Did Michigan Appeals Judge Colleen O'Brien Consent To Dissent An Adoption For MCI Trafficking Tiny Humans Under Foreign Duress?

The following is a unanimous ruling, with dissent if that makes sense, of an aunt trying to adopt her niece, but the Michigan Children's Institute Superintendent said, "NO" because, more than likely, as per the norm, there was fraudulent billing to Medicaid, mixed in with a sprinkle of the child being Legally Kidnapped, on paper, which is why there was a dissent.

Before we get to the dissent of the unanimous ruling (yea...I am still working on this on), you have Michael Kelly, who must have been reading my blog.

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Sucks

Because I would conclude that the trial court misapplied 
MCL 710.45, I would reverse the trial court and reinstate the 
superintendent’s decision to deny petitioner consent to adopt RC.
Colleen O'Brien

I am not familiar with Meter, so I am just going to fast forward to this Colleen O'Brien, who just had to throw in her two cents on the unanimous ruling, with her dissent.

Colleen O'Brien is a judge on the Michigan Second District Court of Appeals. Governor Rick Snyder (R) appointed her on September 29, 2015, to finish the unexpired term of Pat Donofrio, who retired the following day.[1]

Donofrio's retirement came as a surprise.

O'Brien was elected to the seat for a full six-year term in 2016. Her current term expires on January 1, 2023.

I do not have a grasp of her campaign funding yet, but it is quite odd.

She has been granted campaign filing waivers, yet, generated over $500,000 for her campaign.

https://cfrsearch.nictusa.com/documents/379145/details/filing/summary?changes=0

Make sure to check out the broken English

I am not going to harp on this too much for the simple fact that Michigan Campaign Finance Law was set up where you can just ask for a filing waiver if you think you are going to generate and spend less than $1,000, or $5,000 for other campaigns.

That way, a candidate can run whatever money they want through a campaign because no one is going to check the bank accounts.

She is endorsed by:

https://mcrgo.org/

• Right-to-Life (there are 217 filings of this network, with the Detroit chapter of the most interest in marketing citizenship opportunities through young girls.);
• Citizens for Traditional Values;
• Michigan Chamber of Commerce; and,
• Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (a group connected to an ongoing, foreign political influence investigation, among other matters of interest).

So, in a nutshell, I am trying to find out why this woman would "consent to dissent" by saying, basically, MCI was not whimsically pulling decisions out its arse in denying consent for the aunt to adopt her niece because it was due to a technical error of the lower court not to rule in favor of MCI keeping the kid as a ward of the state, even though the parents voluntarily terminated their parental rights for the aunt to adopt.

What I see is that Colleen O'Brien seems to be one of those "foreign-influenced" individuals who are part of the newest trend to rebrand foster care and adoption, starting in Michigan, of course, by privatizing the courts, starting in child welfare, like they always do.

Tag, Colleen. You are it.

http://www.ffkids.org/

It also seems Colleen deferred to Fostering Futures, to support MCI Superintendent denying consent of an aunt to adopt her niece.

So, allow me to tell a little tale of Fostering Futures.

Carmine DeVivo is an individual who needs to be permanently extracted from human existence.

Carmine DeVivo came out of Michigan State University School of Social Work to run one of the first trafficking tiny humans networks out Orchards Children's Services in Michigan.

What he used to do was to run what is called concurrent planning ops that go like this.

The kid is Legally Kidnapped by CPS and placed in the private, state contracted Child Placing Agency for foster care.

While in foster care, Orchards bills Medicaid twice, thrice or even under different names of the kid, in phantom billing, double billing, treble billing, or just made up cases to bill.

Hell, Orchards even ran a juvenile case on a woman who was in her 30s, where they phantom billed, double billed, treble billed, for whatever they came up with.

While all this was going on, Carmine, in his infinite wisdom, would set up concurrent planning, which is a code in Michigan for Medicaid billing for adoption services, while billing for foster care services, at the same time....concurrently....contemporaneously....simultaneously.....fake billing.

Anyway, Carmine would refer his foster care cases to himself for adoption counseling.

Yes, this is how I came up with the term "Kiddy Kickbacks".

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=Kiddy+Kickbacks

Curriculum Vitae of Carmine... by on Scribd

Back to Colleen.

She basically deferred to the authority of Fostering Futures, which is run by some chick with the same last name as Carmine, who is probably his adoptive daughter or sister, or something like that, which just so happens to be registered as a Michigan LLC and a domestic non-profit.

But, hey, what do I know?

I know Colleen sucks.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and METER and O’BRIEN, JJ.  PER CURIAM.  Petitioner, Lucinda Carrier, the paternal aunt of the minor child RC, sought consent to adopt RC after the parental rights of RC’s biological parents were voluntarily released.  The superintendent of the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) withheld consent to adopt.1  Carrier challenged the denial of consent to adopt in the circuit court.  After conducting a hearing pursuant to MCL 710.45(2) (Section 45 hearing), the circuit court found that the superintendent’s decision to deny consent was arbitrary and capricious.  The MCI appeals that decision as of right.

LUCINDA CARRIER, v. Michigan Children's Institute on Section 45 Appeal for Grandparent Adoption 01 17 2019... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Sucks

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission sucks and this is why:

To begin, in Michigan, Supreme Court Judicial Candidates are exempted from disclosing campaign contributions.

SCOTUS handed down a wishy-washy ruling on judicial candidates soliciting campaign contributions.

Judicial lobbying is something that goes on everyday, meaning that a judge can sit on the board of a child welfare organization while presiding over a case where the chid welfare organization is in front of the court.

The Madame Maura Corrigan used to do it all the time.

But then, there is this particular situation.

I have not checked lately but, back in the dark ages of Michigan Child Welfare, members of the Judicial Tenure Commission used to sit on the boards of child welfare organizations, like St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Center, where, if one was to file a grievance against a presiding judge in a child welfare case like St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Center, the chances were 100% that the grievance would be dismissed.

Dude would not even give the chance to recuse himself when a case was brought to his court, where the defendant was St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Center.

He refused to "entertain" the filing.

Michigan Mandamus Denial by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Before anyone decides to dismiss this blatant conflict of interest, let me tell you a little story about the Michigan Court of Appeals.

See, back in the 1980s, Michigan came up with this brilliant plan to stop the bottle necking of cases going to appeal.

Instead of providing due process for all citizens, the Michigan COA decided to filter cases it deemed worthy upon the reading of "a clerk", not a judge.

These judges were well aware of the questionable operations in the lower courts so the COA restructured to only take cases that would benefit their own personal interests/investments.

So, what had happened was...

The moment I realized
Judge Michael Kelly was mad at me

According to the Michigan court rules, it says that you can file in the COA anything against a public official.

So, I did, but I did it my way.

I filed an ex-parte writ of Mandamus.  

See, this means that I am asking the court to make a decision on whether a public official has to follow a specific statute, and if they do, the court has to make the decision whether to make the public official do it, or make them show up in court and give a good reason why they are not upholding the
law.

So, the clerk actually calls me to tell me that I had to serve the public official.

I told him I did not, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Michigan Court Rules because it was an extraordinary writ.

Needless to say, I made him and Michael Kelly mad because no one had ever identified this error in the restructuring of the COA.

Michigan Mandamus Denial by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Of course, I did not bother filing a Michigan Judicial Tenure Grievance because he would have denied that one, too, just like he did all the others.


JUDGE MICHAEL J. KELLYCOURT OF APPEALS

Of Bloomfield Hills, born 1929 in Cleveland, OH, admitted to bar 1956; trial practice tri-county area; founding partner Kelly, Oster, Brennan, Tatham & Solner; attended John Carroll University, Kent State University and the University of Detroit undergraduate schools (no undergraduate degree); JD University of Detroit 1956; LL.M. University of Virginia (Master of Laws in the Judicial Process) 1982; Korean War Veteran, Eighth Army, Seoul, Korea, 1953-1954; married 1957, four children, Michael, Timothy, John and Kathleen; remarried 1988 to Marilyn E. (Ramirez) who is a practicing R.N., Waterford, Michigan, three stepchildren; former member American Legion, VFW, Knights of Columbus, Board of Advisors of the Saint Vincent and Sarah Fisher Center, Board of Directors of Boysville of Michigan; present member of Detroit Athletic Club, Michigan Handball Association, Trout Creek Condominium Association, Harbor Springs; Director of Incorporated Society of Irish/American Lawyers; professional affiliations include ABA, IJA, AJS, Fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation and member of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society, Inc.; elected member of Judicial Tenure Commission June 13, 1977 through December 31, 1985, past Chairman 1981-1982.

So, if you have a case, or know of a case, where you find out a judge did something jacked up like sit on a board or have financial interests with a party of a case, where that particular party committed fraud upon the court, and continues to rule in their favor, you, and the public, are just out of luck.

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission just sucks.

And so does Kelly Ramsey.

State Supreme Court considers limits on judicial misconduct probes

LANSING, Mich. (WXYZ) - A new rule being considered by the state's highest court could limit complaints of misconduct against judges. Michigan's Supreme Court justices are considering adding a three-year statute of limitations to complaints filed against judges with the Judicial Tenure Commission.

According to the proposed rule, “any complaint filed more than three years after the grievant knew…or should have known...shall be dismissed.” Since 2014, 34 judges across the state have faced some sort of action that began at the Judicial Tenure Commission, which can range from a letter of caution to being removed from the bench entirely.

 "There’s just all kind of reasons why trying to defend something three years after the fact is difficult," said Brian Einhorn, an attorney in support of the rule change.

Einhorn has represented dozens of judges accused of misconduct, from former Judge Wade McCree—who carried on an affair with a litigant—to ex-Justice Diane Hathaway, who was sent to prison for bank fraud.

"If a person knows that a judge did something three and a half or four years ago, I don’t think it’s fair to the judge to have to defend himself," Einhorn said.

But not all attorneys agree. Peter Henning is a former federal prosecutor and today is a law professor at Wayne State University.

 "You’re talking about an individual who has immense power and can be quite intimidating," Henning said.

"If you have certain types of cases, say for example a sexual harassment case, that may take years to surface because the individual who was harassed is going to be intimidated and might not have the strength to come forward for four or five years."

 The proposed rule allows for claims outside of the three-year statute of limitations to be considered for "good cause," but critics fear the term is vague and could lead to prolonged legal battles.

 "Should the judge be able to get off simply because (misconduct) happened more than three years ago?" asked Chanel 7's Ross Jones.

 "But we’re dealing with something that’s probably not going to happen very often,"  Einhorn responded.

 But there have been past examples of misconduct that could have been thrown out with a statute of limitations.

 In Wayne County, Judge Bruce Morrow was disciplined for misconduct that happened years before a formal complaint was filed, including giving bond to a man after he was convicted of rape, even though state law didn’t allow it. Morrow was suspended for two months.

 Today in Livingston County, Judge Teresa Brennan is under fire for her affair with a state police officer that testified in a murder trial in her courtroom.

His testimony helped to send a man to prison.

Their affair happened more than three years before it was finally discovered.

It’s unclear if the JTC is investigating Brennan.

 Still, attorney Brian Einhorn says judges shouldn’t have to defend themselves from years-old allegations, after memories fade and evidence becomes stale.

 "There’s timing for doing everything," Einhorn said.

"And there’s nothing different about a judge being accused of misconduct to a lawyer being accused of malpractice to a doctor being accused of malpractice."

 Except in Michigan, there is no statute of limitations for complaints against lawyers or doctors, either.

Giving judges special protection would be unique and improper, argues Carl Marlinga, who is a judge himself.

 "The unintended effect, certainly, is to offer a level of protection for bad judges," Marlinga said. "With the judiciary, maximum integrity is the minimum qualification.

Anything that would protect or shield a judge from scrutiny I just think is wrong."

 A decision on the proposed statute of limitations and scores of other rules currently being considered by the Michigan Supreme Court could come any day.

 "What is the benefit?" asks Wayne State's Peter Henning.

"What is the upside, other than what appears to be giving judges added protections?"

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why Michigan Gives CPS Immunity

Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that CPS agents are immune from liability even though it is substantially documented that they failed in their duties and let this girl meet her death.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the ruling and this is why.

There is a history of Calista Springer's mother, friends and family fighting for her well-being but in Michigan, it does not work that way.

Mark Bugnaski / Kalamazoo GazetteMembers of Calista Springer's biological mother's family mourned after her funeral Monday in front of the house in downtown Centreville where Calista died in a fire.

Michigan CPS advocated for the father to have custody of Calista years ago despite complaints of her mother.

Anthony Springer was prone to fits of rage and violence, often throwing objects and punching walls and doors, according to a court document filed by his wife in 1999 seeking a personal-protection order. Marsha Springer, then 29, told a St. Joseph County judge in a four-page letter that her husband threatened her at times and often took out his anger on their three young daughters. "Tony never has a kind word to say to the girls and has never told them that he loves them," Marsha wrote in the letter attached to her request for the protection order.  "It's just constant yelling to shut up, get out of my way and get out of my sight."

Michigan granted the father consent to adopt his own child.  How can a biological father adopt his own child?  There were adoption bonuses and subsidies attached to this.  The last time I checked this is considered a false claim, defrauding the federal government with the blessings of Michigan.

This is why Michigan ruled in favor of CPS, otherwise it would be admitting to false claims.

The CPS agents are not the ones liable, it is the state as they are only agents who follow the training and supervision of their superiors.  It is the administration of the state which generates policies allowing for misfeasance and possible malfeasances in situations such as this.  It is the state that will not hold these workers accountable.  They may be just transferred like the workers of the Ricky Holland case.

I consider this nothing more than a severe breech of public policy.

The individual who is liable is the Michigan Director of Department of Human Services, The Madame Maura Corrigan.  Even though she was not in the position, she inherited all responsibilities of Marianne Udow, the former Director who demonstrated positive presentations in lack of empathy to the posterity of childhood and human existence.  Proudly, I state that I am the one who made her resign. (A story for another post).

With that said, the Court ruled properly.  CPS agents are not liable and it was remanded for proper amendment of the record.

Rulings like this made me run for State Representative of District 4.  Spread the word, I coming to Lansing.

Calista Springer

"Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur"

Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion Giving CPS Immunity

UPDATE: Judge Michael J. Kelly used to sit on the Board of Advisors for St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Institution I had shut down for similar actions as outlined in this case.  He also sat on Board of Directors for Boysville, another hell hole.


The attorneys of this case should file for recusal based upon new evidence presented below and amend he complaint because he has a history of turning a blind eye to what goes on in Michigan's child welfare.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©