Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Cocktails & Popcorn: Kavanaugh Gets A Taste Of Due Process For The Poors

Image result for whiskey and court
"And justice for all. Dilly, dilly!"
Well, it looks like Brett is getting a taste of our justice system in how they deal with "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

See, in Child Welfare, child abuse and neglect cases, Child Protective Services has the Right To Lie, even through it was ruled in the contrary, but no one is going to enforce it, where one is guilty until proven innocent, without right to face one's accuser, publicly recorded as a crime, before due process even begins, the child is snatched from the home, separated from the parents, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Do you know how many termination of parental rights cases have gone through the justice system based upon a lie of sexual abuse of a child?

Do you know how many parents have been accused of horrific deeds that have led to being placed upon a Central Registry, without due process, to be stripped of assets, jobs, and denied the right to live in a civil society being labeled as a social pariah?

Do you know there are congressmen who have been accused of sexual assault allegations that have never been afforded due process?

If Brett is going to be a leader in justice for this country, then I would encourage him to demand a fair process to defend integrity for all the congressmen who have been accused of sexual assault, and all the parents who have had their children Legally Kidnapped.

Sexual harassment does not always come from someone who is your superior.

Sometimes, sexual harassment comes from other staffers, who happen to be female, where these female colleagues will smear another woman in the workplace, which can, and does, turn violent, whether that be violence be  physical, verbal or economic.

Sometimes, female colleagues will just take your paycheck.

Sometimes, female colleagues will have your tires slashed or your homes torched.

Sometimes, female congressional staffers will encourage other congressional staffers to do really, super mean things to someone you care about, just to make you go away, without due process.

Such a shame that Congress does not understand that they already granted the U.S. Treasury the powers.

Women can be so nasty.

Just remember that.

Get popcorn.

Ex-aides in Hill sexual harassment scandals tell Congress: Finalize a misconduct deal

Seven women who have come forward about experiencing sexual harassment while they worked in Congress made a public plea Thursday for lawmakers to finalize a deal to strengthen Capitol Hill’s misconduct policing system.

In a letter to congressional leaders, a copy of which was shared with POLITICO, the women described themselves as “dismayed and disheartened by Congress’s failure to act and take care of its own” by agreeing on final legislation modernizing the Hill’s workplace harassment rules.

“In every building, down every hallway, and behind every door in Congress are good, honest people — often young people — working long hours for little pay in hopes of making our country and the world fairer and more just,” the seven women wrote.

“But for too many of us, the work was tainted by harassment and abuse nurtured by a culture of secrecy and an unforgiving, flawed system that protects those in power rather than those who need protection most. This included sexual harassment, verbal beratement, public humiliation, being punched, being grabbed, being threatened. And in every instance, our current jobs and future careers in politics were integrally tied to our willingness to stay quiet.”

Among the letter’s seven signatories are Lauren Greene, whose harassment claimagainst ex-Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) helped force his resignation, and Anna Kain, whose harassment by a top aide in Rep. Elizabeth Esty’s office prompted Esty (D-Conn.) to forgo reelection and acknowledge she had mishandled Kain’s claim. Their letter comes as a sexual assault allegation has upended Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination and as the one-year anniversary of the rise of the #MeToo movement nears.

The House passed a bipartisan bill revamping the current system for handling and deterring workplace misconduct on the Hill in February, amid a wave of sexual misconduct scandals that ended careers on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats aligned in that chamber call for changes to a harassment adjudication process that imposed undue burdens on accusers, including mandatory mediation, and allowed lawmakers to settle claims using taxpayer money.

The Senate approved its own Hill harassment overhaul in May. But the upper chamber’s bipartisan accord watered down several pivotal provisions of the House’s measure and has sparked tension between the chambers ever since over the shape of a final accord. Although staff-level talks have continued, the prospects for agreement before the midterm elections appear slimmer by the day given the scant number of days lawmakers are set to remain in session.

The seven former congressional employees pointed to the ticking clock in their letter to lawmakers, writing: "The 115th Congress must act now to effectively address the scourge of harassment and discrimination in its own workforce."

The letter's other signatories are Katherine Cichy, who shared her story of harassment while working in former Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) office; Rebecca Weir, who shared a story of being asked to "twirl" by former Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.); Ally Coll Steele, who founded a nonprofit focused on combating sexual harassment after sharing her own experience of harassment by an ex-Democratic senator; Winsome Packer, who settled a harassment claim against Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.); and Melanie Sloan, a veteran watchdog-group lawyer who joined others in alleging harassment by former Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 91.1 Rosenstein - Understudy Of Bethesda CIA Cabal

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, September 22, 2018

White House: President Trump Unveils America’s First Cybersecurity Strategy in 15 Years

How to build a cyberwall.

America’s networks are threatened daily by criminals, terrorists, and foreign adversaries. In the face of growing threats, the Federal Government has the responsibility to do its part to ensure America has the best cybersecurity in the world. Failures to prioritize cybersecurity by both government and industry have left our Nation less secure.

President Donald J. Trump is committed to protecting the cybersecurity of our Nation, and has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure.

Since the beginning of President Trump’s Administration, he has taken action to protect the American people in cyber space. Building on these strong efforts, today, the President signed the National Cyber Strategy—the first fully articulated cyber strategy for the United States since 2003.

The National Cyber Strategy identifies decisive priority actions to protect the American people. This strategy makes clear that the Federal Government will never stop defending our interests, and that we will bring every element of American power to bear to protect our people in the digital domain.

This Administration will not treat cyberspace as a separate arena. Instead, we are integrating cyber into all elements of national power. Structuring the National Cyber Strategy around the four pillars of the National Security Strategy reflects and advances and this approach. These are the key tenets on which we build this National Cyber Strategy:

Protect the American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life. We will manage cybersecurity risks to increase the security and resilience of the Nation’s information and information systems. We will do this by taking specific steps to secure Federal networks and information, secure critical infrastructure, combat cybercrime, and improve incident reporting.

Promote American Prosperity. We will preserve America’s influence in the technological ecosystem and pursue development of cyberspace as an open engine of economic growth, innovation, and efficiency. To do this, we will support a vibrant and resilient digital economy, foster and protect American ingenuity, and develop a superior cybersecurity workforce.

Preserve Peace through Strength. We will identify, counter, disrupt, degrade, and deter behavior in cyberspace that is destabilizing and contrary to our national interests, while preserving America’s overmatch in and through cyberspace. To achieve this, we will do our part to enhance cyber stability through norms of responsible state behavior, attribution of unacceptable behavior in cyberspace, and the imposition of costs on malicious cyber actors.

Advance American Influence. We will preserve the long-term openness, interoperability, security, and reliability of the Internet, which supports and is reinforced by America’s interests. We will take specific global efforts to promote these objectives, while supporting market growth for infrastructure and emerging technologies and building cyber capacity internationally.

The American people expect our Nation to be a world leader on every front, including cyberspace. The prosperity and security of our people, and the preservation of our way of life, depend on our successful execution of this strategy. We have a lot of work to do, and there is no time to waste.

We will Make America Cyber Secure.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why I Did Not Report - Testimony Of Baby LK Of Legally Kidnapped

Baby LK of Legally Kidnapped tells his story of why he did report being drugged, raped and trafficked in foster care, and why no one listened.


No one cares about children being drugged, raped and trafficked in foster care and adoption, whether they report it or not.

But then came the blatant dismissal of trafficking tiny humans which made me think.

Then, from the bowels of the internet, came boiling questions to the motivations of Christine Blasey Ford.

Melanie Sloan was the first person to speak out on behalf of Christine Blasey Ford to tell her story under the psyoptic propaganda of #MeToo.

Then came the next phase of psyoptic propaganda.

Christine, who hails from family of generational prominence, had her team start a GoFundMe account, but nothing for the kids in foster care and adoption being drugged, raped and trafficked.

#WhyIDidntReport is a trend going on Twitter responding to this tweet by Trump.
Which brings us to one more reason why she never reported.

Christine Blasey Ford is a clinical psychologist in child welfare predictive modeling who has published in medical journals to validate patents in medical procedural testing, where I dare say, seems to have used children in foster care as lab rats.

I believe the reason why she as asked for an extension to testify was to come up with a better reason why she did not report other than she, and the #WhyIDidntReport fans, do not care about foster kids being used as lab rats, raped and trafficked.

I bet she is corroborating with Melanie, right about now.

I am still reading the TEVA cases, so I will update in future posts.

Go ask your candidates for the November General Election 2018 what would they do if a foster kid reported being drugged, raped and trafficked in foster care to them and let me know what they say.

Take pics and record!

Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford ask for another day to make decision to testify

Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, asked the Senate Judiciary Commitee on Friday night for an additional day to make her decision to testify.

Senate Republicans earlier Friday extended a counteroffer to Ford to testify on Capitol Hill next Wednesday, amid negotiations over whether she would elaborate on her allegations against Kavanaugh in public.

Fox News was told that the Republican senators wanted an answer “by the end of the day.”
In a statement released Friday evening, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley extended the deadline for a response to 10 p.m. If there's no response, or a rejection of the offer, Grassley said in a statement, the committee may set a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination for Monday.

“I’m extending the deadline for response yet again to 10 o’clock this evening," Grassley said. "I’m providing a notice of a vote to occur Monday in the event that Dr. Ford’s attorneys don’t respond or Dr. Ford decides not to testify. In the event that we can come to a reasonable resolution as I’ve been seeking all week, then I will postpone the committee vote to accommodate her testimony."
But Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, labeled the 10 p.m. deadline "arbitrary."

"Its sole purpose is to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family," Katz said in a statement. "She has already been forced out of her home and continues to be subjected to harassment, hate mail, and death threats.  Our modest request is that she be given an additional day to make her decision."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, September 21, 2018

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette Launches Stage One Investigation Into Christians Trafficking Tiny Humans

Oh, Bill.... are you trying to do the right thing?

I know you know I know you know....

The Michigan Attorney General's Office is launching Stage One.

Yes, you heard me, correctly, Stage One.

The sex abuse scandal, the term the media is calling it, is international, and it involves child porn, child sex trafficking, and some really nasty stuff that uncloaks the international network all the way to the Holy See and the Vatican Bank, and comes right back home to Michigan, but that is probably Stage Four of the investigation.

Yes, this is not just about Catholic Churches because it is going to include Mosques and Temples, too.

They stole the children, the land and the votes.

This is about privatization in child welfare through schools, foster care, adoption and all the privately contracted service corporations.

This is about an international network operating under chattel law, and it has been going on for centuries because we are a christian nation, remember.

This is about human trafficking.

Let us see what Bill can do because Gretchen does not have a freaking clue about anything related to trafficking tiny humans in her talking point memos because they are funding her campaign.

To make an announcement of this magnitude, at the threshold of your gubernatorial election, is an act of falling on your sword for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

Your favorite Public Nuisance is honored, I humbly bow.

You may not win your election, but we welcome you to the annals of history in civil rights with open arms.


Michigan AG Schuette opens priest sex abuse investigation

Bill Schuette embracing his future of ending
trafficking of tiny humans
The Michigan Attorney General's Office announced today it has launched a statewide investigation into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

The office posted on its website today that it now has an open investigation into whether clergy in the Catholic Church in Michigan committed acts of abuse against children.

"The Michigan Department of Attorney General has determined that a full and complete investigation of what happened within the Catholic Church is required," it reads on the Attorney General's website. "This investigation is and will continue to be independent, thorough, transparent, and prompt. My department and this investigation will find out who knew what, and when."

The investigation was first reported by Wood TV, which had filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requesting documents related to several cases of abuse.

A spokesperson for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette confirmed to the Free Press the investigation was launched in August and announced today.

"You may also call the investigation hotline at 844-324-3374 (Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.) or send information by email."

In its response to Wood TV's FOIA request, Michigan Attorney General's Office said "please be informed that the Department of Attorney General opened an investigation in August 2018 into the alleged sexual abuse and assault of children and others by Catholic priests from 1950 to the present for all seven Catholic dioceses in Michigan. In addition, the investigation includes religious order priests who have worked in Michigan. The investigation will also include any allegations related to the cover up of sexual abuse or assault."

The Attorney General added: "The Department has established two reporting mechanisms for those who may be victims or have information regarding alleged sexual misconduct. First, a website has been established to allow for confidential reporting of information: Michigan.gov/CI. Second, the Department’s investigation hotline is prepared to receive information at 844-324-3374 (Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.)."

In a statement today, the Archdiocese of Detroit, which overseas 1.3 million Catholics in southeastern Michigan, welcomed the probe. It said: "The Archdiocese of Detroit welcomes the Attorney General's investigation and is prepared to fully cooperate. We have worked closely with authorities from all six counties within our archdiocese since 2002, when we shared past case files involving clergy misconduct and committed to turning over all new allegations regardless of when the alleged abuse occurred. The Attorney General investigation is the next phase of our commitment to transparency and healing."

The Archdiocese of Detroit added: "We have full confidence in our safe environment policies put in place and carefully followed for more than 15 years. We remain committed to protecting everyone – especially children and vulnerable adults – and therefore look forward to working closely with officials to determine if there is more we can do to accomplish this goal."

The move by Michigan's Attorney General comes after a report last month by the Pennsylvania Attorney General detailed extensive abuse of children by Catholic priests in that state. Other states have launched similar investigations.

The Michigan Attorney General also has open investigations into the Flint water crisis and Michigan State University over abuse by Larry Nassar and others.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ OIG: A Message from the Inspector General: Report on the BOP’s Contract Awarded to Sealaska Constructors, LLC to Build Facilities at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut

I just love the new format.

Clean. Simple. Cut to the chase.

Prison conditions are bad because no one was paying attention during procurement which is a likely indicator of stealin'.

Results in Brief

We determined that the BOP solicited and entered into a sole-source contract with SCL in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and that SCL constructed the facilities in accordance with BOP specifications. However, we identified several weaknesses in the BOP’s pre-award project planning. For example, the BOP had not anticipated significant problems with its plan to convert FCI Danbury’s existing federal prison camp (FPC) to a facility with a higher security level. By the time the BOP had identified the problems and implemented an alternative plan, it had already paid over $1.7 million to construct an entry building that was no longer necessary. Our report also describes weaknesses in the BOP’s: (1) planning for critical institutional aspects, such as programming, food services, and health services; (2) acquisition planning; (3) contractor performance evaluation; and (4) contract pricing procedures.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Melanie Sloan Champions Due Process For Whistleblowers

Image result for melanie sloan
Melanie Sloan, champion of due process
for whistleblowers
The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed has been summoned.

Let us bow our heads in a moment of silence for what is about to happen, in the course of justice by preserving of our institutions, in the spirit of fuchsia...

I accused a powerful man of misconduct. The consequences are daunting....because no one has been allowed due process.

Melanie Sloan is a partner with Summer Strategies, a public affairs firm. She was minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee from 1995-1998.

Yes, Melanie Sloan worked on the Clinton impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, under the Chief of Staff, Julian Epstein, who was terminated.  We should definitely subpoena Julian so we can have him set the record straight as to your working conditions during the Whitewater investigation and why he failed to report your concerns to law enforcement, and why he was fired.  Well, you cannot get fired from congress very easily, so I am going to call this a rumor until after Julian's testimony and cross examination.

Speaking of Whitewater, we should also as bring in Bob Fiske so we can find out if these daunting moments had any effect on your work during the Arkansas Finance Development Authority subject matter or if the harassment affected any Committee work on the murder of Vince Foster.

It’s hard to publicly allege misconduct by a powerful man. No woman wants to be known primarily as a victim of harassment or, worse, assault. It’s humiliating. We — women who have gone public — are so much more than accusers or victims. Yet, once the news breaks, we are reduced in the eyes of the world to the role of accuser. The fact that we had a career, too — whether as a college professor, lawyer, actress, journalist, writer or waitress — gets lost.

You have a long history of alleging misconduct by powerful men. That is how you founded CREW. Stay strong.

It is even harder when a child screams for dear life in hopes that one person in Congress will go public to stop the drugging, rape and torture in child welfare, whether as a victim of trafficking tiny humans or in death.  Yet, the fact that these children were born of innocence ~ when the news breaks of what goes on in foster care and adoption ~ gets lost.

Priorities, but I also know your pain of being rejected, losing everything, over and over again, each time I stood up and filed formal grievances.

Christine Blasey Ford had excellent reasons to want to remain anonymous in her allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. It could hardly have been lost on her that — forevermore — rather than being known for her academic work, she would become infamous as a woman who alleged attempted rape by a Supreme Court nominee.

We can also call Kavanaugh into the trial to assist Melanie in healing from her daunting consequences of accusing Conyers of such an horrific sexual attack, considering the fact that Brett was the one who argued on behalf of the United States in stripping attorney-client during Whitewater.

The Independent Counsel (Kavanaugh) argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding. 

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Cocktails & Popcorn: Brett Kavanaugh, Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare & Russia http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/09/cocktails-popcorn-brett-kavanaugh.html#ixzz5RdePGbVq
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

This would also be a proper opportunity to allow Monica Lewinsky to tell her story and preserve the annals of history by allowing her civil rights to finally be honored.

Monica Lewinsky was never allowed to tell her story in the public record, or even tell the public about her work in Whitewater, but now, with the advocacy of Melanie going public, demanding for a full execution of civil rights for all the women who have been maligned in the reporting of non-violent sexual assaults, even the ones who were fortunate enough to have received financial compensation in Non-Disclosure Agreements.

What glory she shall achieve in the history of civil rights by finally addressing in the proper venue of a congressional hearing, the validity of NDAs in similar light to stripping attorney-client privilege in the execution of such heinous sexual acts, as Melanie has accused Conyers.  Her glory would be even sweeter to suckle in a federal court setting of a Special Prosecutor.

Last fall, when a reporter called me to ask about my employment with then-Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the first words out of my mouth were “off the record.” Because I wanted to corroborate what other women had alleged about sexual harassment by Conyers (which he has denied) and bolster their credibility, I agreed to share some of my own experiences with the caveat that the reporter not attribute them to me, but rather to a “former staffer.” I spent a day struggling over whether I, too, should publicly come forward. I knew that it would be much harder to dismiss allegations made by a named person. I knew that only when women come forward publicly will we ever consign the culture of secrecy surrounding male misconduct to the dustbin.

Have no fear, my lady, for I, too, shall be here to encourage you share your tales of collusion with Marion Brown and all the other women who have chosen to remain anonymous, through your leadership of corroboration, by enjoining in your demand for due process for John Conyers in formal hearings, whether congressional or judicial.

In the end, I decided to attach my name to my statements. But the consequences for coming forward are daunting. In at least some quarters, you are ridiculed, dismissed and labeled a liar, a lunatic — or both. Even some friends, family and colleagues are not supportive and instead question why you needed to stick your head out at all.

These ridiculing appellations, which have been detailed in the allegations of the lawsuit, below, questioning the ethics of your leadership at CREW, shall also be elevated to the national agenda, for you have been accused of possible treasonous activities, and, as such, should enjoin this case in the pending congressional and judicial hearings.  No one should be forced to live under a cloak of deception when there exists the powers of subpoena to illuminate lack of support from society when a man, woman or child comes forward as a whistleblower.

How was it that you came to secure a position at CREW?  

I shall demand the presence of Nancy Pelosi and Sheila Jackson Lee.

If the harassment or assault left you emotionally damaged and your career suffered, or caused you to leave your chosen field, you are unstable and not credible. If you overcame the harassment or assault and went on to career success, whatever happened must not have been as bad as you claimed, and you are not credible.

Are you unstable, Melanie?  You should seek out help, and help for all the other victims who have anonymously spoken out against the sexual harassment by Conyers.  I am quite sure it will be legally possible to have the attending physicians and psychiatrists testify, under oath, to the veracity of the medical records entered into the record to support these claims and clear the names of the anonymous whistleblowers.  As a matter of fact, we shall also call forth the work histories of all the former congressional staffers of Conyers.  I am quite sure there are dollies and moving vans to ensure a secure transfer of the boxes upon boxes of documents to support the data transfer to court.

If you work in politics and reveal misconduct by someone on your side of the aisle, some of your compatriots may call you disloyal (at least behind your back); your political opponents will applaud you as a hero — even if some of them demonized you in the past when you took positions with which they disagreed.

The malfeasance within the Democratic and Republican Parties have been well sensationalized for long enough.  The idea of any political institution casting of aspersions upon whistleblowers is to be soon addressed in Senate Judiciary hearings, where your tenure at CREW will embolden your career path as an expert witness, original source, in the generation of online propaganda.

Even while praising your courage, potential employers wonder if you are a troublemaker and may pass you over, preferring a candidate with less obvious baggage.

Even though the statute of limitations has expired on your claim of sexual harassment by Conyers, as a former federal prosecutor, I know you still possess that passionate litigious fire for due process, and therefore, will embrace me in the call for the unredacted release of the DOJ OIG Horowitz report, which is to address all of the Ethics Committee referrals to the Special Prosecutor surrounding the decades of debauchery within Conyers' Congressional Office and all the Members' Offices of the House Judiciary Committee.

Did you file a House Ethics Complaint, too?

Filing grievances makes due process much less a concept of "obvious baggage" as it registers one's work history in the public record, a basic civil right, for all whistleblowers.

And unless you go on to even greater infamy — thanks to our appetite for scandal and the algorithms that feed us — this will be the very first thing discovered about you in any Google search, probably for the rest of your life. Monica Lewinsky’s impressive anti-bullying campaign, for example, still turns up well after her involvement in the Clinton impeachment scandal. Anita Hill has spent decades as a law professor, yet the first thing to pop up is her testimony during Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing.

Unfortunately, I have yet to meet with a successful online smear campaign, but I am sure its implementation is eminent after my public support of your demand for due process for Conyers.  My Google search has been manipulated in suppression, shadowbanned on Twitter for over a decade, and taken down and banned from LinkedIn, for the simple fact that I was preemptive in preserving the legacy of Conyers.  

Perform a simple Google search for my name, foster care, adoption, Medicaid fraud, child trafficking, false claims to see what comes up.  

Although you may find Monica Lewinsky's public awareness campaigns for jobs, justice and peace to be impressive, you will be awestruck to know that your name will come up in future Google searches as being the one who set the stage for Monica Lewsinky to have her day of due process when she finally tells of her involvement in the Clinton impeachment scandal, which has never fully been told.  You may even be the force to dismantle the social constructs that being a whistleblower is "obvious baggage" when honoring iconic individuals like Anita Hill because her testimony during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing is a proud part of civil rights history.  

So the downsides of walking into the klieg lights are substantial. But there also are benefits: On a personal level, the upside may be hope for long-delayed validation that what happened to you was, in fact, wrong and not your fault, and you might even obtain some sort of rough justice. But most importantly — at least for me — was understanding that if I did not come forward, I could not expect anyone else to do so either. And if none of us publicly shares our stories, forcing men — and not just the women they’ve hurt — to suffer real consequences, then how can we expect change?

Dilly, dilly!

We shall subpoena Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Lanny Davis and all the other attorneys, too.

I bite my pearls for your moment of revelry on the stand, to tell your story of harassment and of your work on civil rights issues, like the Crime Bill, VAWA, PRWORA & ASFA.  Your illustrious Judiciary Committee work on Detroit, patents, privatization, campaign finance and your time in the Clinton Justice Department will be spectacular, I am quite sure.

I will make it a point to definitely put Mike Cernovich and Lisa Bloom on the attorney-client privilege subpoena guest list to support you and Marion Brown.

Twenty-six years after Hill endured a grueling hearing in which senator after senator attempted to undermine her credibility, another woman is nevertheless courageously considering whether to brave a similar grilling by another group of entirely male Republican senators. Maybe in the wake of the myriad women disclosing their own #MeToo stories, men will come to terms with exactly how unacceptable harassment and assault are. Maybe we won’t have to watch the same narrative unfold yet again.

No two narratives are the same.  That is statistically improbable, unless it is a transposable model, but hey, what do I know?

I know Perkins Coie Sucks.

Thank you, Melanie, for your brilliance in creating the #MeToo movement.  I strongly believe that this shall be your deigning crown which you will proudly parade as we go forth and demand due process for all whistleblowers, even Conyers.

Let the whistleblower due process trials commence!

Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

All Hail The Whistleblowers: Everyone Deserves Due Process In Court, Even Christine Blasey Ford

All whistleblowers should have their time to tell their stories and preserve the public record, even all the accusers of John Conyers.

Interestingly enough, OAN failed to cite Conyers in its list of individuals who have resigned from Congress.

I wonder why.

So, Ford comes out to say she is not attending the hearing and Grassley said there was no reason to have the hearing if she does not show up.

Can someone please explain to me how one can find a group of 24 gender specific individuals from over 30 years ago, then get them to sign on to a letter of support to be entered into congressional record in less than 7 days?

How come there is just a list of names and no one signed the letter?

There is more internet chatter that her father and brother are more involved with the CIA through their corporation, Red Coats, Inc. having federal security contracts.

Then, there is even more internet chatter that Christine Blasey Ford was adopted for covert operations, or for the adoption tax incentives, but this cyber rumor is still developing.

Then, like you thought I did not have more internet dirt, there are rumors going around that Kavanaugh was high school buddies with Neil Gorsuch who both have been "compromised" in other situations.

But, that is just another conspiracy theory floating in the cyberverse because the pornos have yet to be released.

How do I come up with all this speculation?

Because Perkins Coie always uses the same, exact damn model when they want to compromise an elected official, and they have, and their underlings, have yet to mention John Conyers, their ultimate target, which is why I call them "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

All whistleblowers deserve to be heard, for the sake of due process, a civil right.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

DOJ: Ohio Trafficking Tiny Humans Slave Scheme Busted, Congress Still Refuses To Talk About The Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution

I wonder how many of the kids were tricked out?

Such a shame they did not bring the minors through foster care and adoption, because they would have gotten a foster parent check and the state would have subsidized the wages through, what was that term the Federal Reserve is pushing for Medicaid fraud...yes, "financial health" for all those wonderful child welfare NGOs that helps kids to meet their fullest potential in Social Impact Bonds.

Too bad they did not put a big christian cross on the trailer and cry religious freedom, like what is being used in other child trafficking cases.

See, these kids are being trafficked, yet, no one in Congress wants to talk about the residuals of the peculiar institution.

Just remember, Congress makes law. The Executive branch enforces law.

Oh dear, it looks like chicken prices are going to increase.

Defendant Pleads Guilty in Connection with Ohio Labor Trafficking Scheme Involving Immigrant Minors

Pablo Duran Ramirez, 50, pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio, to encouraging the illegal entry of Guatemalan nationals, including unaccompanied minors, into the United States for financial gain, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Justin E. Herdman of the Northern District of Ohio, and Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony of the FBI’s Cleveland Division. Duran Ramirez is the fourth defendant to plead guilty in connection with a labor trafficking scheme that forced Guatemalan minors to work at egg farms in central Ohio.
According to the defendant’s plea agreement and admissions in court, the defendant, through his company, Haba Corporate Services, contracted to provide labor to Trillium Farms, knowing that the workers were unlawfully present in the United States. He further admitted to knowing that some of the workers were unaccompanied minors who had been coerced or threatened to enter the United States and then housed in an isolated trailer park in Marion, Ohio. In 2013 and 2014, Trillim Farms paid the defendant’s company approximately $6 million for its labor services.
“Motivated by greed, the defendant violated the immigration laws and contributed to the exploitation of vulnerable children who lacked immigration status,” said Acting Assisting Attorney General Gore.  “The Department of Justice will use its resources to prosecute individuals who unlawfully victimize others for their own monetary profit.”
“This defendant profited off the desperation of children and their parents and other relatives,” said U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman for the Northern District of Ohio. “He knew some of the workers he delivered to Trillium Farms were underage, in the country illegally and were threatened or coerced. We will continue to work to eliminate human trafficking in all its forms.”
“This defendant, in conspiracy with three other previously convicted individuals, coerced and assisted individuals to enter the United States illegally, many of them children, forcing them to live in deplorable conditions and work for little to no wages,” said Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony of the FBI’s Cleveland Division. “These reprehensible actions are unacceptable and rest assured the FBI will continue to work with our partners to bring to justice those who engage in human trafficking.”
Duran Ramirez faces a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. His sentencing date has been set for Jan. 7, 2019.
Three other defendants—Aroldo Castillo-Serrano, of Guatemala, Ana Angelica Pedro-Juan, of Guatemala, and Conrado Salgado-Soto, of Mexico—previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the same labor trafficking scheme. Castillo-Serrano, the lead smuggler and primary enforcer, was sentenced to 188 months in prison; Pedro-Juan, who oversaw the victims in Ohio, was sentenced to 120 months; and Salgado-Soto, a subcontractor hired by Duran Ramirez, was sentenced to 51 months.
Those defendants admitted to recruiting workers from Guatemala, some as young as 14 or 15 years old, falsely promising them good jobs and a chance to attend school in the United States.  The defendants then smuggled and transported the workers to a trailer park in Marion, Ohio, where they ordered them to live in dilapidated trailers and work at physically demanding jobs at Trillium Farms for up to 12 hours a day.  The work included cleaning chicken coops, loading and unloading crates of chickens, de-beaking chickens and vaccinating chickens. During their sentencing, Senior United States District Judge James G. Carr found that they had threatened workers with physical harm and withheld their paychecks in order to compel them to work. Eight minors and two adults were identified as victims of the scheme.
Three additional defendants, including Duran Ramirez’s son, pleaded guilty for their roles in encouraging the workers’ illegal entry into the United States.
This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Cleveland Office, Mansfield Resident Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The case is being jointly prosecuted by Trial Attorney Dana Mulhauser of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Chelsea Rice.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: What Do Conyers, Trump, Whoopie, Kavanaugh & His #MeToo Psyoptic Ex-Girlfriend Have In Common?

Image result for psycho ex girlfriend gif
Brett's #MeToo Psyoptic Ex-Girlfriend
Q: What Do Conyers, Trump, Whoopie, Kavanaugh & his Psyoptic Ex-Girlfriend Have In Common?

A: #perkinscoiesucks

Yes, my dearies, The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is bringing you the next chapter in the continuing saga of Perkins Coie Sucks.

Previously on Cocktails & Popcorn, we left off when Brett Kavanaugh & his Psycho Ex-Girlfriend, who just so happens to be a clinical psychologist, from high school over 30 years ago, has a psychological breakthrough in finding that particular repressed sexual attack memory with her clinical psychologist.

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Kavanaugh #MeToo Psyop Nightmare Continues To Unfold & Ignore Trafficking Of Tiny Humans 

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Cocktails & Popcorn: The Kavanaugh #MeToo Psyop Nightmare Continues To Unfold & Ignore Trafficking Of Tiny Humans http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/09/cocktails-popcorn-kavanaugh-metoo-psyop.html#ixzz5RSnOK2NpStop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Then, we find out Brett's mother had a mortgage foreclosure case with his psycho ex-girlfriend's parents.

Then, True Pundit, which has a bit of a credibility issue going on right now, comes out and says this, in short, that Perkins Coie Sucks and it is starting to look like another one of their famous #MeToo Psyoptical Nightmares.
Kavanaugh Accuser’s Brother Worked for Law Firm that Paid Fusion GPS For Work with Russian Lawyer Who Set Up Trump Tower Meeting 
Ralph Blasey III, Christine Ford’s brother was formerly employed at the D.C. offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP. That’s the same firm that made payments over half a million dollars to Fusion GPS. 
Ralph Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP in 2004. Still, its’ just another rather odd twist to the case of the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. First it was revealed Ford is a far left, Northern California professor. Then last night it was revealed that Brett Kavanugh’s mother, a Maryland district judge in the 1990’s case against Christine Ford’s parents. 
And now this. Christine Ford’s brother once worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP that paid Fusion GPS $523,651 between March 7, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2016. Even though the payments were made after Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP, one has to wonder (and investigate) his connections with the law firm. He may have had no knowledge at all of the payment. Ralph Blasey might have had ZERO influence with the payment.  

Pet the Daily Caller:
 Browder, a London-based banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions law vehemently opposed by the Kremlin.  
BakerHostetler represented Prevezon Holdings and its owner, a Russian named Denis Katsyv. 
Katsyv and Prevezon sought to limit the impact of the Magnitsky sanctions. 
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and Fusion GPS founding partner, compiled the research for the anti-Browder project. He worked closely with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who also showed up at the infamous Trump Tower meeting held on June 9, 2016. 
Simpson’s research ended up in the Trump Tower meeting in the form of a four-page memo carried by Veselnitskaya. She also shared Simpson’s with Yuri Chaika, the prosecutor general of Russia. 
Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee earlier this week that he did not know that Veselnitskaya provided the Browder information to Chaika or to Donald Trump Jr., the Trump campaign’s point-man in the Trump Tower meeting.
But wait, it gets better.

Now, George Webb is making inference in his working theory that Brett's #MeToo Psyoptic Nightmare Psycho Ex-girlfriend's father may have a working relationship with CIA through the universities.

Then, Whoopie said this:
John Conyers was yanked for a lot less than this. So the conversation needs to be had.
So, let's have the conversation...

'Frenzied Republicans' asked Kavanaugh about old girlfriends before Monday's hearing with his accuser

In a congressional hearing...
With lots of testimony...
From lots of witnesses...
From Detroit...

‘The View’ on Kavanaugh: ‘About Time’ Dems ‘Played Hard Ball,’ Conyers Got Canned for Less!

Responding Monday morning to the sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh with predictable hypocrisy, the liberal ladies on ABC’s The View applauded Democrats for finally “play[ing] hardball,” deemed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claims to be “very credible,” and defended Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) for not going public sooner with the letter.

“Kavanaugh crisis. Will a woman's attempted sexual assault allegation against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh derail his nomination and put Republicans in a no-win situation,” hyped the show’s announcer in an opening tease.

Co-host Sunny Hostin first declared Ford’s story to be “very credible” and thus made the case against Kavanaugh because “morality and a moral compass is very important when it comes to a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court” since he’d “be opining a lot of issues that affect women.”

Fellow co-host Joy Behar argued that “maybe he should take a lie detector test” without pointing out how polygraph tests (such as the one Ford took) aren’t admissible in court.

“What's the big rush? There’s still 174,000 papers that we haven't seen on Kavanaugh. You know, plus we have this allegation from a rather credible witness. And so what is the rush? This is a lifetime appointment,” Behar added.

New co-host Abby Hunstman agreed that the case against Kavanaugh is “serious,” but she delineated by stating that she’s “frustrate[d]” by “the politics of all this.” She also linked this to how Republicans didn’t confirm Merrick Garland, which is totally irrelevant.

Huntsman did knock Feinstein for having seemingly “put this in a drawer” until they thought it would have maximum impact. Hostin and co-host Whoopi Goldberg disagreed while Whoopi, without evidence, claimed that “Feinstein didn't say anything about this and we don't know who leaked.”

Whoopi also suggested that perhaps Ford’s husband leaked the story to help his wife’s story get told but, at the end of the day, Feinstein was in a no-win situation when to bring it forward (even though, if the allegations were as serious as Democrats claim, waiting since July to take action is irresponsible).

“I don’t think this is DiFi saying, you know, ‘you know, we’re going to put this away.’ I think this was her saying the woman asked me to keep her confidence and that’s what I'm doing. I think that’s what happened,” she continued.

Hostin informed Huntsman that this isn’t political at all and “the timeline really doesn’t support that the Democrats somehow kept this a secret intentionally to sort of, you know, drop a surprise.” Unless Hostin has her months mixed up, July 30 and the last few days (September 13-17) aren’t exactly next to each other.

Goldberg and Hostin also defended Feinstein for having properly handed the matter off to the FBI, but that’s also irrelevant as the agency has chosen not to investigate it.

It was within this part of the debate that Behar made quite the Freudian slip to Whoopi’s dismay, blurting out how pleased she is with how Democrats have conducted this: “Isn't it about — isn’t it about time the Democrats played hardball, come on.” 

After Huntsman seemed to express resignation that Kavanaugh is toast and Goldberg reiterated that Democrats didn’t leak, the segment closed with the four talking past each other and a bizarre Whoopi take about now-former Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) being booted for less (click “expand” for more):
BEHAR: Well, the other thing is that a lot of the students who went to school with this accuser at that high school say that there was this type of thing that went on a lot in those days and that some of them were victims also of this from these other schools. These other — this was a girls school and this — Kavanaugh was in an all boys school and so — and this idea that it was a long time ago, I mean, so when a child is molested or attacked, it was a long time ago too. I mean, a long time ago is not 
HUNTSMAN: I can only imagine the conversation that Kavanaugh had to have with his two daughters in going to school today. It’s tough all around. But you know there are a lot of people’s lives on the line.
BEHAR: Clinton had to have the conversation also. It works on both parties. 
GOLDBERG:  John Conyers was yanked for a lot less than this. So the conversation needs to be had.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, September 17, 2018

Federal Reserve & DHHS Lied To Snyder Using Privatization Predictive Modeling Crap To Push Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare

These "Economic Gurus" (trademark pending) up in the Federal Reserve, U.S. DHHS and Michigan DHHS suck because they lied to Snyder, once again, using child welfare propaganda, to pitch their form of Medicaid expansion fraud.

This is not the first piece of statistical, predictive modeling crap to come out the Federal Reserve.

The last time they used University of Southern California.

Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Portrait of Sharada Dharmasankar
Sharada Dharmasankar
 The most valuable thing I’ve acquired in my time as an 
AE at the Chicago Fed is a deep understanding of how 
academic research is conducted. Working with my team, 
taking classes, and attending seminar 
presentations have given me a broad perspective on the 
research process: formulating research ideas, learning about new 
and interesting sources of data, 
and how to review and question existing work. 
Doing this on a daily basis with researchers who are 
leaders in their fields has only furthered my interest in 
pursuing graduate studies in economics. 
This time, they are using the University of Michigan.

As much as I respect my alma mater, this has got to be one of the dumbest studies I have seen since that other Federal Reserve hit study on whether or not the banks benefited from TARP.

It is not even peer reviewed because it is a working paper.

Who paid for this study?

Russell Sage Foundation (grant # 94-16-04)

National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (NICHD) grant #1R01HD081129

Did you know the NICHD is really called the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and they are the ones who make the policies to traffic tiny humans?

This looks like a Public Private Partnership, or rather, I smell the work of Jerry Milner.

How much was this study?

Anything over the price of a 40 ounce brew and a spleef was too much.

Was this study paid with tax dollars and if so, how come I have to pay to access a public document, submitted into state and federal records, used to justify the use of more tax dollars, specifically Medicaid, when there is absolutely no mention of Medicaid fraud, or perhaps there is, if I pay for the study?


Guess what, I got the document.
How come a public document which has been generated with public dollars, prescribing social and economic policy recommendations, has a copyright?
© 2018 by Sarah Miller, Luojia Hu, Robert Kaestner, Bhashkar Mazumder, and Ashley Wong. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source.
I am taking this moment to call out Fair Use on the BS copyright because my site is not monetized, I am preserving the annals of history, and I have just formally enter this into my case as evidence, so if anyone has a problem, then you are going to have to motion up.

Why was an undergraduate student running this study?

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [1R01HD081129-01]. The views expressed here do not represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. We thank Sharada Dharmasankar for her excellent research assistance. We also thank the editor and four referees for helpful comments.

They used her. They are cranking out their armies through the universities to keep this Public Private Partnership going until they achieve world domination for their glorious leaders who give them pretty shiny sheep skins.

Who was the principal on the study?

"I see Corporate Shape Shifters. Was it Michigan? Was is Sage Foundation? Was it Gates Foundation? Was it the Federal Reserve? Was it the National Bureau of Economic Research? Was it the National Institution of Health? Who is making policies for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth). Mommy, who owns our data, I'm scared."

Why was individual data sold to a private organization, who authorized it?

Cui bono?

Second, data from TransUnion on consumer credit histories was matched with the Healthy Michigan administrative data using name, address, and social security number. TransUnion credit reports were observed twice per year, in January and July, starting with July 2011 and ending with January 2016, resulting in ten observation periods. Prior to providing the matched data to the researchers, all personally identifying information was removed. See the Appendix for additional details on the match process. page 7.

Oh, wait, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Yes, they sold the data.

We are grateful to the Russell Sage Foundation (grant # 94-16-04) for support of this project. Drs Kaestner, Mazumder, and Miller also benefited from support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) grant #1R01HD081129. We thank Tara Watson, Lara Shore-Sheppard, seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Chicago and conference participants at ASHEcon for their comments. We also gratefully acknowledge the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services for making this data available, Sarah Clark and Lisa Cohn for helping assemble the MDHHS data set, and Dave Fogata for facilitating the data purchase from TransUnion. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
They now have a viable voting database for manipulation.

Did you know Sharada has her name on another piece of crap Federal Reserve of Chicago study on the financial health of people who lost their homes to fake ass mortgage foreclosures?

Now, you do.

Her other crappy Federal Reserve study, below, failed to identify the fake ass mortgage fraud in Detroit.

In the spirit of fuchsia...

Study: Expanded Medicaid boosted finances of Michigan's poor

Enrollment in Michigan's expanded Medicaid program boosted the finances of many low-income residents as well as their health care status, according to a University of Michigan study released Monday.

It is always wise to keep your chattel alive to maximize revenues my making sure to layer up services, upon administrative fees, to implement studies for more service programs, to service for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth.)

Can you see the $ocial Impact Bonds?  I can.

Among more than 655,000 residents who gained health coverage after the Legislature approved the Healthy Michigan Plan in April 2014, many have experienced fewer debt problems and other financial issues than before enrollment, according to the analysis of thousands of enrollees' financial records.

If you did not know, they used aggregate data.  They should know very well the biases with MAUP, duh. This means the entire study sucks.

The study found drops in unpaid debts, such as medical bills and overdrawn credit cards, as well as fewer bankruptcies and evictions after people enrolled in Healthy Michigan. The program provides health insurance for adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

You can already tell that they did not use Detroit data. Do you know how many homes were foreclosed upon based on fake property taxes and mortgages in 2012 in Wayne County?

The research team was led by economist Sarah Miller of UM’s Ross School of Business. Their finding were published Monday on the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research with colleagues from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, University of Illinois, Chicago and Northwestern University.

Yeah.  I truly hope Sarah does not get tenured for this crap.

The greatest financial gains were experienced by people with chronic illnesses or who had a hospital stay or emergency department visit after they enrolled.

“Across the board, we saw a pretty sizable effect, not just on unpaid medical bills, but also unpaid credit card bills, and on public records for evictions, bankruptcies, wage garnishments and other actions,” said Miller, a member of the UM Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.

ASSUMPTION RULEOUT #1: When you are sick and broke, you cross your fingers you get approved in 3 to 5 years for a SSI check.  That means you are poor and do not have credit, so there would be no credit card debt.

“Enrollees’ financial well-being seems to improve when they can get the medical care they need without having to put it on a credit card. And the largest effects are among the sickest enrollees.”

ASSUMPTION RULEOUT #2: "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), do not have credit. Most of the time, all they have to do is miss one week of work and they will automatically qualify for Medicaid.  Have you looked at the rates of poverty, lately?  $1.00 over the threshold and you are cut off.

The team worked with the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to obtain data on more than 322,000 enrollees without the researchers’ having access to any individual’s identifying information. Using a double-blind matching procedure, they matched the data with enrollees’ credit reports, and studied them as a group.

ASSUMPTION RULEOUT #3: They lied.  How are you going to obtain metadata then run it in a double-blind with credit reports.  Seriously?  You already know whatever they crank out is going to be on dirty data.  I wonder if they excluded the areas of Flint, Detroit, and the middle swath of the state, you know, the land of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

The study focused on people who enrolled during the first year of the Healthy Michigan plan, and who had previously been uninsured.  Researchers looked at individual-level financial information from several years before each person enrolled, and for at least one year following enrollment.

The average household income for enrollees in the study was $4,400 for an individual and $7,500 for a family of three. Seventy percent had a chronic illness, and on average they had been to an emergency department once in the past year.

Ah, this is where asset forfeiture policies kick in through guardian ad litems and those wonder corporate parents.  When someone has an average income between $4K and $7K a year, you are probably correct to assume that these individuals were probably in foster care or living in a boarding home and are dealing with mental health issues.

“A goal of the Healthy Michigan Plan is to address social determinants of health in order to promote positive health outcomes, greater independence and improved quality of life," said Lynn Sutfin, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

HOW TO PROMOTE POSITIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES: Stop making "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), poorer!

"This study shows that ensuring Michigan residents have access to quality, affordable health care is reaping numerous benefits.”

No, this study shows another fraud scheme to hustle more money through privatization schemes to shore up the Federal Reserve banks that are going insolvent, like Deutsche Bank.  This is propaganda and I am repulsed that this is the University of Michigan is promoting more insurgency propaganda for the purposes of the Privateering NGOs to swoop in and commence to stealin' through more crappy predictive modeling social programming for the parent corporations.  That is the only place the financial health is focused.

More than 80 percent had credit scores in the subprime or deep subprime range. Their total debt in collections, medical debt in collections and past-due amount was higher than a random sample of credit reports nationally.

Uh...it is called poverty.

According to the study's findings, the Healthy Michigan Plan reduced their medical bills in collections by an average of 57 percent, or about $515. The amount of past due debt not yet sent to a collection agency was reduced by 28 percent or about $233.

How much of this past due debt was based upon bogus water bills or fake mortgages?

Researchers found a 16 percent drop in public records for evictions, bankruptcies, wage garnishments and other financial events.  Bankruptcies dropped by 10 percent among the group studied.

Most individuals do not have enough debt to file bankruptcy.  You cannot get evicted is you are homeless.  There would be no wage garnishments if you already hail from "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

Enrollees’ were 16 percent less likely to overdraw their credit cards, and their credit scores improved as a group. The number with a “deep subprime” rating fell by 18 percent, and the number listed as “subprime” fell by 3 percent.

Do you mean those deep subprime mortgages that stole the houses from the people, allowing for gerrymandering of congressional districts for the purposes of putting in elected spokestokens to approve crappy studies like this to get more Medicaid money for stealin'?

Enrollees experienced a 21 percent rise in automotive loans, an indication of improved financial well-being.

No, no, no.  This is Michigan, the land of cars and corner car lots where Mohammad will sell you a hoopty and get you that 7 day insurance to get your plates to get on the road to find a good low-paying job and still qualify SNAP benefits.

According to Miller, other studies have found that Medicaid expansion reduced use of payday loans and reduced interest rates for low-income people.

Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz tell you to throw that "Medicaid expansion reduction in the use of payday loans and reduced interest rates for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).  I someone in your targeted population gets a payday loan, it is because they have a SSI check as collateral.

Have Borrowers Recovered from Foreclosures during the Great Recession?
 Now, nine years after the onset of the housing bust, we think it is worthwhile to assess the financial health of the individuals whose homes were foreclosed on during this period. Have they regained their financial footing, or are they permanently scarred? How different were their experiences compared with those of borrowers whose homes were lost to foreclosure in the years before the Great Recession? Did their experiences differ by their financial success (as reflected in their credit scores) before the Great Recession? And how likely are they to have undertaken a new mortgage?
In this Chicago Fed Letter, we address these questions by using data on a large sample of individuals who experienced a home foreclosure after 2000, with a focus on those who entered foreclosure between 2007 and 2010. We use credit bureau data through 2016 from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax (CCP) database. We build on prior work by Brevoort and Cooper,2

 who also used the CCP database but whose analysis ended with 2010 data. Their study showed that prime borrowers (i.e., borrowers with credit scores 660 and above3) who had experienced a home foreclosure during the Great Recession were especially hard hit and that their rate of recovery was significantly slower relative to such borrowers who had experienced a home foreclosure earlier in the decade. We extend Brevoort and Cooper's analysis through the second quarter of 2016 in order to examine how these patterns evolved over the subsequent years of the economic expansion. Specifically, we examine the entire trajectories of credit scores and credit delinquencies starting from the years before a foreclosure event and also extending many years after foreclosure. We also examine whether borrowers obtained a new mortgage in the years after foreclosure.

Foreclosures surge during the great recession

Our data are based on a 5% random sample of the population with credit bureau reports from the CCP database. These data allow us to study patterns in the number of new foreclosures ("foreclosure starts") each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2000. Figure 1 shows that foreclosure starts were fairly steady until around the end of 2006. They then began to surge in 2007, peaking in 2009. After 2010, foreclosure starts began to rapidly decrease; by the end of 2012, the number of new borrowers entering foreclosure returned to pre-crisis levels.

1. Foreclosure starts, by home mortgage borrower credit status

figure 1 image
Note: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

Before the Great Recession, the majority of foreclosure starts were among subprime borrowers (i.e., those whose credit scores were below 660 4

 Figure 1 shows that the Great Recession led to a striking change in the composition of foreclosures between prime and subprime borrowers. According to our analysis, from 2007 through 2010, foreclosures rose approximately 800% among prime borrowers, but only 115% among subprime borrowers. Over the same period, 40% of all foreclosure starts were among prime borrowers and 26% were among borrowers whose pre-delinquency credit score (see note 4) was over 700. This is one defining characteristic of the Great Recession: A much broader range of individuals, including those who had very high credit scores, were swept up in the collapse of housing markets. Indeed, while the overall level of foreclosure starts has come back down to pre-recessionary levels, the fraction of prime borrowers in foreclosure remains relatively higher than it did before the downturn.

The decline in credit scores at foreclosure

As might be expected, once borrowers enter foreclosure, their credit scores plummet. Figure 2 shows that the declines were very large for both prime and subprime borrowers during the Great Recession (solid lines). The decline in the average score for prime borrowers was about 175 points, and subprime borrowers experienced a decline of about 140 points in their average score.5 Immediately after foreclosure, nearly all borrowers became subprime, with average scores of around 550 for previously prime borrowers and 475 for already subprime borrowers. These declines were a bit larger than those experienced by borrowers who foreclosed between 2000 and 2006 (dashed lines).

2. Credit scores of home mortgage borrowers relative to foreclosure start

figure 2 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

Recovery after foreclosure

By law, information about any credit payment delinquencies, including mortgage payment delinquencies, must be removed from an individual’s credit record after seven years. Therefore, we would expect that if no other delinquencies occurred, individuals who experienced a foreclosure should see their credit scores recover in seven years. In figure 3, we plot the cumulative fraction of borrowers who reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores (again, see note 4) in the years following a foreclosure and show this separately for previously prime and already subprime borrowers.

3. Share of home mortgage borrowers who recovered pre-delinquency credit score after foreclosure

figure 3 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized, as well as for how the pre-delinquency credit score is defined. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

What is immediately evident is that subprime borrowers tend to recover their pre-delinquency credit scores relatively more quickly than prime borrowers. First, let's examine the patterns of recovery for those who foreclosed on a home before the Great Recession. Among subprime borrowers who experienced a foreclosure between 2000 and 2006, roughly 60% reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores at some point within two years of foreclosure and roughly 85% within five years of foreclosure. In stark contrast, only about 10% of prime borrowers who foreclosed on a home in the same period recovered within two years and only about 33% within five years. After seven years, when delinquency flags are removed from their credit reports (as indicated by the black vertical line), about 90% of these subprime borrowers have reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores, compared with only about 50% of prime borrowers. After 15 years, nearly all subprime borrowers have reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores, whereas about 15% of prime borrowers have still not fully recovered. (Of course, subprime borrowers have a much lower pre-delinquency credit score to return to.)
When we examine the experience of the huge wave of borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure during the Great Recession, we see a much slower pace of recovery. Specifically, among those who experienced a foreclosure between 2007 and 2010, irrespective of their credit status (prime or subprime), the pace of recovery was slower in the first three to five years after foreclosure relative to the pace of recovery among those who experienced a foreclosure in earlier years. However, after seven years, the subprime borrowers who foreclosed on a home in 2007–10 were virtually on track with their predecessor cohorts in terms of recovering their pre-delinquency credit scores. In contrast, even after seven years, prime borrowers who experienced a foreclosure in 2007–10 continued to lag their predecessor cohorts in reattaining their pre-delinquency credit scores. By 2016, the prime borrowers who entered foreclosure between six and nine years earlier (in 2007–10) appear to have recovery rates that are converging with the historical rates of recovery among their predecessor cohorts. When we further break down the analysis by subgroups of prime borrowers (660 to 700, 700 to 750, 750 and higher), we find that the lack of full recovery is mainly driven by those prime borrowers with the highest credit scores before foreclosure.

Other delinquencies and measures of financial health

A possible explanation for the slower pace of recovery among those who entered foreclosure between 2007 and 2010 relative to predecessor cohorts is that these individuals encountered difficulties paying their credit obligations on time because of the severity of the Great Recession. Since payment history is a critical component of credit scores, this could explain the especially slow rates of recovery. To address this possibility, we examine delinquency rates on any credit obligations for home mortgage borrowers before and after a foreclosure.
In figure 4, we plot the share of individuals who were 90 days or more past due on one or more sources of credit, including first mortgages, credit cards, and auto loans. Among both prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers, the share with credit delinquencies spikes to roughly 100% at the time of foreclosure and then drops sharply thereafter. Among those who entered foreclosure between 2000 and 2006, the share of prime home mortgage borrowers who are delinquent on their credit obligations tends to decline quite quickly, but never gets back down to the pre-foreclosure levels. Among subprime borrowers, the fraction of those who are delinquent takes much longer to fall, but does eventually get much closer to pre-foreclosure levels.

4. Share of home mortgage borrowers 90 days or more past due on a credit obligation

figure 4 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

We find that for the first seven years following foreclosure, the share of individuals who were delinquent on any credit obligations among those who experienced a home foreclosure in 2007–10 generally remained higher than this share among those who experienced a home foreclosure in 2000–06. This was the case regardless of the credit status (prime or subprime) before foreclosure. However, after seven years, this pattern reversed.

Implications for the housing market

A question of interest is how the experience of foreclosure has affected housing markets. In figure 5, we show the cumulative fraction of individuals who experienced a home foreclosure but who then managed to take out a new mortgage afterward. When looking at the historical experience of prime home mortgage borrowers who entered foreclosure between 2000 and 2006, we find that just shy of 40% took out a new mortgage in the seven years following. The comparable value for subprime borrowers is notably lower, at around 30%. Among those who foreclosed on a home between 2007 and 2010, the shares with new mortgages seven years after foreclosure are dramatically lower at just over 25% for prime borrowers and just under 17% for subprime borrowers.

5. Share of home mortgage borrowers with a new mortgage after foreclosure

figure 5 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

These findings suggest that even though the overall credit scores and shares of delinquent borrowers appear to have returned to levels closer to historical norms for individuals who experienced a foreclosure in 2007–10, their homeownership rates continue to considerably lag the homeownership rates of those who experienced a foreclosure in 2000–06. The slower financial recuperation of those who lost their homes to foreclosure during the Great Recession has been one important factor behind the slow recovery in housing markets during the current economic expansion.


By tracking a sample of home mortgage borrowers who entered foreclosure in 2000–06 and 2007–10, or before and during the Great Recession, we find that the pace of recovery in credit scores was slower in the first few years after foreclosure for the latter cohorts. We also find that prime borrowers who experienced a foreclosure during the downturn were especially hard hit and had the most difficulty recovering. Overall, at least 15% of all prime borrowers have permanently lower credit scores regardless of when they foreclosed on their homes. A significant factor behind the slow recuperation in credit scores for borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007–10 was adverse economic conditions during the recession, which led to delinquencies on other credit obligations. The slow rehabilitation of their financial health helps explain the slow recovery in housing markets post-recession. Indeed, following foreclosure, these borrowers have considerably lagged their predecessor cohorts in terms of homeownership rates.

1 Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax (CCP) and statistics from RealtyTrac (as cited in http://blog.credit.com/2015/04/boomerang-buyers-is-there-homeownership-after-foreclosure-114803/). Because of the high incidence of foreclosures in 2010, we include them in our analysis of foreclosures during the “Great Recession.” The recession officially ended in 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
2 See Kenneth P. Brevoort and Cheryl R. Cooper, 2013, "Foreclosure's wake: The credit experiences of individuals following foreclosure," Real Estate Economics, Vol. 41, No. 4, Winter, pp. 747–792.
3 Credit scores (FICO scores) have a range of 300–850; for more details, see http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/credit-scores/.
 We categorize prime and subprime foreclosures based on the credit score of the borrower (prime, 660 and above; subprime, below 660) in the nearest quarter in which there is no major mortgage delinquency (i.e., less than 30 days past due) before the foreclosure start. In the text, we refer to this particular measure of the credit score as the "pre-delinquency credit score."
 We calculated these declines by taking the difference between the peak average credit score before foreclosure and the average credit score at the time of foreclosure.

I have a copyright, too, you know. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©