DOJ: Time To Audit God & The Gender Of Corporate Juridic Persons

Well, if religious schools are now to be treated equally to non-religious schools, will this apply as sub-recipient grant monitoring and the penalties that may ensue?

#Time2AuditGod

Department of Justice Announces Proposed Rule Regarding Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations and Guidance on School Prayer

The Department of Justice announced a proposed rule today that would implement President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13831 (May 3, 2018), remove regulatory burdens on religious organizations, and ensure that religious and non-religious organizations are treated equally in DOJ-supported programs.  The proposed rule ensures that DOJ-supported social service programs are implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution and other applicable federal law. 

The department also announced, in conjunction with the Department of Education, guidance on school prayer.  The updated guidance provides information on legal protections for prayer and other religious expression in public schools. 

“Since our nation’s founding, there has always been a strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States and the freedom of religious expression,” said Attorney General William P. Barr.  “The Framers of the Constitution believed that both were indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.  The actions taken by the administration today will hopefully help secure religious freedom in our country for decades to come.”

Background on Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations

Under current regulations that govern DOJ-supported programs, religious providers of social services — but not other providers of social services — must make referrals under certain circumstances and must post notices regarding this referral procedure.  These regulatory burdens had been required by then-President Obama’s Executive Order No. 13559 (Nov. 17, 2010).  Consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13831 (May 3, 2018), the DOJ’s proposed rule would eliminate them from DOJ regulations.  As the DOJ’s proposed rule observes, these burdens were not required by any applicable law, and because they were imposed only on religious social service providers, they are in tension with recent Supreme Court precedent regarding nondiscrimination against religious organizations.  The proposed rule also will foreclose other unequal treatment of religious organizations by ensuring that they are not required to provide assurances or notices that are not required of secular organizations. 

In addition, the proposed rule will clarify that religious organizations may apply for awards on the same basis as any other organization and that when DOJ selects award recipients, DOJ will not discriminate based on an organization’s religious character.  The proposed rule also clarifies that religious organizations participating in DOJ-supported programs retain their independence from the government and may continue to carry out their missions consistent with religious freedom protections in federal law, including the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. 

The proposed rule incorporates the Attorney General’s 2017 Memorandum for All Executive Departments and Agencies, Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty.  That memorandum was issued pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13798 (May 4, 2017), and it guides all federal administrative agencies and executive departments in complying with federal law.

Background on School Prayer Guidance

Section 8524(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act and codified at 20 U.S.C. § 7904(a), requires the Secretary of Education to issue guidance to State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and the public on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools.  It requires the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to review the guidance prior to distribution to ensure that it represents the current state of the law.  In addition, section 8524(b) requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, an LEA must certify in writing to its SEA that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as detailed in this updated guidance.

The purpose of this updated guidance is to provide information on the current state of the law concerning religious expression in public schools.  Part I is an introduction.  Part II clarifies the extent to which prayer in public schools is legally protected.  LEAs and SEAs are responsible, under section 8524(b) of the ESEA, to certify their compliance with the standards set forth in Part II.

Part III of this updated guidance generally addresses principles of religious liberty that relate to religious expression more broadly, including prayer, in accordance with Executive Order 13798 (May 4, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 21675 (May 9, 2017), and the Attorney General’s Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty of October 7, 2017, 82 Fed. Reg. 49668 (Oct. 26, 2017) (AG Memo).  It is meant to advise SEAs and LEAs on how to comply with governing constitutional and statutory law, but it is not a part of the required certification under section 8524(b) of the ESEA.  Part IV discusses the Equal Access Act, which provides statutory protection for religious expression in public schools.  These broader principles were drawn substantially from a 1995 presidential memorandum, Memorandum on Religious Expression in Public Schools, 2 Pub. Papers 1083 (July 12, 1995), and a 1998 Department of Education memorandum, Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education, Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles (June 1998).

The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and the Office of General Counsel in the Department of Education have jointly approved this updated guidance as reflecting the current state of the law.  This updated guidance will be made available on the Department of Education’s website (www.ed.gov) and the Department of Justice’s website (www.justice.gov).

What is the tool for measuring who is a woman, and will it be determined as a phenotype or genotype?

The passage of the Equal Rights Amendment—and its guarantee of legal equality to women—is decades overdue. With Virginia's ratification, 38 states have now voiced the need for an amendment that enshrines and strengthens the rights of women in the Constitution.

Read my statement: pic.twitter.com/KzaNAqzC1r

— (((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) January 16, 2020

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SENATE JUDICIARY: Hearing On Why Foreign Stealin' U.S. Intellectual Property Is So Easy - Detroit Patent & Trademark Office and Federally Funded Gerrymandering in Child Welfare

It is really easy to steal intellectual property from the U.S. because we created the system.

Grassley knows about stealin' as it is his legacy in the False Claims Act.

Stealin' intellectual property from the U.S. by foreign actors is so easy is three-fold:

1. The U.S. has to import its intellectual resources in foreign students with full tuition through various federal programs like H1B, because most U.S. students cannot get into higher educational programs because K12 sucks, poverty has a substantial impact on learning; and, Mummy & Daddy like to steal from federal housing programs from "The Poors", like those Haiti NGOs and TARP.
2. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office first satellite is in Detroit, where the culture of stealing' the children, the land and the votes, is a global way of life.
3. Foreign interests can use U.S. DHHS grants, or false claims to Medicaid, to pay for their private investments R&D using kids as human lab rats and not get caught.

They are talking about DHHS subrecipients, yet fail to say "subrecipients".

NIH and DHHS are looking at internal controls of referrals in audits of taxpayer research?

What inner controls?

You have to have inner controls before you look at them.

Just as Jerry Milner.

Duh.

The witnesses are lyin' & stealin' because they refuse to address say a single word about fraud.

Now, you do not have to watch the hearing.

The following are transposable data models, funded through U.S. DHHS grants, for the purposes of stealin' the children.....

Miami - Dade County Florida Developing the Five Year Plan for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Neglect, and A... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

The, they hire those foreign students to use the DHHS Medicaid paid research for stealin' the land...

Little HaitiCommunity Needs Assessment:Housing Market AnalysisDecember 2015 - TARP (author is Marie Llcheva.)

And finally, those foreign students who are hired into federal government, turn around and federally contract with fake ass LLCs, to run child welfare money laundering operations, originating in DHHS grants, to fund political campaigns in highly sophisticated financial fraud schemes for the purposes of redistricting.

If you do not live there, you cannot send your children to school there, and neither can you vote there.

http://www.dadeschools.net/schoolboard/districts/index.asp

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 222 - Hillary's Leakers, Hackers, and Henchmen: KimDotCom, DNC & FBI

DNC Pulled the File. Early Metadata Looks Like July 7th, 2016, But We Are Having Experts Review 

 FBI Evidence Bag For FBI Bullet? 

 Kim Dotcom Negotiating a Plea Deal 

 Imran Awan at Inter-America, Congressman Wexler's Capitol Hill Reality Show on Sundance Channel 6 Called The Hill

Long version

Blackberries and Govt Contracting

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Children's Rights Needs To Rake Massachusetts Over The Coals

New Reports Show Massachusetts Failing to Protect Children in Foster Care

Children’s Rights: Thousands of young lives endangered due to lack of oversight within child welfare agency

Want to know why?  Click here

Do not believe me?  Click here to read how the feds caught Massachusetts in a $47 million Medicaid administrative hustle.

All this happened under the stewardship of Mitt Romney.

(Boston, MA) — A massive review of Massachusetts foster care shows that nearly one in five children who have been in state care for at least two years have suffered confirmed abuse or neglect — all while in the custody of the state Department of Children and Families (DCF), according to one of five reports issued by independent child welfare policy experts and released today by national advocacy group Children’s Rights and local counsel. All rapes and beatings were paid for by tax dollars.

“Far too many children in Massachusetts remain at risk of maltreatment even after they enter the protection of the state’s child welfare system,” said Marcia Robinson Lowry, founder and executive director of Children’s Rights. “These new reports further underscore the critical need to overhaul as it fails to meet its moral and legal duty to keep kids in foster care safe from further harm.”  One would be led to believe that after decades of throwing money into a dysfunctional system which only resulted in an increase of systemic corruption of dysfunctionality, there would be some semblance of common sense to realize what is being witnesses is a classic text book example of the term "sunken costs".

A report that reviewed case files of more than 480 children shows that is failing to meet its own policies and performance targets. The findings are consistent with federal studies that rank Massachusetts among the bottom 10 child welfare systems in the United States when it comes to ensuring children are safe in foster care and have stable placements.

Additional reports issued today examined the day-to-day performance of  These in-depth studies show that the state’s foster care system is harming children as a result of systemic dysfunction in several key areas:

• DCF social workers are not consistently making required monthly visits to children, violating DCF policy and federal standards. 

• DCF workers fail to make more than a quarter of the monthly visits to children required under federal law and  More than 25 percent of approved foster homes do not receive required annual reassessments or license renewals in a timely manner, and nearly 15 percent of new kin placements do not receive timely home studies to assure safety.

• DCF has not developed an adequate contract monitoring system to supervise and assess the performance of private child placement agencies or private institutional living facilities despite the fact the state refers approximately 60 percent of children in foster care to such placements.

• DCF is among the bottom 10 systems in the nation when it comes to keeping children in stable placements; and studies conducted in 2011 reveal that children in state custody are shuffled between foster homes at extremely high rates. Two named plaintiffs had more than 20 placements and three others had between eight and 12 placements.

• The agency falls in the bottom third of foster care systems in the country when it comes to finding permanent homes for children in a timely manner.

• Among a sample of children in care sometime between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, more than 18 percent who were reunified with their parents reentered DCF care due repeat abuse or neglect.  Pay attention to the time frame of July 1, 2009 and June 39, 2010.  There was another "study" which should be properly referred to as a federal audit uncovering a relatively unsophisticated revenue maximization scheme.  It goes like this:

Massachusetts takes the "reasonable cause" evidentiary standard and revs up the "when in doubt, report it" policy based on a scathing report from Children's Advocacy Institute and First Star, who later collaborate with the imperialistic morality parade called "Every Child Matters", who now seems to be operating as a Political Action Committee.

When mandatory reporting policy was expanded and reinforced there was a shift in funding streams.  Instead of home and community based services, programs and services were cut like family reunification; whereby, extending the length of stay in care and increasing recidivism rates.

• Among a sample of children in care more than two years, more than 50 percent were administered one or more psychotropic medications.  Once a child is in placement Medicaid billing is optimalized because Medicaid pays without asking any questions to the legitimacy of costs or services.  When a child is put on psychotropic medication, the state can bill Title IV-E more for the keep of the child.

“DCF prescribes powerful psychotropic drugs to foster kids while it has not even developed a system to monitor the medical records of children in state care,” said Lowry. “This is just one example of how a lack of oversight within the agency is endangering thousands of young lives while DCF management continues to defend its dysfunctional child welfare system.”  Allow me to take this one a step further.  Massachusetts does not even have a system to monitor its administrative costs in most of its Medicaid programs.  I believe I would be quite safe to wager that Massachusetts does not even have any internal controls for its child welfare contracts.

The five experts who conducted the studies have extensive backgrounds in their respective fields of child welfare policy, social work, organizational management and child and adolescent psychiatry. Their independent reports include:

• DCF operations that finds structural deficiencies across many key areas. The report is authored by Cathy Crabtree, who served for eight years as Assistant Commissioner for the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services and two and a half years as Associate Commissioner for the Alabama Department of Mental Health.

• A Review of Named Plaintiffs’ Case Files which studies five of the six named plaintiff children and finds that DCF fails to meet minimum practice standards. The report is authored by Lenette Azzi-Lessing,  Ph.D, a professor of social work at Wheelock College. Dr. Azzi-Lessing was a social work practitioner for nearly 30 years in Rhode Island.

• DCF fails to adequately monitor the administration of powerful psychotropic medication to children entrusted to its care. It is authored by Christopher Bellonci, MD, a professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine and the senior psychiatric consultant at the Walker Home and School in Massachusetts.

• A Safety Review of the  DCF safety net finding holes in the agency’s performance on special investigations, licensing, contract monitoring and related safety practices and authored by Arburta Jones, former Executive Director of the Division of Central Operations in the New Jersey Department of Children and Families from 2006 to 2008 and Chief of Staff of the New Jersey Office of the Child Advocate from 2003 to 2006.

• DCF fails to meet legal, regulatory, and policy standards across a variety of case practice areas. The study is conducted by the Children’s Research Center, a non-profit social research organization and a division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Children’s Rights, with Boston law firm Nutter McClennen & Fish filed the lawsuit known as Connor B. v. Patrick in April 2010, charging  DCF with failing to meet constitutional requirements and its legal duty to ensure the safety and well-being of children in its custody by routinely placing them in dangerous and unstable situations once removed from their parents’ care.

The lawsuit asserts that children in Massachusetts suffer abuse in foster care and bounce from one foster home or institution to another at alarming rates. Also, a high percentage languish in foster care for years, and ultimately age out of the system without permanent families or the skills needed to live as independent adults. The lawsuit links these problems to DCF’s failure to effectively manage its workforce, resources, and practices.

On January 4, 2011, U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor rejected Massachusetts officials’ efforts to block abused and neglected children’s access to federal court by denying a motion to dismiss the federal case. Less than two months later, the judge ruled that the lawsuit may proceed as a class action on behalf of the approximately 7,500 abused and neglected children in state custody. A trial is set for January 21, 2013.

The lawsuit filed in 2010 named six children as plaintiffs to represent the class who at the time ranged in ages from 9 to 15 years old and shared a history of harm in  DCF 

custody. They included:

• Nine-year-old Connor who suffered sexual abuse as DCF shuffled him between seven different foster homes in three years. Connor struggles with severe mental, behavioral, and emotional challenges as a result.

• Adam 15 years old, who was severely beaten in a residential treatment facility. DCF failed to provide him with a permanent family and gave him no preparation for living independently as an adult.

• Camila R., 13 years old, who was separated from her two sisters and returned to her abusive mother, has lived in at least 11 different placements while in foster care. DCF denied her vital educational and mental health services.

• Fifteen-year-old Andre who has been legally free for adoption for over 10 years and spent seven of 12 years in the state’s care in a residential facility rather than a foster placement or relative’s home.

• Seth T. 13 years old, was bounced between five foster placements in his first sixteen months in foster care. DCF has effectively cut Seth’s ties with his family, arranged visits with his brothers only a few times a year and never properly explored the possibility of placing him with relatives.

• Fifteen-year-old Rakeem  was not only immediately separated from his three siblings, but also denied the opportunity to live with relatives who may have been able to care for him. As DCF has moved Rakeem through at least eight different foster and group homes, his education and behavioral health has suffered.

More information about Children’s Rights’ campaign to reform the child welfare system in Massachusetts can be found at www.childrensrights.org/massachusetts/.

I am extremely disappointed with how Children's Rights is handling the Michigan case.  I know in the past I have highlighted how attorney fees are not directly benefiting the children who have been harmed, but now I sincerely hope they rake Massachusetts over the coals and make them a national example for failure to comply.



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©