Cocktails & Popcorn: Can A State Experience A Constitutional Crisis? - Michigan Child Welfare Systems Sucks

"I claim the State of Michigan in the name of the Lord
so we can save the savages by salvaging
the children's trust funds." said the christians.

Covenant House Academy is a school for homeless kids.

They just got rid of their homeless resource officer.

UPDATE: AS OF 6-27-2019, COVENANT HOUSE ACADEMY CHANGED ITS MIND ABOUT HOW THEY TREAT HOMELESS CHILDREN AND DECIDED TO RETAIN ITS HOMELESS RESOURCE OFFICER.

Ask yourself. How come this charter school, which receives federal dollars to provide for homeless children, has a 4 year old kid realize that they are not being provided for.

Here is another young man who observed the failure of the Michigan Child Welfare System, and came up with an action.

Think about that for a moment.

This is the new privatized model planned as an expansion in the industry of trafficking tiny humans through foster care and homeless children.

How can you forecast a substantial increase in this population which is now being reclassifed as "Special Needs" along with "African Americans, English as a Second Language?

Wanna know?

EDUCATION: School Re-Segregation - Brown v. Board Of Education - A Residual Of Predictive Modeling Crap Databases Of Property Ownership & Gerrymandering

The border babies are the goods to be acquired by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in foster care.

Bethany Christian got those contracts with Samaritas.

That is All Betsy DeVos.

The christians always have a plan when it comes to a manufactured crisis, particularly when it comes to mass torture and death of "The Poors".

Those are Michigan children.

But wait! it gets even better!

Guess who is about to swoop in and save the day!

Eye Roll: Hillary Swoops In To Save 'The Children' At The Southern Border

Do you want to know what they do with all that funding? 

They are running asset forfeiture through corporate guardianship running everything out the country.

These are foreign corporations, people. 

Hello? 

Has any caught on to what they are doing? 

It is called modern day human trafficking, but in this instance, it is the industry of trafficking tiny humans through Medicaid fraud and Title I schemes.

See, there are children in need of help at the border.

There must be a plan of action, which includes a new, and improved, re-engineering of child welfare by reanimating the residuals of the peculiar institution.

Happy Residuals of the Peculiar Institution Month!

I aver that not one single argument is going to be raised about the current, complete and utter debauchery called charter schools.

Seriously, how is the Michigan Supreme Court even going to touch this when everyone and their mama is waiting for Nancy Edmunds to figure out that the Michigan Child Welfare sucks, which includes all the privatization fraud schemes going on, more than likely through SACWIS, but hey, what do I know?

I know these people are also pushing those Christian Human Plantations like Vista Maria.

RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

Then, there are those issues with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who just so happen to be behind all those child welfare contracts, under international scrutiny for what they do that no one really wants to talk about.

These private schools are foreign corporations.

I wonder if States Supreme Courts can experience a Constitutional Crisis?

I am going to sit back and enjoy observing all the omissions in their fallacious arguments.

Michigan Supreme Court to decide controversy over private school funding

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court says it will decide once and for all whether the Michigan Legislature can appropriate public money for private schools.

And in making that determination, the court will consider a 2017 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that suggests a state ban on funding for private schools could violate a U.S. constitutional provision intended to protect religious liberty.

At issue is a series of Michigan budget moves in recent years in which the GOP-controlled Legislature has appropriated millions of dollars to reimburse private schools for costs they incur to comply with state mandates, such as health and safety regulations.

In an order released Tuesday, the court said it will hear an appeal of the Michigan Court of Appeals October 2018 ruling. In that decision, the court said the Legislature may reimburse private schools for the costs to comply with state health, safety and welfare laws, but only if such costs are incidental to teaching and don't involve a key school function.

In Tuesday's order, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman said the court needs to resolve the longstanding issue once and for all.

"The court owes the parties, and the people of this state, a final decision in this case that fairly considers all inextricably connected issues," Markman wrote.

More: Judge: Public money for private schools violates Michigan constitution

More: Grosse Pointe votes to close 2 elementary schools

"The need to fully and finally resolve the present dispute has been made especially critical by the fact that it has now been nearly three years since the Legislature (first approved such funding) and since a lower court of this state issued a preliminary injunction preventing that law from taking effect."

It's important, Markman said, that "our legislative process is no longer maintained in limbo."

Justice Elizabeth Clement will not participate in the decision due to her previous role as legal counsel to former Gov. Rick Snyder, the court said.

In the 2017 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri Department of Natural Resources policy of denying grants to applicants owned or controlled by a church violated the First Amendment rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia to freely exercise its religion. The policy denied the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status, the court said in a 7-2 ruling.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Medicaid and Child Support Double Dipping

For years, I have been battling with the father rights groups to understand that non-custodial parents are parents who have been determined by the court unfit to be granted the right to custody of the child.


Here we have a perfect example to show the child support issue advocates that child support is under the policy aegis of child welfare, being in this case, the Michigan Department of Human Services, and not the Friend of the Court.


The Friend of the Court collects, or rather enforces the orders of the court.  The court, judicates the bidding of Michigan child protection policies.

How does Michigan protect its children?  By double-dipping, of course! 


Let's have some fun with the antics of the Supreme Court's ignorance of the foul administrative opertions in Michigan's child welfare.


First and foremost, the children were made wards of the court.  That is just a fancy name for foster care.  I do not have the details on the order, as it substantially affects the funding decisions of reimbursement, but, for conversational sake, let's say it is a Title IV-E placement with Targeted Case Management services.


Michigan has been known to order parents to pay for the time a child is in foster care.  This has led to many termination of parental rights decisions.  By this I mean a child may be placed in foster care for the parents failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child; they are poor.  It could be homelessness or it could be the inability to access proper medical care.  In any event, it is a catch-22.  Your child enters foster care because you are poor, yet you are ordered to pay for the length of stay.  If you do not pay for the time the child is in foster care, you fail to comply with the case plan and parent-agency agreement, generating documentation to support the call for TPR.


Ok, the State has been reimbursed under these two funding streams: (Title IV-E and Targeted Case Management).  Does the State send back this money to the feds if the parent pays for the foster care stay?


Hell no.  Wait, it gets better.


Then, as child support is ordered and to be intercepted, Title IV-D kicks in.  Now, you have foster care administrative payments kicking in to refer to Friend of the Court to collect money from a person whom the State has decided has no legal ties to the child.


Absolutely brilliant scheme of double-dipping.


Michigan has ordered many parents whose rights have been terminated to pay child support.  Even though the child is adopted out and the new adoptive parents or even foster parents who have the child in adoptive placement are receiving adoption assistance payments, child support operations are in full force.


Where does the child support money go once a child is adopted out from TPR?


Into the blackhole of Michigan's Medicaid fraud scheme.  Remember, it's all about maximizing revenue for the State.

Mich. Supreme Court: Loss of parental rights doesn't end support



The Michigan Supreme Court says a loss of parental rights doesn't automatically mean an end to child support.



In a rare unanimous opinion, the court says a father or mother can be ordered to support a child financially even if he or she has no other role. The justices ruled in a case from Oakland County in which Lawrence Beck's parental rights were terminated in 2009.

A judge still required Beck to support two children under the terms of a divorce from his wife.
The Supreme Court said Monday that Michigan law requires financial support unless a judge modifies or terminates the obligation.

Justice Alton Davis did not participate in the 6-0 decision because he reviewed the case when he was a member of the state appeals court.

Michigan Supreme Court Opinion On Child Support In Termination Of Parental Rights

So Easy A Justice Can Do It

SCOTUS barely has its feet in the water of cyber technology.  Seriously.  It was the last of the U.S. Courts to implement electronic recordkeeping.  So you think these Justices would have any idea about electronic transparency?  NOT.  They still live in the stone age of communication.

You can read in Kennedy's opinion that he did not have a freakin' clue about networking or internet technology.  In the opinion the Justices refer to "magic words". (line 953)

K, dun roflmao.

'Magic words' are what we call metatags and backlinks and are used for SEO.  They sound like cavemen. (and cavewomen).

Then, they did not even have any stares decisis that would have given them any foundation to address the culture of technology because SCOTUS has an ancient system of hearing public issues.  Here is how it works:

You make it to the big show, the United States of America Supreme Court.  You file...in person, of course because SCOTUS still does not have Electronic Case Filing on PACER.

Then you have to make it through the rank and file of law clerks who will only pick public issues they feel are appropriate for the Justices to conference on.  All the research is done through the clerks because.

When the clerks are researching a case to make decisions on whether to allow it to go before the Justices, where do you think they go to see if it is a public issue?  THE INTERNET.

This is verifiable due to wonders of Google Analytics.  I busted SCOTUS a few times looking at my stuff.  I can actually track how long and what subject matter they want.  Now, someone please tell me the Justices actually are knowledgeable of this stuff.  If they were, they would not have come down with such a...I must put this in proper legalese...such an unsophisticated sagacious decision which gracefully demonstrates its undeveloped acumen for technology.

So, when the Justices come up with their fancy opinions, you know where it comes from.  The internet.

A corporation will shoot money to a fly-by-nite non-profit.  All you need is a post office box, a domain name, a quick website and pay someone who knows nothing to use their name on it.  File for your 501(c) 3 and you are in business and that non-profit.

Now you have money coming in and if you are really good, you snag a few state and federal grants.

Next, is getting the money to a candidate.  Create a Political Action Committee.

All a corporation needs to do is set up a few of these non-profits and then make contributions to the PACs.  A PAC has to support an issue and that issue has to do with 3 or more political candidates.  It's done.

There are much more sophisticated schemes but I think you have a basic understanding of this rubric.

Corporate campaign ads haven't followed Supreme Court's prediction

COMPANIES AND UNIONS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AVOID THE TRANSPARENCY CALLED FOR IN THE COURT'S LANDMARK RULING. SPENDING ON NEXT WEEK'S MIDTERM ELECTION HAS BEEN EXORBITANT

Chart: Money flowing into midterm campaigns

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court sent a wave of corporate and union money flooding into campaign ads this year, but it did so with the promise that the public would know — almost instantly — who was paying for them.

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in January. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

But Kennedy and the high court majority were wrong. Because of loopholes in tax laws and a weak enforcement policy at the Federal Election Commission, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend huge sums on campaign ads, confident the public will not know who they are, election law experts say.

Corporate donors have been able to hide their contributions despite the opposition of shareholders and customers — the very groups cited by Kennedy.

Here are the questions presented to the Justices:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 

1. Whether all as-applied challenges to the disclosure requirements (reporting and 

disclaimers) imposed on "electioneering communications" by the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA") were resolved by McConnell’s statement 

that it was upholding the disclosure requirements against facial challenge “for the 

entire range of electioneering communications' set forth in the statute." Mem. Op. I, 

App. 15a (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 196 (200)). 

    2. Whether BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden 

when applied to electioneering communications protected from prohibition by the 

appeal-to-vote test, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2667 (2007) 

("WRTL II”), because such communications are protected "political speech," not 

regulable “campaign speech,” id. at 2659, in that they are not "unambiguously 

related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate," Buckley v. Valeo, 424 

U.S. 1, 80 (1976), or because the disclosure requirements fail strict scrutiny when 

so applied. 

    3. Whether WRTL II’s appeal-to-vote test requires a clear plea for action to vote 

for or against a candidate, so that a communication lacking such a clear plea for 

action is not subject to the electioneering communication prohibition. 2 U.S.C. § 

441b. 

    4. Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, 

shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as the 

broadcast "ads" at issue in McConnell, 540 U.S. at 126, or whether the movie is not 

subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.

Here are the some keywords and links to make sure this message gets back to the Justices, of course, via the clerks:


Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Court: Do in-school interviews require warrants?

Court: Do in-school interviews require warrants?

(AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will decide whether child social workers should have to get warrants to interview potential victims of sex abuse at school when the alleged abuser lives at home.

The court decided to hear an appeal from Oregon officials and police officers who interviewed a potential victim at school.

They were worried that children were being abused by Nimrod Greene, who had already been previously arrested on a charge of sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy.

A social worker and a police officer interviewed a 9-year-old girl at the child's public school so Greene would not be around. The girl said during the interview that she had been sexually abused by Greene. The girl later recanted the statements.

Greene said he was innocent but agreed that a judge or jury could find him guilty.

But the girl's mother sued the police and the social worker, saying that they had unconstitutionally seized the 9-year-old girl at school when they removed her from her classroom, took her into another room and questioned her about possible sexual abuse.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the social worker and police officer should have gotten a warrant, a court order or parental consent before talking to the child, or should have demonstrated that they acted with probable cause and under exigent circumstances.

Police and social workers say the courts should treat investigations of potential child abuse differently than they do criminal investigations.

The cases are Camreta v. Greene, 09-1451 and Alford v. Greene, 09-1478.

SCOTUS Considers Immunity For Big Pharma

Supreme Court considers consequences in vaccine case

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Tuesday that could pave the way for numerous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, a particularly high-stakes issue in light of the thousands of claims, so far unproven scientifically, linking vaccines to autism.

In the case before the high court, the parents of an 18-year-old woman who suffers from severe developmental disabilities want to sue a vaccine manufacturer and argue broad legal immunity for such companies shouldn't apply in this case.

They challenged a 1986 federal law that says vaccine manufacturers can't be sued "if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

Much of Tuesday's arguments focused on the meaning of the word "unavoidable" in the context of the law.

Attorneys for the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz said the adverse effects she suffered could have been avoided because the company, Pfizer Inc.'s Wyeth, had a safer vaccine available when she was immunized in 1991.

Attorneys for Wyeth dispute that a safer alternative existed.

Several justices said the Bruesewitzes' argument that the side effects were avoidable because a safer vaccine could have been used was problematic.

Justice Antonin Scalia said that allowing people to sue vaccine manufacturers on the basis that another company makes a safer vaccine could lead to manufacturers removing potentially harmful ingredients, which would make vaccines safer, but far less effective.

"As has been said, the government interprets 'unavoidable' to mean unavoidable with respect to the vaccine that has been approved," Justice Scalia said. "If it doesn't mean that, if it simply means unavoidable with some other vaccine, you could always avoid them if you have a vaccine that is significantly less effective."

But other justices, such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, expressed concerns that the immunity vaccine manufacturers have provides no motivation for them to improve vaccines and make them safer. She also didn't seem to buy the arguments that allowing certain cases to go to court would cripple the vaccine-manufacturing industry.

Story Continues →

U.S.Court of Federal Claims for Damages in Vaccinations Causing Autism

Then There Were Three

Just as I have honored the pending door closing of Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor's former political career, so shall I do the same for Michigan Supreme Court Justices Maura Corrigan and Robert Young.

In memory of the loss of the first member of the infamous "Gang of Four" from the elected bench, I would like to share this political epitaph I wrote.

The Chief Justice’s Prayer

In the honor of Maternal, Paternal, and Infantile Rights of Michigan,
Amen.

Our Chief Justice, who art in Lansing,
Hallowed be thy name, Clifford Taylor.

Thy thiefdom come; thy will be done,
In Michigan, as it is not in the Constitution.

Give us our rights, of due process in the courts,
And condignly commiserate our unenumerated rights;
As we condignly commiserate thine breeches of fiduciary duties;
And lead us not into judicial totalitarianism,
But deliver us onto democracy.

For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory,
Now and for thine lifetime appointment.

Amen.

Written by Beverly Tran, in the year of our Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice, two thousand and eight

This post is the official kick off of my campaign to not re-elect Maura Corrigan.