Tales Of The New Crown: DOJ Asks Illegitimate Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer For Public Nursing Homes Cooties Data

Michigan *Public Private Partnership* Nursing Facilities
(Not to be confused with the cooties PPP)

Well, this is quite the kerfuffle!

It seems, Matt Schnieder, Detroit, MIED U.S. Attorney, has referred the matter to the Civil Rights Division of DOJ, which seems to cloying Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer with those silenced cries for due process, a right of civility, for those individual residents of the State, who have unfortunately lost their lives to the cooties, by invoking CRIPA.

But, herein lies the issue - what about the private nursing homes?

Yes, that is correct, Michigan has privatized just about anything in the industry of human asset management.

By specifically using the term "public", this immediately stands up to me as a federally certified facilities, meaning, CMS authorizes cost reimbursement for Medicaid and Medicare.

Just for fun, because you know I love to disprove my first impressions when it comes to stealin', I conducted a random experiment, by controlling for randomness by closing my eyes and picking one *Public Private Partnership* nursing facility, and looked up Shorepointe Nursing Center.

ID Number: 801417624        
Summary for:  WBH NCC #1, LLC              
The name of the DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY:   WBH NCC #1, LLC
     
Entity type:   DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Identification Number: 801417624 Old ID Number: D1960E
   
Date of Organization in Michigan:   06/07/2007

Purpose: All Purpose Clause

Term: Perpetual
               
The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name: RAJ PATEL
Street Address: 26001 JEFFERSON
Apt/Suite/Other:
City: SAINT CLAIR SHORES State: MI Zip Code: 48081
Registered Office Mailing address:
P.O. Box or Street Address: 25500 MEADOWBROOK RD STE 230
Apt/Suite/Other:
City: NOVI State: MI Zip Code: 48375

Act Formed Under:   023-1993 Michigan Limited Liability Company Act

The last time I checked, an LLC is a private, not public, I decided to see what Raj had to say about this.

Optalis nursing home chain further expanding reach ‘ahead of the curve’

A growing skilled nursing and senior living company is looking to expand its reach throughout the United States.

Optalis Healthcare, based in Novi, MI, gearing up to either build or acquire more facilities in Michigan, Ohio and Florida, Crain’s Detroit Business reported. CEO Raj Patel, however, declined to specify the number of facilities or give any details about future acquisitions, stating plans “are still under review.”

“We are very optimistic that we are in front of the bell curve with a large amount of seniors eight to 10 years away from when they really need services,” Patel told the news organization. “Age 65 is the new 55. Many seniors don’t need a lot of services until they get into their high 70s, early 80s. We are innovative and ready for the big wave.”

The 15-facility company purchased five Detroit-area, Beaumont-affiliated properties (four SNFs and one senior living facility) from Premier Health Care Management in September. Patel called the deal a “perfect fit to the Optalis growth plan in the southeast Michigan market.”

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/04/02/letter-frontline-responders-nursing-facilities-need-help-state/5115831002/

TRANSLATION: RAJ BOUGHT UP A BUNCH OF OLD ASCENSION PROPERTIES THEN STARTED STEALIN' BECAUSE THEY RUN THE EXACT SAME MEDICAID FRAUD SCHEMES IN CHILD WELFARE

The only question is, which Raj Patel?

https://www.macombdaily.com/news/local/medstar-buys-52-new-ambulances-takes-over-medical-transport-helicopter/article_5253ea08-dbc8-11e9-a80b-236d125ba94b.html

Here are the assumed names:

Assumed Name                                                            Creation Date Renewal Date Expiration Date
EAGLE POINTE APARTMENTS                                 3/18/2013  2/31/2018 ???
SHOREPOINTE NURSING CENTER PROPERTY 9/18/2007 10/2/2017 12/31/2022

And, here is the LLC.

ID Number: 801417628        
Summary for:  WBH NCC #2, LLC              
The name of the DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY:   WBH NCC #2, LLC
       
Entity type:   DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Identification Number: 801417628 Old ID Number: D1960J
   
Date of Organization in Michigan:   06/07/2007

Purpose: All Purpose Clause

Term: Perpetual
               
The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name: TIMOTHY C SPIRO
Street Address: 100 W. LONG LAKE ROAD
Apt/Suite/Other: SUITE 250
City: BLOOMFIELD HILLS State: MI Zip Code: 48304
Registered Office Mailing address:
P.O. Box or Street Address: 100 W. LONG LAKE ROAD
Apt/Suite/Other: SUITE 250
City: BLOOMFIELD HILLS State: MI Zip Code: 48304
  
Act Formed Under:   023-1993 Michigan Limited Liability Company Act

They even have a lien which means there is intellectual property and a foreign parent. 


File Number Lien Type Debtor Name                 Filing Date Lapse Date Status
2008000844-6 UCC Lien WBH NCC #2, LLC 01/02/2008 01/02/2023 Active

Were these Mooney Real Estate Holdings, LLC transactions?

Death toll rises as coronavirus sweeps through Michigan nursing homes

I am not going to broach the subject of how or why Ascension St. John was flipping properties, because I already did, but we shall soon revisit these days of yore.

See, there is no FOIA for private state contractors, so, Michigan self reports, which means they are not held to GAGAS or any external audit.

Try filing a FOIA for school records for a former foster child and see what happens.

So, if there is no FOIA in child welfare, what the hell makes you think there is FOIA in nursing home data?

The only logical action by DOJ would be to use the CRIPA prong test.

CRIPA, in part, says:

(II) residing in such facility or institution for purposes of receiving care or treatment; or 

(III) residing for any State purpose in such facility or institution (other than a residential facility providing only elementary or secondary education that is not an institution in which reside juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent, in need of supervision, neglected, placed in State custody, mentally ill or disabled, mentally retarded, or chronically ill or handicapped);  or (v) providing skilled nursing, intermediate or long-term care, or custodial or residential care.

(2) Privately owned and operated facilities shall not be deemed  "institutions" under this subchapter if-- (A) the licensing of such facility by the State constitutes the sole nexus between such facility and such State;
(B) the receipt by such facility, on behalf of persons residing in such facility, of payments under title XVI, XVIII [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381 et seq., 1395 et seq.], or under a State plan approved under title XIX [42 U.S.C.A. § 1396 et seq.], of the Social Security Act, constitutes the sole nexus between such facility and such State;  or
(C) the licensing of such facility by the State, and the receipt by such facility, on behalf of persons residing in such facility, of payments under title XVI, XVIII [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381 et seq., 1395 et seq.], or under a State plan approved under title XIX [42 U.S.C.A. § 1396 et seq.], of the Social Security Act, constitutes the sole nexus between such facility and such State; (3) The term "person" means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, an association, or a corporation;

So, what if the CRIPA prong test?

The CRIPA prong test is when DOJ asks for information in the course of a civil rights investigation, where, in this instance, happens to be individuals who died from the cooties in public nursing homes, and the State Governor says, "No".

That is how you automatically know they are stealin'. [see above].

Then, there is still that lingering issue about DOJ asking MIED to look into the constitutionality of Gretch's Executive Orders, where, I have addressed her illegitimacy to be granted under that indelible seal to hold office.

What a messy!

I guess Gretch has two choices: (1) produce the data; or, (2) bear her armiger, but, hey, what do I know?

#maytheheavensfall

Dept. of Justice requesting COVID-19 nursing home data from Gov. Whitmer

(FOX 2) - The Department of Justice is requesting data from Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in regard to the COVID-19 order that may have resulted in deaths of elderly nursing home residents.

The data is being requested to help inform whether the Department of Justice will initiate investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).

Other governors were asked to also provide data, including New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. These states required nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients, often without adequate testing.

The DOJ is asking for the following information from Gov. Whitmer:

• The number of public nursing home residents, employees, other staff, guests and visitors who contracted COVID-19, regardless of where it was contracted
• The number of public nursing home residents employees, other staff, guests and visitors who died of COVID-19 including those who died in a public nursing home or after being transferred to a hospital or other medical facility, hospice, home care or any other location
• All state-issued guidance, directives, advisories or executive orders regarding admission of persons to public nursing homes, including those previously superseded, as well as the dates each such document was in effect
• The number of persons who were admitted to a public nursing home from a hospital or any other facility, hospice, home care or other location after testing positive for COVID-19 during the period the guidance or orders were in effect

The information requested is due within 14 days.

You can see the letter sent to Gov. Whitmer here.

... "This is nothing more than election year politics by an administration that is more concerned with the president's re-election campaign than protecting Michigan seniors."

— Governor Gretchen Whitmer's Press Secretary Tiffany Brown
Gov. Whitmer's office released the following statement later in the day Wednesday after receiving the letter:

"Protecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of our seniors and most vulnerable residents has been a top priority throughout this crisis. The fact that this letter was sent during the middle of the Republican National Convention week to four Democratic governors should make it crystal clear that this is nothing more than election year politics by an administration that is more concerned with the president's re-election campaign than protecting Michigan seniors. We will review this letter and respond as appropriate, however, Americans would all be better served if the Trump administration stopped the partisan games and focused on delivering a real plan to defeat COVID-19."

In a town hall with FOX 2 back in July, Gov. Whitmer said she was following the best advice she had at the time when making this decision.

Whitmer said that the state was following guidance from the Center for Disease Control and prevention when COVID-19 patients were housed with non-coronavirus patients in nursing homes.

"We know that this experience has played out across the planet frankly but we’ve seen it in real-time here in the U.S., first in Seattle then of course across the U.S.," she said. "In every step of the way we've followed the CDC best guidance and our policies reflected that. All of the efforts that we've taken to keep people safe by closing down the ability for outsiders to come in, our policy with regard to...we never once required that nursing homes took COVID-19 patients. Many chose to and when they did they followed the promulgated practices from the CDC about separation and not having intermingling at all," she said.

And she did admit that following best practices ended with lives being lost to the virus.

"In the early days, following the CDC was the gold standard. That's what we were doing," Whitmer said. "Our nursing home death numbers are far too many but are better than in many other states. At the time we followed the protocols the CDC has prescribed."

In the end, Whitmer said if she had the knowledge she has now, she would do things differently but says it was CDC guidance.

"We followed the protocols that they prescribed and that's the best any state was able to do, frankly," she said. "We always have a mindest we are going to be conservative and follow the science. And sometimes that makes us a leader and in other ways, it's made us average with other states. With nursing home experiences, it's the latter."

The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is evaluating whether to initiate investigations under the federal “Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act” (CRIPA), which protects the civil rights of persons in state-run nursing homes, among others.

The Civil Rights Division seeks to determine if the state orders requiring admission of COVID-19 patients to nursing homes is responsible for the deaths of nursing home residents.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, New York has the highest number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States, with 32,592 victims, many of them elderly.

New York’s death rate by population is the second highest in the country with 1,680 deaths per million people. New Jersey’s death rate by population is 1,733 deaths per million people - the highest in the nation.

In contrast, Texas’s death rate by population is 380 deaths per million people; and Texas has just over 11,000 deaths, though its population is 50 percent larger than New York and has many more recorded cases of COVID-19 - 577,537 cases in Texas versus 430,885 cases in New York.

Florida’s COVID-19 death rate is 480 deaths per million; with total deaths of 10,325 and a population slightly larger than New York.

DOJ CRIPA Request For COVID-19 Nursing Home Death Data Letter to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer 08-26-2... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Another Example Of How To File A Child Welfare Grievance With ADA Resolution

If you have an issue, file a complaint with in the proper venue, bearing witness in your name, as verification of a claim, and not on social media.

Get Off Facebook And Engage Stakeholders: A Response To Legally Kidnapped

How to File an Americans with Disabilities Act Complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice

En Español

OMB Control No. 1190-0009. Form Expiration Date: September 30, 2021

You can file an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint alleging disability discrimination against a State or local government or a public accommodation (private business including, for example, a restaurant, doctor's office, retail store, hotel, etc.). A complaint can be filed online using the link below, by mail, or by facsimile.

To file an ADA complaint online:

Americans with Disabilities Act Discrimination Online Complaint Form
Instructions for submitting attachments are on the form.

To file an ADA complaint by mail, send the completed ADA complaint form to:

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
Washington, D.C. 20530

To file an ADA complaint by facsimile, fax the completed ADA complaint form to: (202) 307-1197

Please keep a copy of your complaint and the original documents for your own records.

The United States has entered into an agreement with a national daycare provider to resolve an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the United States alleged that Spring Education Inc. (SEI), formerly known as Nobel Learning Communities Inc., discriminated against a 3-year-old child and her parents in violation of the ADA by refusing to make reasonable modifications to its toileting policy and then expelling the child on the basis of her disability. The child had toileting delays resulting from her disability.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES d/b/a CHESTERBROOK ACADEMY

Defendant.

https://www.springeducationgroup.com/about-us/

HON. NOEL L. HILLMAN
Civil Action No. 17-366 (NLH) (JS)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1. BACKGROUND
   1. This Agreement is entered into by the United States of America and Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., n/k/a Spring Education, Inc. d/b/a Chesterbrook Academy (“SEI”).¹
   2. The United States is authorized to investigate alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and to bring a civil action in federal court in any case that raises an issue of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b).  
   3. Title III of the ADA prohibits a public accommodation from discriminating against an individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201.  
   4. SEI is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania, which operates a network of private schools in 18 states and the District of Columbia.  SEI is a public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates a place of public accommodation.  28 C.F.R.
      § 36.104.
   5. M.M., a minor, and her parents lodged a complaint with the United States Department of Justice alleging that SEI’s Chesterbrook Academy in Moorestown, New Jersey, discriminated against M.M. and her parents when it disenrolled M.M. in March of 2015 on the basis of disability. Specifically, M.M.’s parents alleged that SEI disenrolled M.M. based on M.M.’s failure to meet a certain deadline by which M.M. would have to be toilet-trained.
   6. On January 18, 2017, the United States filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that SEI violated Title III of the ADA, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R Part 36.  In its Complaint, the United States alleged that SEI: 1) failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, or procedures for M.M.; 2) disenrolled M.M. due to M.M.’s disability; and 3) excluded or otherwise denied equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to M.M.’s parents because of the known disability of M.M.
   7. On November 2, 2017, SEI answered the Complaint, denied the United States’ allegations that it violated the ADA, and asserted affirmative defenses. The United States and SEI agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms and without resorting to continued litigation.  The Parties agree that by entering into this Agreement, SEI does not admit any allegation made by the United States; nor does SEI admit liability, wrongdoing, or violation of the ADA or any other statute, regulation, or provision of the United States Constitution, or any state constitution or law.  The Parties have therefore voluntarily entered into this Agreement, agreeing as follows:
2. NON-MONETARY RELIEF
8. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date (as defined by Para. 20, below) of this Agreement, SEI will add a statement to its current Non-Discrimination Policy that states: “At all SEI facilities where diaper changing or toileting assistance is provided, SEI will provide toileting assistance, including diaper changing, for a child with a disability ² where such assistance is necessary because of disability, unless SEI can demonstrate that making such a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations SEI provides.  A fundamental alteration analysis requires an individualized inquiry that could include, for example, the nature of SEI’s services, the child’s needs, configuration of a “facility” (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 36.104), and applicable laws or licensing requirements that are essential to SEI’s services.”
9. SEI will continue to engage an ADA Compliance Officer and will continue to indicate in its Non-Discrimination Policy that the ADA Compliance Officer is the decision-maker on requests for modifications.  The ADA Compliance Officer shall ensure that SEI adopts and implements the policies, practices, and procedures set forth herein.  SEI will provide the ADA Compliance Officer with sufficient authority and resources to perform the tasks required by this Agreement, including review of all toileting reasonable modification requests and all decisions to exclude from enrollment or dis-enroll a child from an SEI facility where the child has a toileting delay that is related to a disability.  The ADA Compliance Officer will maintain records regarding his or her review of all toileting reasonable modification requests and all decisions to exclude from enrollment or dis-enroll a child with a disability for not less than the term of the Agreement.
10. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, SEI shall submit to the United States for review, revised reasonable modification policies and procedures relating to toileting modifications, pursuant to Title III of the ADA. SEI will consider in good faith any comments offered by the United States. SEI’s policies and procedures shall include the following:
1. The policy set forth in Paragraph 8.  
2. Subject to Paragraph 8, when a child’s disability limits his or her ability to be toilet trained within a certain time frame, SEI will not disenroll that child on that basis, nor will SEI require that the child become toilet trained according to a timeline that is inconsistent with the child’s developmental ability or needs.
3. Upon receiving a request for a modification relating to toileting, SEI will initiate a discussion with the parent(s) or guardian(s) to determine whether the child has a disability for which he or she needs modification(s) and to explore what modification(s) may be appropriate pursuant to the ADA. SEI will make individualized determinations based on the facts of each request.
4. SEI may only deny a request for a toileting reasonable modification if it can demonstrate that making the requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of SEI’s services, as explained in Paragraph 8. SEI will not apply a general prohibition against providing particular types of reasonable modifications relating to toileting.
5. An explanation of how parent(s) or guardian(s) are to request reasonable modifications relating to toileting for children with disabilities at its facilities.  
6. A response to a request for a reasonable modification relating to toileting will be provided by SEI in writing.  In the ordinary course, SEI will endeavor to decide the reasonable modification request within ten (10) days from the date that it receives the necessary information sufficient to evaluate the request.  If a request for a toileting reasonable modification is denied, SEI shall notify the child's parent(s) or guardian(s), in writing, of the reason(s) for the denial.
7. The contact information for SEI’s ADA Compliance Officer.
11. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of any comments from the United States regarding the policy set forth in Paragraph 10, SEI shall publicize such policy as an attachment to SEI’s Non-Discrimination Policy, which SEI will continue to publish on the websites for each of its individual schools,³ and shall disseminate such policy to parents and guardians of currently enrolled children at SEI facilities where diaper changing or toileting assistance is provided.  Beginning on that same date, SEI shall (i) disseminate such policy to parents and guardians who indicate that they would like a reasonable modification for their child relating to toileting in connection with their completion of the Pre-Enrollment Modification Inquiry Form included in their application packet; and (ii) provide such policy upon request by a parent or guardian
12. At its October 2019 annual live training session for Regional Directors, Principals, and Assistant Principals, SEI’s General Counsel will provide training on the policy changes described in Paragraph 8.  SEI shall create training materials regarding such policy changes and provide those materials to the United States before they are provided at the annual training session.  The United States shall have a reasonable opportunity to review the training materials prior to the training being provided, and SEI shall consider in good faith comments provided by the United States.  In addition:
1. New Regional Directors, Principals, and Assistant Principals hired during the term of this Agreement shall be provided comparable training at the next occurring quarterly training.
2. For the duration of this Agreement, SEI will provide annual refresher training on the toileting policy to all Regional Directors, Principals, and Assistant Principals. 
3. SEI will create and maintain an attendance log that documents the name of each individual who attends the trainings required in this Paragraph, his or her title, and the date he or she attended the training.  
13. SEI will report to the United States, within ten (10) business days, any decision to disenroll a student based, in whole or in part, on toileting delays if that student has a disability and the toileting delay is related to the disability.  This reporting requirement shall include students who are withdrawn by a parent or guardian after being told of a potential deadline or given a deadline to be toilet-trained, provided that the withdrawal occurs before the deadline. This information should be sent by e-mail to the address specified in Paragraph 15.
14. In addition to the reporting obligation set forth in the preceding Paragraph, SEI will provide the United States, on an annual basis,⁴ written reports on the following issues:
1. Relevant information concerning the decision to place a child between the ages of 0 and 6 years old on a toileting timeline, provided that the child has a disability.  “Relevant information,” as used in this provision, shall mean:  the child’s initials; the child’s date of birth; the SEI school where the child is or was enrolled; the length of the timeline applied to that child; and the result of the application of the timeline (e.g., the child met the original timeline; the timeline was extended; the child failed to meet the timeline). 
2. Relevant information (as defined above) concerning all requests for modification that relate in any way to toileting issues, provided that the child at issue has a disability.  Specifically, SEI will report on whether it:  (i) granted the request; (ii) requested medical documentation relating to the child’s disability and any necessary modifications; or (iii) denied the request, in which case SEI will document each and every reason for the denial and shall submit documentation about the decisions denying such requests to the United States consistent with its annual reporting requirements.
3. The United States may request additional information related to the foregoing disclosures.  SEI agrees to cooperate in good faith with reasonable requests from the United States for additional relevant information about the child and the modification and/or toileting issue, which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the child’s parent or guardian’s name(s) and contact information.
15. SEI shall send the written reports set forth in Paragraphs 13 and 14 via electronic mail to the United States (to the attention of david.simunovich@usdoj.gov and charlotte.lanvers@usdoj.gov or other person who may be specified by the United States).
16. SEI will promptly notify the United States (by contacting the individuals designated in Paragraph 15) if any individual files a lawsuit or complaint in court or with an administrative agency alleging that SEI discriminated against a child between the ages of 0 and 6 years old on the basis of disability based in whole or in part on the child’s toileting status.
17. For children identified to the United States in connection with Paragraphs 13-14, SEI will retain its records relating to such children in the same manner as it maintains records for any other of its current or former children. At a minimum, however, SEI will retain its records concerning these topics for not less than the term of the Agreement.
3. MONETARY PAYMENTS
18. Within the later of fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement or fifteen (15) days of the date SEI receives a release signed by M.M.’s parents on behalf of themselves and M.M., the form of which is attached as Appendix A, SEI will pay $18,000 to M.M. SEI shall provide written notification to counsel for the United States, including a copy of the check, when it has completed the actions described in this Paragraph.
19. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, SEI shall make payment in the amount of $30,000 to the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(2)(C).  SEI shall deliver the check or money order, via overnight mail, to counsel for the United States at 970 Broad Street, 8th Fl., Attn: David Simunovich, Newark, New Jersey, 07102.
4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
20. The Effective Date of this Agreement is the date of the last signature below.  However, with respect to the training obligations imposed by paragraph 12 of this Agreement, the effective date shall be October 21, 2019.
21. The duration of this Agreement will be two (2) years from the Effective Date.
22. In consideration of this Agreement, the United States agrees to close its investigation and compliance review (DJ No. 202-48-288) without further enforcement action, except as set forth in this Agreement.  The Parties agree and acknowledge that this consideration is adequate and sufficient.
23. The United States may review compliance with this Agreement at any time.  SEI will cooperate fully with the United States’ reasonable efforts to monitor compliance with this Agreement, including with respect to providing the United States with documents required to be prepared or maintained as a result of or pursuant to this Agreement.  If the United States believes that SEI has failed to comply with any requirement of this Agreement, the United States will notify SEI in writing and the Parties will attempt to resolve the issue in good faith.  The United States shall not initiate a civil action to enforce this Agreement unless and until the Parties are unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the United States notifies SEI. 
24. Any time limits for performance imposed by this Agreement may be extended by the mutual written consent of the Parties.  With regard to any of the deadlines specified in this Agreement, SEI shall notify the United States at least ten (10) business days before any deadline of an anticipated inability to meet the deadline and the reason(s) why, and shall request an extension of time to a specific date.⁵  The United States shall not unreasonably withhold consent to a request for an extension of time made in good faith. 
25. Except with respect to the obligations and rights created by the Agreement, the United States does hereby absolutely, fully, and forever release and discharge SEI and its respective shareholders, members, managers, legal successors and assigns, heirs, administrators, subsidiaries, affiliates, attorneys, agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, and partners, of and from any and all claims, demands, damages, debts, liabilities, accounts, obligations, costs, expenses, actions, and causes of action asserted in the Complaint filed in this action.
26. Within ten (10) days of execution of this Agreement, the United States will file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of D.N.J. Civil Action No. 17-366 (NLH/JS), signed by all parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs.
27. Failure by the United States to enforce any provision of this Agreement will not be construed as a waiver of its right to enforce any provisions of the Agreement.
28. If any term of this Agreement is determined by any court to be unenforceable, the other terms of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect.
29. The individuals signing this Agreement represent that they are authorized to do so on behalf of the respective entity for which they have signed.
30. This Agreement will have no impact upon the rights or claims of any individual not identified in this Agreement who has made, or may make, claims against SEI for issues discussed herein.  This Agreement is not intended to remedy any potential violations of the ADA or any other law, other than those specifically addressed by this Agreement.  Nothing in this Agreement will preclude the United States from filing a separate action under the ADA or any other law for any alleged violation not covered by this Agreement.
31. This Agreement, including Appendix A, constitutes the entire agreement between the United States and SEI on the matters raised herein and no other statement or promise written or oral, made by any party or agents of any party, that is not contained in this written Agreement, including its Appendix, shall be enforceable.
32. This Agreement and any amendment hereto shall be public documents.  
33. This Agreement shall be binding upon the United States and on SEI, its agents, employees, successors, and assigns. 
34. If SEI acquires a new facility during the term of this Agreement, SEI shall implement the requirements of this Agreement with respect to that facility within a reasonable period of time (not to exceed 3 months). 
35. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve SEI of its compliance obligations with respect to any provision of Title III of the ADA or its implementing regulation.

1 Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. is now known as Spring Education, Inc., which, for purposes of this Agreement, is the successor to Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.

2 For the purposes of this Agreement, “disability” means an individual with a disability as defined by the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).

3 By way of example, the individual school website for Chesterbrook Moorestown is:  https://www.chesterbrookacademy.com/preschools/nj/moorestown/.  The Non-Discrimination Policy is currently located in the “About Us” section of that webpage. SEI will include a link to that policy in the “About Us” section for each of the SEI schools subject to this policy.

4 The first such report, covering the period from the Effective Date of this Agreement through April 30, 2020, shall be made no later than June 1, 2020. The second such report, covering the period from May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2021, shall be made no later than May 31, 2021.

5 In the event that circumstances prevent SEI from providing 10-day notice pursuant to this Paragraph, SEI shall provide as much notice as is reasonably possible and shall explain to the United States the basis for not providing 10 days’ notice.

FOR THE UNITED STATES

CRAIG CARPENITO
United States Attorney
                              

/s/
DAVID V. SIMUNOVICH
JORDAN M. ANGER
BEN KURUVILLA
Assistant United States Attorneys
970 Broad Street, Suite 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Tel. (973) 645-2736
david.simunovich@usdoj.gov

/s/ Charlotte Lanvers
Charlotte Lanvers
Trial Attorney
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – 4CON
Washington, DC 20530
Tel. (202) 305-0706
Charlotte.Lanvers@usdoj.gov

11-13-19
Date

/s/ Margaret Hagar
MARGRET HAGAR
General Counsel
Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.
n/k/a Spring Education, Inc.
1615 West Chester Pike,
West Chester, PA 19382
11-12-19
Date
/s/ Bonnie M. Hoffman
BONNIE M. HOFFMAN
ANDREW M. ERDLEN
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
One Logan Square, 27th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
11-12-19
Date

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Millions To Be Made In Michigan's New Industry

ATTENTION LEGAL COMMUNITY:

Michigan's economy needs you!

Come to Michigan and launch your career.  Constant flow of cases:

• False Claims
• CRIPA
• Civil Rights

That's right.  For only $135.00 attorneys can come to Michigan and make millions.  Contact me, directly, to start your new career today.

BEVERLY TRAN

313-522-8213

tranbeverly@gmail.com

Special Offer:  

First qualified non-Michigan attorney to contact me gets to make history.

Here is another fine example of the last frontier of the child welfare industry: lawsuits.

Okla. DHS pays $3.4M to settle lawsuits since 2005

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — The Oklahoma Department ofHuman Services has paid about $3.4 million since 2005 to settle lawsuits for child deaths and neglect, according to a newspaper report.

The Tulsa World reported (http://bit.ly/p3nfHw ) Sunday said there have been 24 payouts ranging from $15,000 to settle a civil rights violations lawsuit by parents whose children were placed in emergency custody to $700,000 for the death of a child at a child care center.

The lawsuit settlements are approved based on the type of case, according to DHS spokeswomanSheree Powell. She said the litigation is also used to change policy and practices.

"Our attorneys also participate in various training courses for DHS employees in which we use information developed in litigation as very good teaching points for our new social workers in an effort to avoid recurrences of similar issues in the future," Powell said.

But state House Speaker Kris Steele said in an email to the newspaper that the figures show a clear need to make policy changes at DHS. Steele has previously called for a review to determine if DHS should be reorganized.

"The fiscal cost of failures in the child welfare system pales in comparison to the cost Oklahoma's most vulnerable children paid as a result of those failures," said Steele, R-Shawnee.

Oklahoma ranks fifth in the nation in the rate of child abuse and neglect deaths, with 3.4 child deaths per 100,000, according to the National Coalition to End Child Abuse Death. This is a slight improvement from 2001, when the state ranked third in the country with a rate of 3.7.

The settlements are in addition to the more than $4.2 million DHS has spent on outside legal counsel to defend a class-action lawsuit alleging abuses in the foster-care system. That federal trial is to start Feb. 1.

Michigan Is Clearing Out Its Kiddy Inventory

Maura Corrigan is clearing out the overstock of Bill Johnson, Superintendent of Michigan Children's Institute's kids.

Anyone can adopt, unless you are a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, cousin, someone who raised the child, or have direct information on the Medicaid fraud, false claims, or due process violations in the Termination of Parental Rights case, are poor and/or have a blemish on your record.

Other than that, the sooner these kids get adopted out, the quicker the state can shred the case files covering up the fraud, waste, abuse, civil rights and due process violations, torture, unnecessary and overmedication of Bill Johnson's foster kids and come into compliance of the federal settlement agreement!

Bill Johnson, Michigan's legal daddy to these 3,500 plus foster kids, is the one with the power to approve who may and may not adopt.

Don't like it?  Prove his decision was whimsical.

New York Kiddy Kickbacks

Here we have it, another case of kiddy kickbacks in residential institutions that has been reduced to a case of injunctive relief.

This is a case of the inherent conflict of interest. Legal Aid, a state funded entity cannot "bite the hand that feeds it". That is why there is no action of monetary or punative reliefs.

Continuing along the line of inherent conflicts of interests, then you have the Attorney General, the same power that prosecuted these foster care cases. The same power that will represent these contractual agencies and residential institutions in a court of law is the same power that holds authority over its federally funded Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

The Attorney General will not intervene as it does not want to "bite the federal Medicaid hand" that feeds it.

So, what you have is a recipe for the fraud scheme called kiddy kickbacks. The city gains greater levels of funding for extended stays in foster care and submits questionable costs when keeping the child in a contained environment. The institutions, in turn, receive more referrals from Administration of Children and Families and are allowed to keep a child longer in stay, not authorizing the release to the least restrictive settings.

On top of that, I will put some money on the fact that there is more than likely no pre-ten waiver, meaning there was no authorized approval according to federal mandated provisions.

The DHHS Office of Inspector General is encouraging innovation to end all forms of health care fraud, including Medicaid fraud. Innovation has never been a strong suit with Legal Aid.

This is a CRIPA and FCA case addressing kiddy kickbacks.

Foster Children Mistreated, Suit Against City Claims
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: May 12, 2010

A federal lawsuit is seeking to bar New York City from allowing troubled foster-care children to be kept in psychiatric hospitals after doctors have recommended their release, a practice that routinely adds months to a hospitalization despite laws that require such children to be placed in the least restrictive environment possible.

The suit, filed on Wednesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn, claims that the practice means that children who no longer require hospitalization are being kept in locked quarters where they have limited access to schooling, family visits and even walks outside.

The suit also claims that the Administration for Children’s Services, which oversees the care of about 16,000 foster children in New York City, and its subcontractors have been “using certain psychiatric hospitals as if they are detention centers,” sending some children to hospitals for disciplinary reasons, like breaking curfew, running away or getting in fights, rather than for mental health reasons.

A spokeswoman for the city’s Corporation Counsel declined to comment on the suit, saying the city had not yet had a chance to review it.

The suit was filed by the Legal Aid Society on behalf of three unnamed foster-care children who are currently hospitalized despite doctors’ recommendations that they be released.

“Every day that it continues, plaintiffs’ extended, wrongful confinement in these institutions is causing them irreparable damage,” the lawsuit says.

One of the children, a 6-year-old boy identified as S. M. who was placed into foster care last year, was hospitalized in Westchester in January, after “misbehavior” in his foster home, according to the complaint. The boy, who was in kindergarten, has been ready for discharge since April 2.

Another child, a 13-year-old boy identified as M. M., remains hospitalized on Long Island, though he was recommended for discharge on Jan. 26.

Legal Aid, a nonprofit group that represents foster-care children in New York, is seeking a preliminary injunction ordering the release of the three children, as well as a court order prohibiting the city from continuing to place foster-care children in hospitals unless doing so is medically necessary, and requiring that less-restrictive placements are made available for any child ready for release within 24 hours. The lawsuit also seeks financial damages.

Legal Aid requested class-action status for the lawsuit and identified two dozen more cases in which it claimed that children were held inappropriately, Nancy Rosenbloom, one of the Legal Aid lawyers handling the case, said. There is a high incidence of mental illness among foster-care children, who have been separated from their families, many after suffering physical or sexual abuse, said Marcia Lowry, executive director of the advocacy group Children’s Rights.

The suit cited a study by the group that estimated that about 14 percent of the foster care children in New York had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in the course of a single year. Under both state and federal law, the city is required to place the children in the “most homelike” environment.

But foster homes, group homes and residential treatment centers can be unable or unwilling to accept children with mental illness or severe behavioral problems. The city has a policy against transferring children discharged from psychiatric hospitals to its Children’s Center, which temporarily houses other children during transition periods, according to Legal Aid.

“Some of these kids do have serious mental-health needs that may require hospitalization,” Ms. Rosenbloom said. “But the point of this case is once they’re ready to get out, they should get out.”