Tuesday, November 21, 2017

State Of The Children: Families & Childrens Justice Black Tie Affair At Charles H. Wright Museum, 12-08-2017

On December 8, 2017, from 7:00 p.m. until 12:00, midnight, Debbie Williams of Families & Childrens Justice will be holding a Black & White Tie Affair, entitled, "State of the Children" at the Charles H. Wright Museum, 315 Warren St., Detroit, Michigan, 48201.

Speakers include:

David Gelios, FBI Special Agent In Charge, Detroit
Child Trafficking & The Opioid Crisis

Mamie King-Chalmers. Children's Crusade, Civil Rights Movement, 1963

Edith Lee-Payne, Poster Child For Martin Luther King, Jr. "I Have A Dream" Speech,

Connie Reguli, Attorney at Law of Family Forward Project, Tennessee

And me. 

And I will be introducing my book, and perhaps, a bit more...

Stay tuned...

On a mission...

Trademark information for CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN ...

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Espionage, Fraud & Lies - Epic Secrets Behind An Epic Investigation

While sexual harassment in the workplace is a repulsive, arcane social norm that needs to seriously be addressed, so is the rampant fraud and public corruption that takes place in the Congress, the States, County and City governments.

Consider this an introduction because there is much, much more to this story.

So, sit back, relax, and let the dirt come out, because it is not going to be what you think.

The back story is going to be of epic proportions.

You can read the book when I am done.

Chapter One.  It begins.

She Said That A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. 

Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”

Documents from the complaint obtained by BuzzFeed News include four signed affidavits, three of which are notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the documents are authentic.

And the documents also reveal the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: A grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling, she told BuzzFeed News, that she had no option other than to stay quiet and accept a settlement offered to her.

“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go,” she said in a phone interview. BuzzFeed News is withholding the woman’s name at her request, because she said she fears retribution.

Last week the Washington Post reported that the office paid out $17 million for 264 settlements with federal employees over 20 years for various violations, including sexual harassment. The Conyers documents, however, give a glimpse into the inner workings of the Office of Compliance, which has for decades concealed episodes of sexual abuse by powerful political figures.

“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go."

The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint in 2014 with Congress’s Office of Compliance alleging that she was fired for refusing his sexual advances and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than $27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers’ office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements.

Congress has no human resources department. Instead, congressional employees have 180 days to report a sexual harassment incident to the Office of Compliance, which then leads to a lengthy process involves counseling, mediation, and requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement before a complaint can go forward.

After this, an employee can choose to take the matter to federal district court, but another avenue is available: an administrative hearing, after which a negotiation and settlement may follow.
Some members of Congress have raised major concerns with the current system over the years, but the calls for an overhaul have grown louder in the post-Weinstein era. Members have argued that 90 days is too long to make a person continue working in the same environment with their harasser; that interns and fellows should be eligible to pursue complaints through this process; and that it is unfair for a victim to have to pay for legal representation while the office of the harasser is represented for free by the House's counsel.

In this case, one of Conyers’ former employees was offered a settlement, in exchange for her silence, that would be paid out of Conyers’ taxpayer-funded office budget. His office would “rehire” the woman as a “temporary employee” despite her being directed not to come into the office or do any actual work, according to the document. The complainant would receive a total payment of $27,111.75 over the three months, after which point she would be removed from the payroll, according to the document.
The draft agreement, below, viewed by BuzzFeed News was unsigned, but congressional employment records match the timing and amounts outlined in the document. The woman left the office and never went public with her story.

The process was “disgusting,” said Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant, and who listed as a signatory to some of the documents.

“It is a designed cover-up,” said Peterson, who declined to discuss details of the case but agreed to characterize it in general terms. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”

Other lawyers named as representing the accuser could not be reached for comment. The Office of Compliance did not confirm or deny that they had dealt with the case.
“You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”
“Pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act, the OOC cannot comment on whether matters have or have not been filed with the office,” Laura Cech, publications and outreach manager of the Office of Compliance, told BuzzFeed News in an email when asked to comment on this case.

Two staffers alleged in their signed affidavits that Conyers used congressional resources to fly in women they believed he was having affairs with. Another said she was tasked with driving women to and from Conyers’ apartment and hotel rooms.

Rep. Conyers did not admit fault as part of the settlement. His office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Monday.

The documents were first provided to BuzzFeed News by Mike Cernovich, the men's rights figure turned pro-Trump media activist who propagated a number of false conspiracy theories including the “Pizzagate” conspiracy. Cernovich said he gave the documents to BuzzFeed News for vetting and further reporting, and because he said if he published them himself, Democrats and congressional leaders would “try to discredit the story by attacking the messenger.” He provided them without conditions. BuzzFeed News independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents with four people directly involved with the case, including the accuser.

In her complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.

She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.
In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”

“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.

Three other staff members provided affidavits submitted to the Office Of Compliance that outlined a pattern of behavior from Conyers that included touching the woman in a sexual manner and growing angry when she brought her husband around.

One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit.

(A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)

The employee said in her affidavit that Conyers also made sexual advances toward her: “I was driving the Congressman in my personal car and was resting my hand on the stick shift. Rep. Conyers reached over and began to caress my hand in a sexual manner.”

The woman said she told Conyers she was married and not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship, according to the affidavit. She said she was told many times by constituents that it was well-known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, and said she and other female staffers felt this undermined their credibility.

“I am personally aware of several women who have experienced the same or similar sexual advances made towards them by Rep[.] John Conyers,” she said in her affidavit.

A male employee wrote that he witnessed Rep. Conyers rub the legs and other body parts of the complainant “in what appeared to be a sexual manner” and saw the congressman rub and touch other women “in an inappropriate manner.” The employee said he confronted Conyers about this behavior.

“Rep. Conyers said he needed to be ‘more careful’ because bad publicity would not be helpful as he runs for re-election. He ended the conversation with me by saying he would ‘work on’ his behavior,” the male staffer said in his affidavit.
“I don’t think any allegations should be buried...and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office".

The male employee said that in 2011 Conyers complained a female staffer was “too old” and said he wanted to let her go.

The employee said he set up a meeting in December 2011 to discuss “mistreatment of staff and his misuse of federal resources.”

The affidavit says that Conyers “agreed that he would work on making improvements as long as I worked directly with him and stopped writing memos and emails about concerns.”

Another female employee also attested that she witnessed Conyer’s advances, and said she was asked to transport women to him. “I was asked on multiple occasions to pick up women and bring them to Mr. Conyers[‘] apartment, hotel rooms, etc.”

BuzzFeed News reached out to several former Conyers staffers, all of whom did not want to speak on the record. One former staffer, who did not want to be named, said she was frustrated by the secretive complaint process.

“I don’t think any allegations should be buried...and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office, because it doesn’t really allow other people to see who these individuals are,” said the former staffer. “When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”

Another staffer said that Conyers’ reputation made people fearful to speak out against him.

Aside from being the longest-serving House member and the ranking member of a powerful committee, Conyers is a civil rights icon. He was lauded by Martin Luther King Jr. and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“Your story won’t do shit to him,” said the staffer. “He’s untouchable.”

In a statement to BuzzFeed News, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she was not aware of the settlement.

“The current process includes the signing of non-disclosure agreements by the parties involved. Congresswoman Jackie Speier has introduced legislation that will provide much-needed transparency on these agreements and make other critical reforms,” Pelosi said in the statement. “I strongly support her efforts.”

A spokesperson for John Boehner, who was the speaker of the House when the settlement was made, did not respond to a BuzzFeed News request for comment on Monday.

The documents also show that there was a belief among at least some staffers that the office was a jealous environment. Some of the documents allege Conyers offered his protection when staff would complain to him about management in the office.
California Democrat Rep. Speier and colleagues in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would overhaul the complaint process, including requiring OOC to publicly name the office of any member who enters into a settlement.

The bill would also allow complainants to waive mediation and counseling, set up a victims' counsel, and require all congressional offices to go through harassment training every year.

Conyers’ office has a history of ethical run-ins. In 2016, his former chief of staff Cynthia Martin pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property after she refused to reimburse $16,500 that was mistakenly deposited in her account.

preliminary investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics found that Conyers continued to pay Martin more than $13,000 per month when she was supposedly on unpaid leave.

In 2006, two former aides complained that Conyers made them babysit his children, run errands, and work on his reelection campaign while drawing their congressional salaries. There was also a bizarre incident in 2005 when 60 Thanksgiving turkeys, given to his staff to disperse to people, may have gone missing.

Conyers’ wife, former Detroit city councilor Monica Conyers, was sentenced to three years in prison over bribery charges in 2010. (One of the documents alleged Conyers began “aggressively acting out his sexual harassment behavior” following this.) Last year the couple renewed their vows
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, November 20, 2017

There Must Always Be A Plan: Dismantling The Peculiar Institution Of Privatization

Health Department Wants Fetal Remains Buried, Cremated: State officials waste no time in ...
Stop stealing & selling our children!
There must always be a plan.

Instead of pitchforks and torches, which are so passe, law enforcement implements well constructed plans.

As I recall, one of the first initiatives in the 2008 Obama Administration, was to change, conjuctions, in INTERPOL law, to get them where it hurts, in the wallets.

Even though it has been a long and arduous journey, 16 years later it seems my mission is about to be executed, methodically, structurally, on an international platform.

It is time to end fraud.

It is time to stop trafficking children, as capital, for investment purposes and personal, financial benefit.

It is time to finally dismantle the peculiar institution which is now called privatization.

Much love to my #Superfans.

Take them out.

Get 'em all.

Every single charity, foundation, non-profit, NGO & corporation that profits from children.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Why Is The U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Website Not Secure?


Why is the U.S. House Judiciary Democrats website not secured?

It used to be secured.

But the U.S. House Judiciary (Majority) website is secured.

U.S. House Judiciary:  This site sucks.  Much love, beverlytran.com

Perhaps, I pissed someone off in Judiciary?

Yup, pretty sure I made some someone mad, and even others cry, in Judiciary.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Happy Adoption Month: Why The Hell Is The U.S. Using Israeli Privatization Policy Research In Child Welfare?

In honor of November, National Adoption Month, I would like to present to you, another example of high quality propaganda to promote the profiteering through privatization in modern day human trafficking, more readily known as adoption.

Joseph Deutsch
Here you shall find a study, even through it was used to craft federal policy, a private document, of which you must purchase, to find out its methodology.

So, instead of translating a bunch of goobly gook of researcher bias to justify making more money, I thought I would take a different approach to support my position that the Children's Bureau Express, is pumping out more crap for personal inurement, whether through private investment of social impact bonds, political campaigns, or any other type of fraud scheme.

Let us begin with the authors, one by one.

Joseph Deutsch is an Isreali professor of economics out of Bar Ilan University.  Why is an Isreali professor pontificating on U.S. child welfare policy?

Professor Simon Hakim
Simon Hakim
Next, we have Simon Hakim, with a background in privatization, security, private and public police and prisions, hailing from a Isreali university background,  from the Center for Competative Government, formerly known as the Privatization Research Center, promulgating U.S. child welfare policy?

Uriel Spiegel, also hailing from Bar Ilan University, is putting in his groundbreaking economic perspectives of supply and demand, hailing from the microeconomic school of autarky and monopolies in government privatized programs.  (I have substituted extreme economic sarcasm as I was unable to find a photo of Uriel).

Last, but not least we have Michael Sumkin, a Masters student from Bar Ilan University, who relies upon previous published research hit papers for the Children's Bureau Express like: The Economics of the Baby Shortage

Why is the United States even using anything out of Isreal in dealing with child welfare when it is stealing its own children.

Are these foreign university policy think tanks registered as foreign agents?  Nope, but they should be.

U.S. v. Israel: Which Is Worse In Child Welfare?

Israel Uses U.S. Immigrant Child Welfare Model

I would be remiss to mention there are many, many Israeli pharmaceutical corporations that have relocated to Russia after being busted for Medicaid fraud in child welfare and bribing governmental officials through campaign contributions with these privatized policies.

For me, this is just another reason to quickly advocate for indictments for Jerry Milner. (Notice I skipped the investigation process because I am that confident he is financially linked up with Israeli funding, some how, some where, but I will leave that deep dive until another post.)

So, why is the hell is the United States reliant upon research from Isreal in promoting privatization in child welfare using dirty data based upon false claims and bribing of elected officials through privatization fraud schemes?

Subsidies for Private Agencies Increase Adoption Rates For Older, Special Needs Children

According to a recent study, subsidies should be created to accelerate the adoption of older and special needs children from foster care and enable private contracting of this work for best results.

The study analyzed the impact of public and private interventions in adoption services, as well as government adoption subsidies in all 50 states between 1996 and 2010, and considered variables such as attributes of the adopted child, adoptive parents, the state, and the adoption process.

As described in the article "Privatization and Subsidization of Adoption Services From Foster Care: Empirical Evidence," the results led the authors to conclude that adoptions conducted through a private agency for young and healthy children were not as efficient as those conducted through a public agency.

However, when cases involved older children and those with special needs, privatization resulted in improved and accelerated services. The study also found subsidization to be particularly successful for older children and children with special needs, while it was not a factor in the adoption of healthy babies.

The authors suggest limiting subsidies, however, to those adoptions that have historically proven more challenging (i.e., the adoption of older children and those with specific medical or mental health concerns). They also caution that contracting out adoption services is only appropriate when ample competition exists among agencies because that provides contractors with greater motivation to excel.

"Privatization  and Subsidization of Adoption Services From Foster Care: Empirical Evidence," by Joseph Deutsch, Simon Hakim, Uriel Spiegel, and Michael Sumkin (Children and Youth Services Review, 78), is available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740916305795.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Another Detroit Absentee Voting Rights Challenge Goes Unchallenged, Again

How much do you want to bet those addresses were Detroit Land Bank Authority vacant properties?

Besides, it is not the first time Detroit absentee ballots have been used to manipulate an election.

And you know what they say, "If you cannot find the evidence, then there is no challenge to challenge."

I bet my #Superfans can find the evidence, if they have not already done so, just saying.

Judge shoots down challenge to Detroit absentee vote count

Detroit city clerk Janice Winfrey
Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey
A Wayne County judge has thrown out a lawsuit against Detroit city clerk Janice Winfrey, saying there’s “no evidence” her office mishandled absentee ballots or violated state law in last week’s general election.

The lawsuit was brought by election challengers who said Winfrey’s office used copies of absentee vote envelopes, rather than original envelopes with ballots, to verify voter information for about 1200 absentee votes dropped off at the clerk’s office on Election Day.

The plaintiffs said that violated the state manual for elections officials, as well as state law.
They worried that conducting the verification process for absentee votes—which involves matching signatures on returned ballots with ballot applications, and checking the voter’s name against precinct records and the state’s Qualified Voter File—entirely behind closed doors opened the process up to potential fraud.

The plaintiffs asked the court to disqualify all absentee ballots from the vote count, claiming it’s now impossible to determine which ballots were verified using copies and which weren’t.

But in arguments before Judge Robert Colombo on Friday, city of Detroit lawyer James Noseda, arguing on Winfrey’s behalf, called suggestions of fraud “outrageous.”

“There’s just no basis for this challenge, nothing of substance to address,” he said. Noseda told the court that Winfrey’s office verified absentee voter information themselves before sending ballots onto Cobo Center for counting.

Daniel Baxter, Detroit’s director of elections, said the clerk’s office followed the same procedure in this year’s primary election and found it sped up the vote-counting process. That helped “to ensure what happened in 2016 [Detroit general election] never occurs again, in terms of the delayed result reporting from the absentee voting counting boards,” he said.

Colombo ruled that was appropriate. He said that state election law gives clerks leeway to create “processing steps tailored to administrative needs,” and the plaintiffs provided “no evidence” that fraud had actually occurred.

Given that lack of evidence, Colombo balked at the idea at throwing out up to 30,000 absentee votes, possibly changing the results of several races. That would amount to voter disenfranchisement and  “harm to the public,” Colombo said.

But Sherry Wells, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Friday’s hearing raised as many questions as it answered. Wells said it's still not clear to her how using copies sped up the counting process, and how that didn’t violate state guidelines.

“The [Michigan] Secretary of State’s instructions are not clear,” Wells said. “When [the judge] says this is optional for absentee ballot counting boards, and the whole thing goes into what the process is supposed to be… how can it be optional? It’s strange.”

Wells also reiterated concerns about how much of the absentee ballot process takes place out of sight of election challengers. “How can you get evidence [of fraud] if you’re not allowed to get evidence?” she said.

Winfrey narrowly won re-election as clerk over challenger Garlin Gilchrist II by about 1400 votes. Gilchrist led the returns for most of election night, but Winfrey pulled ahead with a late surge by claiming almost two-thirds of the absentee.

Gilchrist has publicly mulled requesting a recount based on anecdotal evidence of absentee vote irregularities. As of Friday, his campaign said it was still considering the issue.

The Wayne County Board of Canvassers has yet to certify Detroit’s election returns. The board is scheduled to meet Tuesday, the state deadline for certification. Gilchrist then has a week to petition for a recount, which he must pay for.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why Kansas Will Not Pay Back $18 Million In Child Welfare Fraud

Said Kansas to the U.S. DHHS OIG
To begin, let us get one thing straight.

Kansas does not have to give back a red cent and neither do any of the other States busted by the HHS OIG for child welfare fraud.

Besides, Kansas used the money for political campaigns, personal inurement and to pay off some dividends to its investors of the state's social impact bonds.

$17 Million Reasons How Kansas Pays Child Welfare Social Impact Bonds

In the spirit of fuchsia...

Kansas took millions it shouldn’t have, federal probe says. But will it give it back?

Kansas took nearly $18 million in federal funds that it shouldn’t have, a federal government watchdog says. It wants the state to give the money back.

There has yet to be a HHS Decisions Appeal Board ruling on this, which means the federal government has not even commenced the process.

Kansas rejects the findings.

This rejection takes the challenge to the next administrative level and which will not see the light of day in a civil nor criminal court of law and can go on for years.

“We don’t believe we did anything wrong,” said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for KanCare, the state’s Medicaid program.

Of course they did nothing wrong because Kansas has been submitting false claims to the federal government for years where the state has constructed and incorporated administrative policies absolving itself from any misdeeds of false claims as it kicks the can down the proverbial road to the privatized entity, KVC and KanCare.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General alleges Kansas incorrectly counted some children in seeking bonus payments to offset the cost of children enrolled in Medicaid, a federal program run by states that provides health care to the uninsured. That led to more bonus payments than Kansas should have received.

Kansas did not incorrectly count some children in seeking bonus payments to offset the cost of children enrolled in Medicaid because these 'miscounted' children will eventually end up in the state's foster care system just because the economic policies were intentionally designed to 'target' these populations.

Even if some of these children are missing, there is nothing written in stone that the state has to cease submitting cost reimbursements.

A November report by the Office of Inspector General recommends Kansas refund $17,796,598.
The Office of Inspector General audited bonus payments from 2009 through 2013. The nearly $18 million represents almost half of the bonus payments Kansas received during that time, which totaled $36.6 million.

Some of this federal funding was used to pay its state Financial Participation Rates, which is illegal, but HHS OIG will not do a damn thing about it, and everyone knows this.

The dispute between Kansas and the Office of Inspector General centers on the way the state calculated the number of children enrolled in Medicaid – specifically the Children’s Health Insurance Program – for the purposes of the bonus payments. The report says Kansas overstated its enrollment.
Kansas maintains it followed guidance given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on how to make the calculations. But the OIG says CMS correctly explained how the calculations should be made.

CMS did properly calculate the overstated enrollment but nothing is going to be done about it because it would interfere with economic development of KVC funding political campaigns and acquistion of land.

Yes, the state revenue generated from these transgressions are used to acquire land in KVC investments and its individual associates.

“Kansas understands the importance of utilizing Federal Medicaid funds appropriately. This was no exception,” Christine Swartz, the state’s deputy Medicaid director, wrote in a July letter to the Office of Inspector General.

Brownback set it up so that its private contractors could generate funding for political campaigns, mostly state campaigns as its campaign finance reporting system is poorly structured to hide to decipher what actually is an issue campaign for a private contractor and a political campaign.

The complaint, below, illuminates how KVC solicits under the guise of child welfare issues where many of its state elected and administrative officials function in the capacities of being on KVC payroll, advisory boards, and lobbyists.
KanCare, which put private companies in charge of managing the state’s Medicaid program, was launched by Gov. Sam Brownback in January 2013. The program moved nearly all state Medicaid enrollees into health plans run by Sunflower and two other managed care organizations, Amerigroup and UnitedHealthcare.
Leary sued in October, shortly after it was reported that the three companies running KanCare collectively lost $76.2 million in 2014 after incurring losses of $110 million in 2013.

The federal report says that after considering Kansas’s comments, the OIG stood by its findings and recommendation.

Now, the question is, "What is OIG going to do about it?"

The OIG’s recommendation that Kansas give the money back remains just that – a recommendation – de Rocha emphasized. She said CMS has not sought the funds’ return.

Kansas has yet to even file an appeal to be ruled upon which is why CMS has not sought the funds' return.

The report comes as Kansas seeks reauthorization of its privatized Medicaid program, known as KanCare. The state must obtain permission from CMS to continue the program.

Kansas was denied reauthorization in January.

Audits of other states have also found bonus payments that should not have been allowed. Another report released this month found that Ohio had been overpaid by $29.5 million.

“In previous audits…we found millions of dollars in unallowable bonus payments,” the Kansas report said, “therefore, we identified (Children’s Health Insurance Program) bonus payments as a high-risk area.”

So far, CHIP reauthorization has yet to go through and Tom Price, under federal investigation, has resigned.

As demonstrated in the KVC complaint, below, there is no indication that Kansas is going to pay back the funding from its false claims of Medicaid because it is currently in its state court suing a whistleblower for putting their dirty deeds on a public platform.

What I really want to know is why, a private child welfare contractor, that submits cost reimbursements to Medicaid, owns intellectual property and is allowed to engage in private fundraising without having to report what it does with the money.

But I know what Kansas does with the money, and now, you do, too, and the state has all intentions of using Medicaid dollars to make sure it keeps its money.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Did DOJ Say "Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare"?

Image may contain: textNah, not yet.

It will.

See, the States Medicaid Fraud Control Unit are statutorialy constrained when it comes to going after Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

In this particular case, we see another one of the collaborative conjugations, or rather designer investigations, where Florida, Georgia, Lousiana Attorneys General are getting into the mix with the U.S. Attorneys Office.

This is how you circumvent arcane legislation in a world where fraud has become the norm, at the expense of humans.

On a mission...

Four charged in multi-state health care fraud conspiracy

ATLANTA – Matthew Harrell, Nikki Richardson, Tomeka Howard and Andrea Barrett have been indicted on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and aggravated identify theft related to fraudulent claims filed with the Georgia, Florida and Louisiana Medicaid programs.

“Through their scheme, the defendants are alleged to have fraudulently billed over $3 million to Medicaid,” said U.S. Attorney Byung J. “BJay” Pak. “Their greed knew no bounds of decency, as they left a number of victims in their wake.”

“The FBI continues to play a key and critical role in protecting federally funded health care based programs, to include Medicaid and Medicare, from those individuals who would, through fraud, attempt to divert those funds to their own accounts and away from those who desperately need the services that they provide.  The federal investigation and resulting federal indictments of these four defendants illustrates not only the problems of healthcare fraud but the aggressive efforts underway by law enforcement to combat it,” said David J. LeValley, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office.

“The defendants allegedly ripped off programs meant to provide critical mental health services for children and adults.  This type of criminal behavior will not be tolerated,” said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge for HHS OIG. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to uncover these fraudulent schemes and bring criminals to justice.”

“The Medicaid Program is not an endless source of money, and those who victimize the program take valuable resources away from the people that need them,” said Attorney General Chris Carr.  “The Georgia Attorney General's Office will continue to collaborate with our federal and state partners to investigate these kinds of egregious cases.”

“This multi-millon dollar Medicaid scheme spanned several states and involved the stolen identities of medical professionals and children—but through coordinated investigative efforts with our federal partners and Medicaid Fraud Control Units in Georgia and Tennessee this scheme was thwarted and arrests have been made,” said Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Medicaid fraud essentially steals from our taxpayers and we will not tolerate anyone manipulating the program to get rich.”

“Medicaid welfare fraud steals money from the taxpayers and jeopardizes care for the needy,” said Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. “We are grateful to have law enforcement partners throughout the country who are committed to investigating, arresting, and prosecuting criminals who defraud our State and its people.”

According to U.S. Attorney Pak, the charges, and other information presented in court: The defendants owned or worked with companies that purportedly provided mental health counseling and treatment to children and adults. These companies included, Revive Athletics, Inc., R.A. Florida, Inc., Jode Counseling Treatment and Training Services, LLC, 118 Management and Consulting, Inc., A Brighter Day, LLC, and Lillie Cares Health Services, LLC. These companies billed over $3.7 million in Medicaid claims, and received approximately $2.5 million based on the fraud.  

According to the indictment, the defendants stole the identities of mental health service providers, including a psychologist and licensed clinical social workers, in Georgia and Florida. The defendants’ companies then used the stolen identities to submit fraudulent Medicaid claims seeking payment for mental health services that were never provided. The defendants attempted to conceal the fraud scheme by directing employees and contractors to create fraudulent documentation and forge provider signatures to support the fraudulent billing.

Matthew Harrell, 42, of Atlanta, Georgia, Nikki Richardson, 42, of Fairburn, Ga., Tomeka Howard, 42, of Decatur, Georgia, and Andrea Barrett, 42, of Virginia Beach, Virginia were indicted on November 7, 2017.

Members of the public are reminded that an indictment contains only allegations.  The defendants are presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

The case is being investigated by the Georgia State Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Medicaid Fraud Control Units for Florida and Louisiana. Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Brown and Georgia Assistant Attorney General Robin Daitch are prosecuting the case.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, November 17, 2017

CONYERS: In Honor Of Our Veterans - Resource Fair, November 18, 2017

55 Best Photos And Pictures Of Veterans Day 2016On Saturday, November 18, 2017, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Piquette Square, 6221 Brush Street, Detroit, Michigan 48202, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. wil hold a veteran resource fair in honor of veterans, active duty military and family members are invited to engage with representatives from:

  • Federal & State Government Agencies; 
  • Housing & Health Services; 
  • Employment & Education Assistance; 
  • Food Assistance; 
  • Veteran Service Organizations; 
  • Benefits & Claims Assistance; 
  • Medical Center & Community Resources.  
For additional information please call the Detroit Office: 3131-961-5670 the Westland Office: 734-675-4084.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, November 16, 2017

"Hey Trey, What Are They Doing With All That Money?"

In 2012, U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy asked a teacher about the Children's Fund in a congressional hearing.

I tried to find out which congressional committee he was on at that time, but the congressional sites are wiped after each congress, a two year cycle.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee

The public record was being manipulated.

The public record was being wiped.

The public record did not include my Sweetie.

The public record did not include child welfare fraud, which is me, the original source.

Back to the 2012 video.

The teacher tells the committee how she was forced to make two, mandatory, separate payments of $188.00 to Children's Fund.

That is alot of money for a teacher.

The teacher continued to share her story that her union dues money went to the Children's Fund and that she was told the money went to Democratic political campaigns.

Then, Trey played the political opposition ad paid for by the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education, which received those two payments of $188.00 made to the Children's Fund, from that teacher.

This is a multi-million dollar annual fund, which means you have to take it, leverage that number at least 45-75 times, then set up another ancillary children's trust fund to go and buy property, and take out mortgages, leveraged 35-50 times, that are eventually wiped from the books, just like the committee records, just like the U.S Department of Health and Human Services child welfare federal records which are all going to the Clinton presidential library, (a.k.a. Clinton Foundation, et al.)

Then, the next question is, "What are they doing with all that money?"

kids inside rocketship – Santa Maria Chamber News
Get ready for lift-off!

Federal Election Commission STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION


1. NEA Fund for Children and Public Education

    1201 16th St NW Ste 421
    Washington, DC 200363290

    NOTE: Address is different than previously reported

    Email: vikrishna@nea.org

2. Date: 01/01/1972

3. FEC Committee ID #: C00003251 This committee is a Separate Segregated Fund  <====

Affiliated Committees/Organizations

Education National Education Association
1201 16th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Relationship: Connected Organizations
Organization Type: Labor Organization

Custodian of Records:

V J Krishna
1201 16th St NW Ste 421
Washington, DC 20036
Title: Assistant Treasurer
Phone # (202) 822-7406


John Wilson
1201 16th St NW Fl 8 West
Washington, DC 20036
Title: Treasurer
Phone # (202) 822-7154

Designated Agent(s):

V J Krishna
1201 16th St NW Ste 421
Washington, DC 20036
Title: Assistant Treasurer
Phone # (202) 822-7406

Banks or Depositories

Allfirst Bank
1123 15th St NW
Washington, DC 20005

First Union National Bank
7711 Plantation Rd
Roanoke, Virginia 24019

Bank of America
Commercial Accounts Service Center
Seattle, Washington 98003

Signed: Mrs V J Krishna
Date Signed: 12/04/2002

Every state has a children's trust fund.

There are thousands of children's trust funds all around the world.

Back to the Trey's video.

Then, Trey went on to ask counsel from Professor Kenneth Dau-Schmidt about the legalities of the Children's Fund soliciting, or rather strong-arming contributions for political campaigns.

Dau-Schmidt stuttered and came up with some lame ass explanation claiming some crap about state or federal jurisdiction on her complaint.

I found out he used to do his "legal thang" here, in Detroit representing labor unions, which means he knew what was happening because he was complicit in the culture of child welfare fraud funding political campaigns in Detroit.

I can always smell the stench of child welfare fraud, no matter where it is, no matter when it happens.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

"Got Some Hardest Hit Funds For You": The Artifice Of Detroit Land Bank Authority To Scheme By Fraud

Hansel and Gretel | Sermons from Silverside for ...
Detroit Land Bank Authority disguised as the Detroit
Land Bank Community Development Corporation
to trick the U.S. so it can steal children, land
water & votes from the City of Detroit.
"About to lose your home? Got some HHF $$$ for you."
Once upon a time...

The Detroit Land Bank Authority disguised itself using the corporate information from the Detroit Land Bank Community Development Corporation in order to file, as a corporation, with the U.S. System Awards Management to qualify to receive funds as a subreceipient of the Hardest Hit Funds because the Detroit Land Bank Authority never incorporated.

It tricked the U.S.

It tricked "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth.)

One day, a little birdie notified the U.S. Defense Logistic Agency that the Detroit Land Bank Authority lied to them and the U.S. System Awards Management shut them down.

Detroit Land Bank Authority never incorporated, so they had to use Title Source, Inc.'s bank accounts to cash checks when they sold real properties, over the internet, under the guise of BuildingDetroit.org which is not a registered corporation, nor is it part of the City of Detroit.

18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Hardest Hit Fund

And all of this is splashed all over the internet, radio, and television, even archived in political campaigns and supposedly to be filed with IRS nonprofit annual reports, if the Detroit Land Bank Community Development Corporation had reported.

The Detroit Land Bank Authority forgot to incorporate so there are no records of its financial activities with the IRS.

None, because it is an artifice, tangled up in a complex fraud scheme to steal our children, our land, our water, our votes and our legacies.

Just another reason why it is neither wise to lie to the United States, nor be mean to my Sweetie.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

CONYERS: Why Nixon Should Have Been Impeached - 1974

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
RICHARD NIXON, like the President before him, was in a real sense a casualty of the Vietnam War, a war which I am ashamed to say was never declared. Since the hearings of the House Judiciary Committee began on May 9th, 1974, we have had a professional staff of some 89 men and women gather in great detail over 42 volumes of information that was considered throughout some 57 sessions. My analysis of the evidence clearly reveals an Administration so trapped by its own war policy and a desire to remain in office that it entered into an almost unending series of plans for spying, burglary and wiretapping, inside this country and against its own citizens, and without precedent in American history.

Let us turn back to 1969 when the war was still going on and the President authorized the bombing of infiltration routes that passed through two independent and sovereign nations, Cambodia and Laos. On May 9, 1969, shortly after the bombing began, William Beecher, the Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times, published a story disclosing that "American B-52 bombers in recent weeks have raided several Viet Cong and North Vietnamese supply dumps in Cambodia for the first time." That story triggered the beginning wiretaps and shortly thereafter, the Administration embarked upon a program of illegal surveillance involving both members of the press and of the Government.

And so this secret war in Cambodia, which seemed at first incidental as I studied the record before us, has emerged as the starting point which enables me to understand the tremendous amount of surveillance and spying and burglary that has characterized the evidence and this Administration, and led to eventual impeachment proceedings.

THE JUDICIARY Committee undertook its impeachment inquiry with a clear recognition of the gravity of its responsibility to the Congress and the Constitution. Our task was unique in modern history and complicated by the sheer weight of the evidence to be evaluated. But the process of impeachment is not, and was never intended to be, familiar, convenient, or comfortable. It was framed with the intention that it be used only as a last constitutional resort against the danger of executive tyranny. The Congress should not lightly interpose its judgment between the President and the people who elect him, but we cannot avoid our duty to protect the people from "a long train of Abuses and Usurpations."

The articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee, although narrowly drawn, are fully consistent with our constitutional responsibility. There is clear and convincing proof that Richard Nixon violated his oath of office and committed high crimes and misdemeanors which jeopardized the liberties of the people. In calling him to account, we also re-establish the proper parameters of presidential conduct. It is essential, therefore, that the record of our inquiry be complete so that no future president may infer that we have implicitly sanctioned what we have not explicitly condemned.

President Nixon's determination to extend the Vietnam War throughout Indochina led him to conclude that the infiltration of men and supplies through Cambodia and Laos had to be interdicted. This could have been done by bombing North Vietnam, but at the cost of destroying the fragile Paris Peace talks, then in progress. His only recourse, given his assumptions, was to bomb the supply routes in Cambodia which led into South Vietnam At the same time, he apparently realized that public disclosure of such bombing would create a firestorm of Congressional and public protest.

The logic of the White House becomes clear: Vietnamization required the bombing of Cambodia, which in turn required secrecy at all costs. The pressures of concealment led in turn to a spirit of distrust within the administration which spread as the President and his aides became increasingly enmeshed in the snare of lies and half-truths they had themselves created. Having decided that the People and the Congress could not be trusted with the truth, Mr. Nixon's distrust was soon extended to his own foreign policy advisors and assistants.

The authorization and concealment of the Cambodian bombing, and the means he employed to prevent its disclosure, illustrated in the very first months of his administration that the President was prepared to do anything he considered necessary to achieve his objectives. To defend both the bombing and the subsequent wiretapping, he invoked the concept of national security, a convenient rationalization to be used whenever the occasion demanded an explanation for some concealed governmental conduct. The imperial presidency of Richard Nixon came to rely on this claim as a cloak for clandestine activity, and as an excuse for consciously and repeatedly deceiving the Congress and the people.

NIXON TURNED on his critics with a vengeance, apparently not appreciating that others could strenuously disagree with him without being either subversive or revolutionary. He took full advantage of the FBI's willingness to invade people's private lives without legal justification and without regard for their civil liberties. This willingness was documented during Congressional Black Caucus hearings on governmental lawlessness in June, 1972, which revealed that the files of the FBI and the Secret Service are laden with unverified information, often inaccurate and slanderous, on thousands of citizens, particularly blacks, who have had the temerity to speak out against racism, injustice, or the Indochina war. This surveillance of government critics by the FBI began, of course, before Mr. Nixon took office, but his administration gave renewed approval to some of the ugliest abuses of governmental power.

Obsessed by the notion that the disruptive activities of the blacks and students who criticized him were receiving foreign support, he repeatedly demanded that the FBI and CIA conduct extensive investigations to verify this potential conspiracy. But, even with additional authority conferred on these agencies, their reports continually indicated that his fears were unfounded. The inability of the FBI and CIA to substantiate the President's conviction that many of his critics were engaged in subversion or international conspiracy led him to increasingly question their operational efficiency.

Hence, the President's approval of the Huston plan in July, 1970, represented nothing more than an extension of an already demonstrated willingness to harass and spy on his political opponents. Even if the Huston plan itself was subsequently tabled, its spirit lived on in the White House and soon took tangible form with attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service for discriminatory personal and political purposes, and with the activities of the Plumbers unit.

The Plumbers put the essence of the Huston plan into practice and provided the President with his own secret intelligence force to investigate his critics and discredit them by any means possible, without even the most elementary regard for individual privacy or public morality.

With the assistance of the President's closest advisors, the Plumbers violated the charter of the Central Intelligence Agency by seeking CIA assistance to impugn the integrity of Senator Edward Kennedy, and to assess the administration's potential vulnerability from ITT's Dita Beard, whose confidential memo implied that a bribe had been offered to settle the ITT antitrust case.

They sought to discredit the Democratic party by falsifying State Department cables to implicate President Kennedy in the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. They broke into the Los Angeles office of Dr. Fielding in an attempt to gain medical information that would defame Daniel Ellsberg and, through him, the critics of the President's war policies.

In these ways, and perhaps in other ways still undisclosed, they violated every canon of morality and legality which stood between them and their goal of discrediting and undermining the President's "enemies".

THESE ACTIVITIES demonstrate that the break-in and bugging of the Democratic National Committee, and the subsequent cover-up specified in Article I, were not inexplicable aberrations from a standing presidential policy of strict adherence to the law. Instead, in proper perspective, the Watergate break-in emerges as only one incident in a continuous course of conduct which had its origins in the first months following President Nixon's inauguration.

The subsequent concealment was intended not merely to protect the White House from its complicity in the Watergate incident itself, but to avoid disclosure of the entire train of illegal and abusive conduct that characterized the Nixon presidency:

-Obstruction of justice;
-Perjury and subornation of perjury;
-Offers of executive clemency;
-Attempts to influence a federal judge;
-Destruction of evidence;
-Disclosure of secret grand jury proceedings;
-Withholding information of criminal activity;
-Impoundment of Congressional appropriations;
-Willful tax evasion;
-Possible bribery in connection with the ITT antitrust and milk price support decisions;
-And interference with the lawful activities of the CIA, FBI, IRS, Special Prosecutor, House Banking and Currency Committee, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, and finally, the House Judiciary Committee.

In these ways, the President sought to avert disclosure of a seamless web of illegality and impropriety.

That cover-up continued to the end, in that the President attempted to deceive the Congress and the American people by concealing and misrepresenting his knowledge and participation in these activities, and even while resigning, refusing to admit his complicity. Additionally, he withheld necessary information from the Special Prosecutors and fired Special Prosecutor Cox for his efforts to fully discharge his responsibilities. He refused to comply with the legal and proper subpoenas of the Judiciary Committee, as charged in Article III. He mutilated and destroyed evidence in his possession or caused that to happen, and did very nearly everything in his power to impede, delay, and obstruct the proper course of justice.

In my judgment, this course of presidential conduct, outlined above and specified in Articles I, II, and III, provides irrefutable evidence that Richard Nixon was not fit to enjoy the trust and authority which reposes in the Presidency of the United States.

But of at least equal importance is the uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Nixon authorized an illegal war against the sovereign nation of Cambodia, and sought to protect himself from criticism and possible repudiation by engaging in deliberate policies of concealment, deception, and misrepresentation.

On July 30, 1974, I proposed the following article of impeachment:

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, on and subsequent to March 16, 1969, authorized, ordered and ratified the concealment from the Congress of the facts and the submission to the Congress of false and misleading statements concerning the existence, scope and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war, to make appropriations, and to raise and support armies, and by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

Although this article was not recommended by the Committee, it is fully supported by the facts and the Constitution.

The President of the United States must exercise only those powers which are legally and constitutionally his to exercise, and, by his actions, he must demonstrate due respect for the democratic rights of the people and the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress. The manner in which the Cambodian bombing was initiated, conducted, and reported clearly exceeded the constitutional powers of the presidency, and presented indisputable evidence of impeachable conduct.

President Nixon unilaterally initiated and authorized a campaign of bombing against the neutral nation of Cambodia. For the next four years, he continually deceived the Congress and the American people as to when the bombing began and how far it extended. In so doing, he exceeded his constitutional power as commander-in-chief. He usurped the power of the Congress to declare war, and he expended monies for a purpose not authorized or approved by the Congress. In so doing, he also denied the people of the United States their right to be fully informed about the actions and policies of their elected officials.

It is important to note that the facts pertinent to the Cambodian bombing are not in question. On 11 February 1969, General Creighton Abrams, Commander of the United States Military Assistance Command Vietnam, recommended and requested authorization to conduct bombing strikes in Cambodia. Between 12 February and 17 March 1969, this request was considered by the President in meetings of the National Security Council. On 17 March 1969, President Nixon authorized the bombing of Cambodia.

The bombing began on 18 March 1969 and continued unabated until 15 August 1973. From 18 March 1969 to 1 May 1970, when the United States initiated ground combat operations in Cambodia, 3,695 B-52 sorties were conducted, during which a total of105,837 tons of bombs were dropped on Cambodia. From the beginning to the end of the bombing campaign in August, 1973,more than 150,000 sorties dropped in excess of 500,000 tons of bombs in Cambodia.

The bombing operations took the form of three different operations, code named "Menu Operation", "Patio", and "Freedom Deal". Under the procedure instituted for reporting "Menu Operation" bombing missions, the regular, operational reports prepared after each mission indicated that the strikes had taken place in South Vietnam rather than in Cambodia. Most "Patio" bombing missions were not reported at all; forty-eight "special" "Patio" strikes were reported as having occurred in Laos, rather than Cambodia. The "Freedom Deal" tactical air strikes began on 30 June 1970, the date on which the last contingent of American ground forces was withdrawn from Cambodia. These strikes were reported as having taken place in Cambodia, but in many cases, the targets of "Freedom Deal" strikes were not those which were authorized and reported.

SIMILARLY, THERE is no dispute that the President made a decision to keep the bombing secret. When President Nixon approved the first bombing strikes in Cambodia, he directed General Earle Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to inform General Abrams that the bombing operations were not to be discussed with any unauthorized person, even though this meant circumventing the normal chain of command which would otherwise have included the Secretary of the Army, the Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force, and the Commander of the Seventh Air Force.

The President's policy of concealment, deception, and misrepresentation was consistently reflected in his own public statements and in the Congressional testimony of his military and civilian subordinates.

In a nationally televised address on 14 May 1969, two months after the bombing in Cambodia began, the President stated, "1 have tried to present the facts about Vietnam with complete honesty, and I shall continue to do so in my reports to the American people."

At a news conference on 8 December 1969, the President asserted that the people of the United States were entitled to know everything they could with regard to any involvement of the United States abroad.

At another news conference on 21 March 1970, President Nixon declared that the United States would continue to "respect Cambodia's neutrality."

On 30 April 1970, when the President announced the American invasion of Cambodia, he reviewed previous American policy toward Cambodia in the following terms:

American policy since then has been to scrupulously respect the neutrality of the Cambodian people.

We have maintained a skeleton diplomatic mission of fewer than 15in Cambodia's capitol, and that only since last August. For the previous 4 years, from1965 to 1969, we did not have any diplomatic mission whatever in Cambodia. And for the past 5 years, we have provided no military assistance whatever and no economic assistance to Cambodia. For 5 years, neither the United States nor South Vietnam has moved against these enemy sanctuaries because we did not wish to violate the territory of a neutral nation. Even after the Vietnamese Communists began to expand these sanctuaries 4 weeks ago, we counseled patience to our South Vietnamese allies and imposed restraints on our own commanders.

On 30 June 1970, the President released a report entitled "The Cambodian Operation" which stated in part:

For five years. North Vietnam has used Cambodian territory as a sanctuary from which to attack allied forces in South Vietnam. For five years, American and allied forces - to preserve the concept of Cambodian neutrality and to confine the conflict in Southeast Asia - refrained from moving against these sanctuaries.

The evidence is unmistakeable, therefore, that President Nixon personally and directly lied to the American people by repeatedly concealing the fact that the United States had begun to bomb Cambodia in March, 1969.

THE PRESIDENT'S public assurances were complemented by the erroneous and misleading statements made to the Congress by his civilian and military subordinates. Such statements were made by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Air Force in testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the House Committee on Appropriations.

For example, on 27 April 1970, Secretary of State Rogers testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declaring that, "Cambodia is one country where we can say with complete assurance that our hands are clean and our hearts are pure . . . Our best policy is to be as quiet as possible, to avoid any action which appears to violate the neutrality of Cambodia."

For example, on 16 April 1970, Secretary of the Army Resor testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that there had been no "U.S. military aid and no Army support for Cambodia" since January, 1964.

For example, on 31 March 1971, Secretary of the Air Force Seamans was requested by the Senate Armed Services Committee to submit a report on American bombing missions in Indochina. Seamans subsequently submitted a classified report which indicated that no bombing strikes had been conducted in Cambodia prior to 1 May 1970, even though bombing strikes had actually begun in March, 1969.

It was not until 16 July 1973 that Secretary of Defense Schlesinger was forced to confirm earlier disclosures to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States had bombed Cambodia, a sovereign and neutral nation, before May, 1970.

Richard Nixon authorized the bombing of Cambodia. In a series of subsequent public statements, he deliberately and intentionally lied to the American people. And in their testimony before duly authorized committees of the Congress, his civilian and military subordinates failed to testify fully and accurately. Whether his subordinates deceived the Congress intentionally or unintentionally, the fact remains that the President must have known that they testified inaccurately, and he made no attempt to correct the record.

BY HIS SECRET bombing of Cambodia, President Nixon unquestionably exceeded his powers as commander-in-chief, for not even the most tortured interpretation of Article II, Section 2 could support a war begun and pursued in secrecy. He also violated Sections 7 and 8 of Article I, which give to the Congress the authority to make appropriations and declare war. For the "power of the purse" to have any meaning, the Congress must know how the money it appropriates is spent.

By conducting a war without the knowledge of the Congress, President Nixon further eroded whatever remains of the constitutional power of the Congress to decide when and where the United States shall be at war. We cannot sanction such a policy of deliberate deception, intended to nullify the constitutional powers of the Congress to legislate for the people we represent.

By the same policies of secrecy and deception, Richard Nixon also violated a principal tenet of democratic government: that the President, like every other elected official, is accountable to the people.

For how can the people hold their President to account if he deliberately and consistently lies to them? The people cannot judge if they do not know, and President Nixon did everything within his power to keep them in ignorance. In all good conscience, we must condemn his deception regarding Cambodia with the same fervor and outrage we condemn his deception regarding Watergate.

The difficult question is not whether the secret bombing of Cambodia constitutes impeachable conduct. That is too obvious to require further argument.

Instead, the question we must ponder is, why the Congress has not called Mr. Nixon to judgment for the bombing of Cambodia? The painful answer is that condemning the Cambodian bombing would also have required us to indict previous administrations and to admit that the Congress has failed to fully meet its own constitutional obligations.

WHETHER INTENTIONALLY or not, the Congress has participated in the degeneration of its power to declare war. Although a War Powers Act was passed recently, over the veto of President Nixon, no legislation is self-executing. Whatever its limitations and faults, this legislation, and the constitutional provisions on which it is based, will only have meaning to the extent that the Congress invests them with meaning. Instead of merely ratifying the decisions and recommendations of the executive branch, the Congress must demonstrate that it is once again prepared to play an active and constructive role in the formulation of foreign policy - in the creation of policies which will direct this nation toward war or peace.

If this is truly to be a representative government, then the people's representatives in Congress must no longer allow any one person to decide unilaterally when, where, and why Americans shall die violent deaths or kill others. The Congress may not be subject to impeachment, but it is subject to emasculation.

We must directly confront the fact that the secret bombing of Cambodia is only the most recent and egregious illustration of the disintegration of the war power of Congress, and that the Congress has participated in this process, wittingly or unwittingly.

If, during the impeachment proceeding, we have failed to learn this lesson, then we deserve the obloquy, not the gratitude, of the people of the United States. If we do not now fully dedicate ourselves to regaining every bit of constitutional ground we have surrendered, then - to paraphrase one of the President's men - we shall have lost our constitutional and moral compass.

IT HAS FREQUENTLY been argued during the past weeks that the Committee's inquiry and the President's subsequent resignation demonstrate that "the system works." But such satisfaction or complacency is misguided. We must recognize that we were presented with a seemingly endless series of public revelations and presidential actions which did more to undermine Mr. Nixon's position than any independent investigation undertaken by this Committee or its staff.

The Congressional inquiry has been the beneficiary of literally years of work by investigative reporters, the Special Prosecutor's office, and the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. And most importantly, the President himself documented his words and actions through his secret taping system, without which our inquiry might never have even been begun. The President himself did more than anyone or anything to insure his removal from office.

If the system has worked, it has worked by accident and good fortune. It would be gratifying to conclude that the House, charged with the sole power of impeachment, exercised vigilance and acted on its own initiative. However, we would be deluding ourselves if we did not admit that this inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of disclosures which, finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be ignored.

Perhaps, ironically, and certainly unintentionally, we have ourselves jeopardized the future of the impeachment process. Before this inquiry, the prospect of impeaching a president was disquieting because it had not been attempted in more than a century. Now with our inquiry as a precedent, future Congresses may recoil from ever again exercising this power. They may read the history of our work and conclude that impeachment can never again succeed unless another President demonstrates the same, almost uncanny ability to impeach himself.

If this is our legacy, our future colleagues may well conclude that ours has been a pyrrhic victory, and that impeachment will never again justify the agony we have endured. It is imperative, therefore, that we speak to them clearly: impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©