THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
That black guy Pushkin
This is his portray as a young man. And yes - the greatest Russian poet Alexander Pushkin is of African descent.
Alexander Pushkin's great-grandfather was black. His name was Abram Gannibal, an Afro-Russian noble, military engineer and general under the famous Russian czar Peter the Great.
Abram Gannibal was brought as a child slave from what is now Cameroon and gifted to the Russian czar Peter the Great - who came to love the child, raised him as a son and godson, gave him a title of nobility, and got him married into a family of Russian nobility to give him a future in a patriarchal country.
I did not see much of public celebration of his heritage in the U.S., or of his contribution to the world literature.
It may be attributed to the fact that Pushkin wrote in rhymed verse - in Russian, of course - and, as any translator knows, to translate verse, the translator him/herself needs to be a gifted poet, writing also in rhymed verse.
It has been noted by observers, most recently, yesterday, by BBC (the article is in Russian, I will strive to find the English version), that poor translations of Pushkin resulted in misunderstanding of his works by readers in other languages, that, while the West "expects" from Russian literature to be philosophizing and discussing existential issues, Pushkin's verse is intimate and delicate - and, I must add, that is true even though Pushkin touched upon in his verse and prose deep philosophical issues, and described historical events.
Pushkin, I must say, was also a rebel against religious dogma and zealotry. His "Gabrieliad", written when he was 22 (he was fatally injured at a duel at 37) is openly mocking the concept of immaculate conception. Even though Pushkin denied authorship of "Gabrieliad" during his lifetime, scholars analyzing his works - as well as any reader who knows Pushkin's style - will find it difficult to believe that anybody else wrote that poem.
In Russia, every child remembers as bedtime reading - for 2 centuries so far - Pushkin's fairy tales.
Pushkin's romantic verses are famous, as well as his "Little tragedies" cycle and his historical prose:
"The Captain's daughter" - a novel about the uprising of Emelyan Pougachiov against the just-enthroned empress Catherine The Great and
"Peter The Great's Negro" ("Арап Петра Великого") - before accusing me, please, note that the book was written in the 18th century, and that I cannot change its title.
His two poems in verses were turned into operas - "Eugene Onegin", music by Piotr Chaikovsky, and "Ruslan and Ludmila", music by Mikhail Glinka.
Pushkin is part of the world literature, the founder of the Russian literature, and surely a Goliath of the African heritage literature, and it is a shame his anniversary was not noted, nor his literary heritage celebrated in this country on his birthday yesterday.
A judge-advocate for the rapist is condemned in the media and by the state Legislature - just one judge-advocate, and only because of the social media outrage
Another is about a military veteran judge who was giving leniency to violent felons who were military veterans and advocating for them even after he gave them "house arrest" and probation instead of 20 years in prison in accordance with charges.
By the way, I did not discern any public outrage from that sentence - where a trained-to-kill man is being unleashed upon the community, and 50 more such people are hatching in the Veterans Treatment court.
Yet, public outrage with judicial decisions which look pretty much like advocacy for the defendants still happen.
For example, a petition has been launched to take from the bench the judge who sentenced a rapist convicted by a jury to 6 months in jail plus probation - for a felony, where, as of yesterday, 152,000 signatures have been collected.
The public outrage is complete with an Assemblywoman's public request to the judge to resign, and threatening to "exhaust other measures for holding him accountable" if he does not resign.
On the one hand, a judge must not be swayed by public opinion, and pressure from outside sources should not sway judicial decisions.
On the other hand, the public is obviously capable of seeing things through and seeing that Judge Aaron Persky, a former athlete, had a soft spot for another former athlete, convicted felon Brock Turner - and thus thought it too tough to hold him fully accountable for rape he was convicted of by the jury.
Yet, I am sure that if the prosecution would have asked the judge to recuse because of his background as an athlete, the judge would have laughed the prosecution out of the courtroom by telling them that his background as an white male athlete is "too attenuated" to recuse him from this case.
And, nevertheless, his background mattered - and he did act as an advocate for his "brother" athlete-the-rapist.
So, next time a judge tells you that his background is not important and is "too attenuated" for the appearance of impropriety charge - remember this case.
And remember Judge Holder's case.
And remember Judge Philpot's case.
Because the judge's background matters - and judges often engage in advocacy for the parties they deem attenuated to.
Here it is the rapist who was an athlete.
In another blog here I described a judge who gave leniency (in an ex parte hearing, without the presence or notification to the prosecution) to a sex offender probationer who sang in the church choir at the church the judge attended.
Judges know they are immune from prosecution.
And they do engage in advocacy on behalf of parties they favor.
And the only reason, unfortunately, for calls for resignation of Judge Persky is because of the storm in social media.
If people are silent, judges advocates will proceed fixing cases for those they favor.
Judges as advocates for causes in their own courtrooms: A military veteran judge disciplined for advocating on behalf of his brother, an army veteran, a violent felon "Green Beret" who committed a hate crime against a presumed Muslim
Here is what Clay S. Allred did:
"An Army National Guard reservist at the time, Allred was staying in a hotel in Ybor City while waiting to move into an apartment that was being painted. His Jeep was loaded with the few things he owned — three rifles registered to him, some body armor he used during training, clothing, dishes, ironing board, computers, guitar and cables.
He spent a good part of Aug. 21 drinking. On the way back to his apartment, he finally had a break with reality at a gas station on Fowler Avenue and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, at a corner of the USF campus.
For Allred, the memories of what happened next are hazy. Much of what he knows comes from a video taken of the incident.
He says he wanted to use the bathroom but was told it was only for customers. He tried to buy an energy drink, but the clerk wouldn’t break his $100 bill.
Then he urinated on the counter and yelled “I hate you people” to the clerk, Quadratullah Hassan, who is Muslim.
Hassan chased Allred out to his car.
As Allred pulled away, he fired three shots from his Glock 26 pistol into the air."
Ok, so we have:
1) driving while intoxicated;
2) urinating on the counter in a public place - that's public lewdness, a sex crime in many states;
3) aiming a Glock 26 pistol at a clerk, and
4) firing a pistol into the air - three times - in a public place, and at a gas station, which could have caused fatalities.
Clay S. Allred was already given tremendous leniency, a house arrest and probation, a leniency that can only be explained by the military veteran-judge's partiality to a military veteran who, instead of being prosecuted for felonies, was given a slap on the wrist.
Allred was charged with "discharging a firearm from a vehicle, a second-degree felony with a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, as well as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison, and criminal mischief, a first-degree misdemeanor" - but, interestingly enough, he was not charged with public lewdness (urinating in a public place), a sex crime.
After all that, Allred was given a house arrest and probation, and his "brother", an army veteran judge Holder engaged in advocacy on his behalf even after he was convicted.
Judge Holder wrote to the Allred's university that expelled him after he committed a crime, asking to restore him as an online student.
In many online programs, students must take some exams in person and thus appear on campus.
It is thus understandable that the university refused to enroll the convicted violent felon, protecting other students and people on campus from violent outbursts of this trained-to-kill army veteran who hates Muslims to the point that he already shot (in the air for now) when seeing a person of Middle-Eastern descent and who engaged in public lewdness - for which he was never even charged.
The judge himself is a retired colonel.
With all that in-built bias, the judge presides (and was left to continue to preside) over a Veterans Treatment Court - while obviously acting as an advocate and not as an impartial judge, and letting dangerous, trained-to-kill, felons to have a slap on the wrist and remain free to commit more crimes.
After Allred's case was closed - with house arrest and probation for several violent felonies - Judge "Holder continued to lobby for Allred. In November, he wrote a letter to USF's president asking that Allred to be readmitted to the university as an online student. He pleaded before the school's board of trustees, enlisted the support of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald in Washington, D.C., and sought help from U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla."
What is amazing is that the Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald considered it appropriate to help a judge advocate on behalf of a violent felon to enroll that violent felon into the university - which is another shooting waiting to happen, just wait until Allred drinks again to the point of urinating on the counter in a public place.
When the university, protecting its students, employees and visitors from another potential campus shooter, refused to enroll Allred, the judge "called the university's response "an absolute abdication of their responsibility to their students, especially their student veterans."
In fact, what the university did in refusing to enroll Allred was a complete opposite - a responsibility to the students, employees and visitors. But, for the judge the only thing that mattered was that Allred was his "brother", a military veteran - and for the judge, the benefit for the "brother" was more important than the danger to the lives of thousands of people on campus and in the community.
For that - the judge "agreed" to a reprimand only.
When a judge starts to engage in advocacy for a person with the same background as the judge himself - the judge should be taken off the bench immediately, not "agree" to a reprimand.
At this time, since the judge received only a slap on the writs and was allowed to stay on the bench, he will simply disguise his advocacy into what will be deemed as "judicial discretion". But he remains an advocate for the veterans, even for those who present a danger to the public, like Clay S. Allred, a former Green Beret who Judge Holder allowed to escape violent hate-crime charges.
Since Judge Holder was given only a slap on the wrist, expect more of the same - and worse - from him.
Since Clay S. Allred was given only a slap on the wrist, expect more of the same - and worse - from him, too.
Remember, Clay S. Allred is a trained Green Beret who hates Muslims, and who discerns whether a person is or is not a Muslim by how he or she looks.
Clay S. Allred "completed mental health counseling.
He logged more than the required number of community service hours.
And he has stayed away from alcohol."
It is acknowledged in the article that "in another courtroom, those accomplishments wouldn’t have meant as much.
But on this Friday, Allred, a former Green Beret staff sergeant, was appearing in Hillsborough County’s Veterans Treatment Court, where the steps he’s taken mean the difference between prison time on felony charges and house arrest."
This is not a non-violent crime.
This is a person trained to kill pointing a loaded gun at another person because he hates that person for no other reason than his presumed religious affiliation.
Clay S. Allred faced 20 years in prison for his crimes.
He escaped with no jail time at all, thanks to Judge Holder.
I wonder if the victim of Clay S. Allred's crime was consulted about propriety of such leniency.
"The Veterans Treatment Court was launched in October 2013 by county Circuit Judge Richard Weis, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves, who saw a steady stream of misdemeanor charges filed against veterans suffering from service-related mental illness, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder."
The Veterans Treatment Court was established for veterans charged with misdemeanors - but, when Clay Allred was charged with hate crimes, felonies, the Veterans Treatment Court was conveniently expanded to encompass army veterans charged with felonies, too - just to accommodate Clay Allred.
Just like that - a military veteran judge creates a separate court for his "brothers", military veterans, so that it is not the jury who would be considering "service-related mental illness, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder" as AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to violent crimes of army veterans, but military veteran judges who would advocate for defendants as their "brothers".
And just like that - the program expands to make an ineligible army veteran, charged with violent felonies and facing 20 years in prison, eligible for a slap on the wrist - a "house arrest".
This judge-advocacy court exists for 3 years by now - with nobody opposing this singling out for special treatment of criminal defendants who are the most dangerous since they are trained to kill and unbalanced enough to use their skills to mass-murder, as it happened, for example, at the Camp Lejeune military base in North Carolina.
Leniency to dangerous criminals, whoever they are, because they are the judge's "brothers" is called corruption of the court system.
And both "judge advocates" - the one that instituted the Veterans Treatment Court, and the one who advocated for leniency to a person who pointed a loaded gun at an unknown person simply because he hated Muslims and thought his victim was a Muslim - should be removed from the bench and the Veterans Treatment Court dissolved.
The most dangerous criminal defendants should not be sentenced to "house arrest" instead of 20 years in prison, simply because they are army veterans.
If they are a danger to society, they must be held accountable in accordance with the law as everyone else.
And the same refers to judge-advocates.
And, please, note that there are 50 of other army veterans who were charged with misdemeanors and felonies who are currently in judge Holder's Veteran Treatment court.
With Holder's approach to "treatment" of violent felons who are his "brothers", we can only expect that Holder will keep unleashing dangerous trained-to-kill felons upon the society.
Because they are his brothers, and he can do nothing less for them, everybody else's right to life be damned.
Judges as advocates for causes in their own courtrooms: a novelist Kentucky #JudgeTomPhilpot promotes marriage as "Biblical analogy for God's love" while acting out his novel in the courtroom
Here is a judge, a Kentucky judge Tim Philpot who could not abstain from using court proceedings in front of him to impose upon people his personal and religious views - and do it for his own financial profit, in addition to his judicial salary.
Judge Tom Philpot wanted to put his experiences as a judge into a book.
He first reportedly wanted to share his knowledge of what is going on in divorce courts by writing a "serious scholarly about marriage" - but then found it to be "just too complicated".
When a judge finds writing a "serious scholarly book" on the subject he is supposed to be an expert in "too complicated" - an issue of his competency already arises.
But, what the judge did is simply beyond bizarre - he wrote a novel in lieu of a "serious scholarly book", invented procedures in that novel, took his invented procedures from the novel into his courtroom, and is acting out those procedures upon litigants.
Judge Philpot's "pro marriage" novel promoting marriage as a "Biblical analogy of God's love" is trading for $20 at the website http://www.judgezbook.com/.
Since Judge Philpot admits that he is "pro marriage" and that he wrote the novel in lieu of a "serious scholarly" book on divorce, because writing a "serious scholarly book" was "just too complicated", it is safe to assume that judge Philpot put his own personal views into the book.
And that is already a problem for litigants who must now think whether to come with their divorces in front of a "pro marriage" judge, and whether to come with their custody cases of children born out of wedlock in front of a pro marriage judge.
Judge Philpot also wrote in his book about the alleged bad consequences of marriages broken up - such as children born out of wedlock. It is, of course, an insult to any parents who consciously made their decision not to marry and to stay together without marriage, having children together. This judge considers their relationship, and children born of such a relationship a "bad consequence" of the broken institution of marriage - and publicly expresses that view in a book.
And that is a big issue for parents of children born out of wedlock appearing in front of Judge Philpot in custody, or child neglect proceedings where such parents never planned to marry in the first place - because there is a clear possibility that Judge Philpot may rule adversely in their cases simply because they were not married when they gave birth to a child.
Moreover, in his book Judge Philpot promoted his religious views - he "writes about marriage as the Biblical analogy for God’s love", so when he is promoting marriage in his courtroom, he is promoting also his religious views on that issue.
Unfortunately, Judge Philpot did not stop at writing a novel in lieu of a "serious scholarly book" because writing "serious scholarly" books is "just too complicated" and putting in his novel his personal views about the vices of having children born out of wedlock and the virtues of marriage "as the Biblical analogy for God's love".
Judge Philpot started to also act out his novel's plot in his courtroom, because the judge "decided if I was going to write about a crazy judge, I had to act a little crazy myself".
Well, at least, Judge Philpot recognizes that he was acting "crazy [him]self".
The issue that concerned the judge the most was - was marriages that people wanted to dissolve "irretrievably broken" enough to actually dissolve those marriages.
In other words, can couples be forced to stay married if one of the spouses wants out?
Judge "Philpot said he has recently been conducting short, informal Irretrievably Broken Hearings in divorce cases assigned to him that involve children. When a couple’s testimony makes him think there is a chance for reconciliation, he asks them to attend a “discernment counseling” session to better think through their decisions.
Philpot said it is too soon to say if the process has stopped any divorces. Because he is acting within the 60-day waiting period allowed by Kentucky law, there is nothing couples who object or their attorneys can do but grumble privately."
Now, one thing is to share custody of the children.
Quite another is to be coerced or forced to stay in an intimate relationship with a person you don't want to stay in that relationship with - for a variety of personal reasons.
It is apparent that the judge does not make a distinction between these two issues.
"Philpot said it is too soon to say if the process has stopped any divorces. Because he is acting within the 60-day waiting period allowed by Kentucky law, there is nothing couples who object or their attorneys can do but grumble privately" - so, the judge uses the guise of the 60-day "waiting period" to force his religious views upon parties in divorce proceedings, so "there is nothing couples who object or their attorneys can do but grumble privately".
A great approach by a judge, isn't it?
Philpot actually conducted an off-the-record "Irretrievably Broken hearing", acting out his novel, in front of a newspaper reporter trying to coerce a couple seeking an uncontested divorce to reconcile.
And, after that off-the-record "acting out the judge's novel" hearing, the judge ordered the couple to attend a "discernment counseling session".
Again, these people wanted out of their marriage, they wanted an uncontested divorce, and that's why they came before the judge.
Wanting a divorce is not good grounds to order people into counseling of any kind. They obviously could do that before they came to court.
It is also obvious that they were going to amicably share custody of their children, but that does not mean that anybody, including a judge, has the power or right to invade their privacy and force them to stay together in an intimate relationship if they do not want to.
I also resent the fact that Judge Philpot openly advertises his proselityzing in the courtroom by inviting a reporter, telling him about his novel, about marriage as the "Biblical analogy of God's love" and by even demonstrating his obviously illegal off-the-record "Irretrievably Broken hearing" spawned not by the law, but by the judge's novel.
Consider that litigants and attorneys will probably be afraid to even raise the issue of judicial misconduct in this case, and of judges imposing his own personal views, including his religious views, on the divorcing couples.
Yet, what Judge Philpot is doing - is judicial misconduct. Whatever Judge Philpot's intentions are, he is imposing his personal views, including his religious views, upon people in lieu of the law of the State of Kentucky, and makes it harder, longer and more expensive for people to divorce - court-ordered counseling does not come free.
It is also disgusting that the judge uses his taxpayer-paid job to spawn books, and then uses courtroom proceedings and live people as guinea pigs to advertise that book and boost his sales.
I wonder if the judge also gets kickbacks from the "discernment counselors" where he sends the divorcing couples.
Judge Philpot already lack integrity enough to use his position not only to impose his personal, and religious, views upon litigants in his courtroom, but to use his courtroom proceedings as a source of additional profit, so I would not put it beyond such a judge to get a little more profit by sharing in the proceeds of discernment counselors.
I will follow the story whether Judge Philpot will be disciplined for his shenanigans in the courtroom.
When a judge starts to use the courtroom as a playroom and as a religious pulpit, acting out procedures he invented in novels, because writing a scholarly treatise in the subject he is supposed to be an expert in is "just too complicated" for him - he should be taken off that bench immediately.
Judge Philpot is right.
It is not just a judge acting as an advocate.
It is not just a judge acting as a proselytizer of his religious beliefs in the courtroom.
It is not just a judge deriving additional financial benefit from court proceedings and using litigants as captive actors to advertise his book.
It is simply crazy.
It is like reality-TV for this judge to get noticed and advertised for his book - there is no justice in this courtroom where a judge simply acts out scenes out of his book for his own financial benefit and seeks to create new scenarios he can write about.
It is like a sneak-preview for reporters - see, this off-record "Irretrievably Broken hearing" will be part of my next book.
Crazy.
Monday, June 6, 2016
In Delaware County, NY, child neglect proceedings appear to have been illegitimate - for years
At the dispositional stage, the court must order "services" in accordance with the social services plan.
Social Services Law 34-a(2)(b) requires that a "summary of understanding" between the social services and the local District Attorney's Office must be made part of that plan.
I asked, on a FOIL request, for the summary of understanding between the Delaware County DSS and the Delaware County District Attorney's Office.
Here is the response I've got:
If the plan did not comply with statutory requirements, it was not valid.
If it was not valid, no services could be provided, ordered by the court - or funded - without first satisfying statutory requirements.
New York State Comptroller actually audited the County in 2014-2015, and specifically audited its Department of Social Services.
They did not see this?
Or somebody's hand was greased enough not to see it?
The fact remains - without full compliance with applicable statutes, the "multi-year services plan" in Delaware County is illegal, and without a legal services plan, all child neglect and abuse adjudications are also illegal.
The law is the law - right?
A 321 pages long cell phone bill for Delaware County (NY) employees - why?
The country denied my request for the latest cell phone bill of the County claiming that I need to pay $87.60 ($80.25 for copies plus $7.35 for postage) for the paper copies of the bill that I asked to scan and send to me by e-mail.
In response, I filed a FOIL request for the inventory of Delaware County's scanning equipment, since the County is required by law to provide scanned copies of paper documents if they have scanners that scan as easily as the documents can be copied, and I am sure the County, with its multi-million-dollar budget (that my husband and I contribute to, as captive cash cows, owners of property in Delaware County) does have such scanners.
It is obvious that Delaware County is playing a game - trying to delay or stall disclosure of any information that can lead to charges of corruption against the County or raising issues of improper use of government equipment.
New York State Comptroller already found that County employees misused county-assigned vehicles - for years.
And, that the county never submitted to public bidding their contracts - for decades.
I only asked for a cell phone bill - that is a public record, without exceptions.
I asked for it in electronic, scanned format.
I asked for it on April 29, 2016, by e-mail.
It had to be provided within 5 business days, also by e-mail.
Today is June 6, 2016, and I only have a demand that I either pay for paper copies (that I do not need) and for postage (that I do not need - I asked for disclosure by e-mail, and the County has no right under FOIL to charge for postage) - or be denied these records.
Ok, I understand the game.
But, inadvertently, while denying me the records, the county still gave me significant information.
The most recent cell phone bill of Delaware County consists of 321 pages (!!).
That is in the county of about 48,000 people, with a per capita income of $22,695 and a median household (not individual) income of $43,000.
A county supported by poor taxpayers has a need to assign cell phones to so many employees that a monthly bill consists of 321 pages?
I recently published e-mails and cell phones of Otsego County employees (information that is still claimed to be for employees only on the Otsego County website).
The number of assigned cell phones begs a question - WHY?
Why so many county employees who have landlines also are assigned cell phones, at taxpayers' expense? So that they can connect with friends and family on the go, watch movies and post on Facebook?
The same question refers to Delaware County - why the County's cell phone bill is 321 pages long?
Can you, Delaware County taxpayers, afford this?
I am filing an administrative appeal now, and will publish a copy of the bill when it is provided to me.
Stay tuned.
Parents of children held in foster care in Delaware County, NY, be aware of reimbursement rates for foster parents in Delaware County, NY
For some reason, links are not working on this site today, so I am reposting the full text from my other blog.
Recently, I received a response to my FOIL request from Delaware County (NY) on a number of issues.
As part of the response I received rates of reimbursement established by Delaware County (NY) for foster care parents, which I am publishing here:
Based on the daily "regular service and maintenance" rates, the following calculations as to monthly and yearly reimbursements can be made:
per day | per month | per year | ||
Normal | 0-5 years | $ 15.89 | $ 476.70 | $ 5,799.85 |
Normal | 6-11 years | $ 19.14 | $ 574.20 | $ 6,986.10 |
Normal | 12+ years | $ 22.13 | $ 663.90 | $ 8,077.45 |
Special | Any age | $ 38.22 | $ 1,146.60 | $13,950.30 |
Exceptional | Any age | $ 62.43 | $ 1,872.90 | $22,786.95 |
Parents whose children are in foster care have a right to verify at which level their children are labeled, and how their foster parents are reimbursed for their care - and whether the monies provided for the "care and maintenance" are actually used for the purpose of "care and maintenance", or simply goes into the foster parents' pockets.
Apparently, it is very lucrative for a foster parent in Delaware County (and many foster parents in Delaware County, NY get such positions because they are officers or employees of local governments) to get a child into foster care who is still young (and does not eat much), but who is labeled "special" (behaviorally difficult) or "exceptional" (whichever the Commissioner deems "exceptional") - because keeping such a child pays more.
Please, remember that when a child is grabbed by social services and put into foster care, it often happens to poor parents whose children are on Medicaid and monthly SSI payments from the federal government.
And, that social services always bring child support proceedings against parents for children in foster care.
So, parents whose children are in foster care have a chance to verify whether the monies from the feds (SSI), from Delaware County as per reimbursement schedules I publish here, and monies squeezed from parents in child support, are actually used for the child, or simply soaked by the County into its "general account" and used for purposes unrelated to the child's care, which is fraud.
Here are also money allowances or "stipends" that must be provided to foster care children - so parents can verify whether that is done by foster parents or not.
There is also clothing allowance:
0-5 years | $ 1.10 | $ 33.00 | $ 401.50 |
6-11 years | $ 1.54 | $ 46.20 | $ 562.10 |
12-15 years | $ 2.39 | $ 71.70 | $ 872.35 |
15 + years | $ 2.92 | $ 87.60 | $ 1,065.80 |
So, if your child is in foster care in Delaware County for a year, and he is, let's say, 12 years old, and he has "behavioral problems", the rate of reimbursement for him will be:
When a child is put into foster care, there are, as shown above, powerful financial incentives involved to keep the child there, not reunite the child with his parents, as Social Services are required to do by law.