an 'email chain requesting information to assist in rendering legal advice regarding Nassar litigation.'

"The email chain is between Kathy Klagas (sic) and Tracy Leahy (dated December 13, 2016). While no job title has been provided for Ms. Leahy, her LinkedIn profile indicates that she has been the Senior Institutional Equity Investigator and Deputy ADA Coordinator for Grievances at Michigan State University since 2015. Based on her job title, it's unclear how Ms. Leahy could have rendered legal advice to Ms. Klagas in 2016."

In his June 8 letter, Young said Forsyth had improperly sought privileged information from MSU and "coupled that demand with the implicit and tawdry threat that the Attorney General will publicly and politically embarrass the Board if it fails to give into your demand."

"On so many levels, this latest demand brings shame on you, the Attorney General and our legal profession that is expected to model and show respect for the Rule of Law," Young wrote. "It is hard to think of a more sacred American legal principle than that a party is entitled to the honest advice of its lawyers and the inviolate assurance that that advice will be confidential and protected.

"That privilege is, as the United State Supreme Court has said, 'the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law ...," Young wrote.

The decision to waive attorney-client privilege is not an easy one, said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University constitutional law expert. Once that privilege is waived for one group, it's waived for any other lawyer, journalist or citizen who requests the same information, he said.

“The problem isn’t so much Forsyth as everyone else who might sue MSU,” Henning said.
Attorney-client privilege covers anyone who works for the organization, even communications between two employees, as long as the subject matter encompasses legal advice, Henning said.

On the other hand, he said, “just putting an attorney on the cc list does not make it privileged.”
Henning said a search warrant like the one proposed by Forsyth — in which a judge sorts through the contested information to exclude the privileged pieces — is a way to speed up the process while still maintaining MSU’s privilege.

Read the embedded document for Child Protection Law.  Remember, privacy is always in the best interests of the child.

The letters were released on the heels of a meeting Friday at which the MSU Board of Trustees will consider appointing Young as permanent general counsel.

Engler appointed Young, a longtime political ally, in February as the lead counsel assigned to coordinate the numerous investigations involving MSU’s handling of the allegations against Nassar and Title IX lawsuits that have been filed against the school.

Bill...Schuette, that is, appointed  Bill...Forsyth, that is, as his long time political ally.  Like I have previously stated, you always want your crew in your corner.  This is a life or death battle of political legacies and I have my money on the Bills...Schuette & Forsyth.

Critics questioned Young's rulings on sexual assault cases while a high court justice after he was appointed.

He went on to serve as the university's chief negotiator of a $500 million settlement between the university and Nassar's accusers.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, June 21, 2018

JUDICIARY: Hearing on Examining The Need for New Federal Judges - Trafficking of Tiny Humans

In the spirit of fuchsia, I have provided a quick synopsis of the hearing:  


The Judicial Conference is more focused on maintaining its current status quo operations rather than the administration of justice.

Southern boarder states do not have enough federal judges to process immigration cases or even do the 9th Circuit appeals.

Federal courts are having issues with people filing too many lawsuits.

Corporations are hustling federal courts because they can afford to prolong litigation, in what I call frivolous and 

Judges, who are far removed from reality and technology, are delegating to magistrates, who are far removed from reality and technology, who in turn, delegate to clerks, who are far removed from reality and technology, who cite legal precedents, which are far removed from reality and technology.

I know this as a fact.  I have watched them use my work for legal research because I am the only one who created databases, specifically for them in mind.  My introductory brief on reality and technology in the federal courts is on file with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.  

Feel free to FOIA and let me know what they give you.

Hank Johnson, a former federal judge, demonstrates in his line of questioning how federal judges have absolutely no clue about federal child welfare laws of CAPTA or ASFA.  Children removed from parents at the border are automatically placed under the federal auspices of privatized foster care, under the court granted guardianship of corporations, where concurrent planning, adoption planning, is fast tracked under ASFA, and the child is sold adopted under that state's jurisdiction to maximize revenues.

Child trafficking, once crossing the border, morphs into what I like to call, the Trafficking of Tiny Humans, which means these kids are thrown into foster care to be bought and sold using federal and state taxpayer dollars called adoption.

Many of these child traffickers, called "coyotes", who do not get caught, dupe parents, spirit children away, and take them across the border to be sold as slave labor, whether it is for sex or free labor, or both.

What would you do if you had your child Legally Kidnapped?  Perhaps, that is why some people will continue to "illegally cross the border" over and over again.

Poverty is the crime of child abuse and neglect, which automatically makes illegally crossing the border with a child a crime, not a misdemeanor, justifying federal prosecution and placement of the child in foster care.

Mr. Samuel J. Kahn of Kent Holdings and Affiliates did not submit written testimony. Hmmmm....

Issa does not get Article III Judgeships and "zero-tolerance".  Some of these "illegal border crossers" cannot just up and go back home if you snatch their kids.  Issa never did like me.  I smashed him on child welfare about 10 years ago.  Still looking for that interview. Smooches!

Issa did not get the Detroit memo that plans are on the table to build a new immigration detention center, as rumors shall have it.  Some "illegal border crossers" enter from the other U.S. southern border, Canada.

9th Circuit has an interesting en banc  policy, identified by Issa and an even more interesting culture.

Hank, a former federal judge, did not know that pro se is a civil matter because criminal matters get federal court appointed representation.

I do not believe the child welfare terms of "foster care", "adoption", "CAPTA" nor "ASFA" were ever mentioned in this hearing.

How come DOJ, being the ones to prosecute these "illegal border crossers" never address child trafficking or the trafficking of tiny humans?

Well, that just sucks.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Will Betsy DeVos Talk About Child Welfare And Her Michigan Operations?

Will Betsy DeVos make a public statement on her family's individual and corporate revenue maximization schemes of Bethany Christian Services in funding her cronies' political campaigns and industries?

Of course not.  What is going on is a criminal matter of complex financial fraud schemes.

I heard rumors that there are, as of January 2018, 29 sealed indictments in the Western Michigan District Court, but hey, what do I know?

Torn from immigrant parents, 8-month-old baby lands in Michigan

Four days ago, a Homeland Security official proclaimed: “We are not separating babies from parents.”

Yes, you are.

Yet in the middle of the night, two baby boys arrived in Grand Rapids after being separated from their immigrant parents at the southern border weeks ago.

Yet, in the middle of the night, two baby boys were separated from their U.S. Citizen, Michigan mother at their residence, being snatched from their beds by Child Protective Services and no one cared.

One child is 8 months old; the other is 11 months old. Both children have become part of a bigger group of 50 immigrant children who have landed in foster care in western Michigan under the Trump administration's zero-tolerance border policy.

Michigan Child Protection Law has a zero-tolerance policy where, poverty is considered the crime of abuse and neglect.

The average age of these children is 8, a number that has alarmed foster care employees who are struggling to comfort the growing group of kids who are turning up in Michigan at nighttime, when it's pitch-dark outside. They're younger than ever, they say. And they are petrified.

This is when the child placing agencies will put these kids through psychological evaluations and place them on second generation antipsychotropics to silence their screams.

"These kids are arriving between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Not only are they being separated from their family, they are being transported to a place that they don't know in the middle of the night,"  said Hannah Mills, program supervisor for the transitional foster care program at Bethany Christian Services, which is currently assisting the displaced children. "We have found on many occasions that no one has explained to these children where they are going."

How can you explain to a kid when the kid is still in diapers?  I have a better one.  How can you explain to a kid that they are about to enter a life of hell in foster care when they are victims of human trafficking?

Moving a tiny human, from point A to point B, without any authorization or warrant, for federal funding cost reimbursements, then warehoused and billed to other federal grant programs, is what we call being Legally Kidnapped.

According to Mills, some of these displaced children got picked up right at the airport by a foster family, while others wound up at a foster care center, begging to talk to their parents. Many have gone 30 days or more without talking to their parents because their parents can't be located, she said.

Not seeing their parents for more than 30 days is nothing.  State law affords a parent whose child is in foster care one hour a week visitation, supervised, of course.

“These kids are hysterical. They’re screaming out for mom and dad,” said Mills, who speaks Spanish and can converse with the children, noting only a handful have learned some English.


Mills, who has worked with displaced, immigrant children for six years, said the foster agency is dealing with a new, troubling element: Getting unaccompanied children on the phone with their parents. Typically, this takes about three days, she said. But now it's taking up to a month or more because the parents are detained and the agency can't locate them.

What?  In foster care you cannot have any contact outside the one hour a week supervised visitation.  A parent can face an action of Termination of Parental Rights and the child put up for adoption. Seriously.

"That's probably one of the most detrimental things," Mills said. "At least if we can get a kid to speak with their parent, they can feel safe."

This statement does not speak well for kids "feeling safe" in foster care.

Equally upsetting, Mills said, is watching children when they do finally get on the phone with a parent. For example, she recalled, a tearful 7-year-old on the phone with her mother asking her, 'Are you OK? Are you hurt? Is someone hurting you?' "

So, the kids are doing the jobs of these so-called family organizations checking on the well-being of the parents.  Parents are traumatized when their children are Legally Kidnapped, just like the parents who had their children spirited away for the peculiar institution.

"All of it is incredibly upsetting," Mills said, stressing: "The difference is, we're seeing so many more younger kids."

Good.  I pray, all of you, awaken every morning to a tear soaked pillow.

Immigration crisis: Where are the girls?

Homeland Security officials were not available for comment on why infants and toddlers are being taken from their parents.

$$$$$ Look at the contracts, then pull their financials.  You will find they are probably, neigh, they are funding political campaigns.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has steadfastly maintained that its goal is to protect the nation's borders, enforce immigration laws and send a strong message to immigrants that if they cross the border unlawfully, they will be prosecuted and their kids taken away.

This is called Child Protection Law, or rather the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act.

There is no federal law that mandates children and parents be separated at the border, though the practice has led to nearly 2,000 kids being misplaced in the past six weeks — a phenomenon that has triggered a firestorm of controversy. Many religious groups, social activists and immigrant-sympathizers are calling for an end to the practice while Trump supporters are saying let him do his job.

Yes, there is law.  Here it is, below.

On Tuesday, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights announced that it's assessing the impact of Trump’s zero-tolerance policy on the state of Michigan and the detained immigrant children, stating it "has a duty to make sure their civil rights are protected."

What about the children who have been removed by CPS (in child welfare we use the term 'removal', not the watered down 'separated')?

“We have received reports and are very concerned that the children arriving here are much younger than those who have been transported here in the past. Some of the children are infants as young as 3 months of age and are completely unable to advocate for themselves," Agustin V. Arbulu, Executive Director of Michigan Department of Civil Rights said in a statement.

Those tiny humans are quick to adopt because, under CAPTA, these children are considered abandoned, where the Adoption Safe Families Act (ASFA) fast tracks Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) for adoption.

The  American Association for Justice also condemned the family separation policy on Tuesday, stating: “These actions are risking the safety and well-being of innocent children. We call on the administration to immediately halt this practice and to reunite these traumatized families. This is not who we are as a nation. We can and must do better.”

The American Association for Justice could wake the hell up and address Child Welfare Law in the United States before making such ignorant statements into the public record.

But the Trump administration is not backing down, stressing the policy is about preserving and protecting America's borders and upholding the law. Moreover, it insists, the policy is not new, claiming children have long been placed in foster care when their parents were criminally charged with an immigration violation.

The Trump Administration is proving just how oxymoronic Child Welfare Law is in the U.S.  People scream bloody hell on the separation of children from families, but remain eerily silent on the exact same practice by CPS.

"What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a White House briefing Monday. "Here is the bottom line: DHS is no longer ignoring the law."

Implode the system with their own law and policy.

She later added: "We are a country of compassion. We are a country of heart. ... We must fix the system so that those who truly need asylum can in fact receive it."

We are a country built upon selling chattel, the oldest form of survival.

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans desperately searched Tuesday for an end game to the administration's contentious zero-tolerance immigration policy that has drawn fire from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

I believe the Republican leadership is going through a bit of a challenge considering the fact that Bethany Christian Services is a DeVos operation, that probably funds political campaigns in Michigan, and across the nation, but hey, what do I know?  I know this is quite awkward, not in the political sense, but in the more than likely possibility of criminal self-indictments.  Politicians tend to distance themselves when it comes to admitting to violating federal law.

Trump said Tuesday he wants the legal authority to detain the children along with the adults and "promptly remove families together as a unit."

That would mean Congress would have to speak upon CPS, foster care, adoption, and all the other systems contained within Child Welfare.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©