beverlytran's Announcements

Alternative School Policy Options

beverlytran — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:40:43 GMT

This is a comment I posted which was immediately removed on the Detroit News article: Lax home-school laws put kids at risk

Michigan must understand that it must begin to distance itself from its current child welfare system, for it has proven to the public that it is fully dysfunctional.

Instead of perpetuating a mindset of injecting more power and authority in a system that is devoid of any regulation, itself, let's look at alternative solutions:

In order to even begin to open discussion to address the issues with homeschooling, the state must stand up and admit that these anomalies of the most extreme and horrific situations of malice to children happen under the auspices of the state.

Even though the Office of Children's Ombudsman advocates for children, it possess relatively little authority to effectuate any advocacy for children.

Not all complaints filed with the Office of Children's Ombudsman are accepted as they must make it past the intake officer, one singular individual makes "on her feet" decisions whether to accept a complaint.

Next, if, by chance, a complaint makes it to the decision process whether or not to initiate investigation, the Ombudsman can, with arbitrary and capricious decision making powers, deem the complaint "Valid-Not-Opened". This means there were violations substantiated, but the Ombudsman will not take any action.

Then, when the Ombudsman finds violations of federal and/or state law during the course of an investigation, the Ombudsman, being mandated by law is suppose to refer to the counties prosecutor or the Attorney General.

Not one referral has ever been made in the history of the state.

Assumptions can only be made that if, referrals were made to the Attorney General, as he is the proper venue in dealing with Wayne County as the Attorney General prosecutes all child welfare juvenile cases, the Attorney General would have to animate its Medicaid Fraud Control Unit to proceed with the investigations of violations, prosecution and recoveries of Medicaid fraud.

The Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit does not and will not touch Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare. The largest component of funding in child welfare is what is called Targeted Case Management, a Medicaid funded activity. It should also be noted that Michigan is the only state that does not separate its Medicaid expenditures when reporting the amounts spent on children and those amounts on adults.

Another area of Medicaid in child welfare with service providers. It is impossible to validate whether the services were actually provided to children in foster care, adoption, or juvenile justice or if the services were provided by phantom organizations.

With the few examples that have been provided, it is quite evident that the policy recommendations of the Office of Children's Ombudsman should be scrutinized.

Home Schooling Regulation Alternatives

Cyber Schools: The factory school model has been in decay, as evident in the career opportunities in the state. The focus needs to be in technology .

Michigan has already demonstrated its ability to accept innovation in its educational system. This can be seen in the surge of online schools. If a child is not able, for whatever reason, to attend a traditional classroom setting, the child may then be enrolled in the school district in its cyber school program.

The child can then be provided computers, equipment and internet access, all at the expense of the school. The child can then be provided in-home services through visits with mentors, teachers, case managers, and any other professional that can assist the child with their learning objective.

This type of schooling opens multiple federal funding opportunities that can provide resources to encourage the successful progress of the child's education without the intrusive and dysfunctional operations of child protective services.

The child, enrolled in the cyber school, can then be included in the school district student counts, allowing an increase in funding. That increase in funding is coupled with the fact that schools do not have to maintain physical buildings and fixed costs of operations.

Simply put, it is cheaper to buy a child a computer than to maintain a building.

The child's grades and progress are then monitored and recorded.

The child then possesses a tool to go forth in his or her future.

Is it not better to give a man a fishing pole and teach him how to fish?

U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Testimony

beverlytran — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:21:59 GMT

I encourage all to review my open letter the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on the revisiting of implementation of the Fostering Connections to Successful Adoptions Act of 2008.

Stop Michigan Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare

Stop Healh Care Fraud in Michigan

beverlytran — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:34:32 GMT

AN ARRA MODEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (ARRA). This Act provided $787 billion of federally financed economic stimulus finding through a combination for spending programs and reductions in business and individual taxes. Michigan will receive hundreds of millions of dollars of the ARRA funds. A main component of the ARRA is to have in place an effective process to prevent and ameliorate waste, abuse, and fraud.

As Michigan has been selected as one of sixteen states that will be monitored over the next three years to provide an analysis of the use of funds under the ARRA, the opportunity exists to create new businesses and jobs by developing a model of accountability and transparency that may be implemented across the nation.

LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS

REVISED STATUTES OF 1846 (EXCERPT) MCL 14.29 § 29, CL. 1948: The auditor general is vested with the power to request the attorney general to prosecute matters within its department.

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963, ARTICLE IV, § 53, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964: This establishes the appointment, qualifications, term, removal, post audits, and authority of the auditor general and his authority.

EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1965 (EXCERPT) Act 380 of 1965 MCL 16.182 § 82, Eff. July 23, 1965: Transfers by a type III transfer to the department of treasury and abolishes the office of the elected auditor general.

THE MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ACT (EXCERPT) Act 431 of 1984, MCL 18.1461 § 461 Eff. March 22, 1999: Established audit of federal grants awarded to state in accordance to Public Law 104-156, chapter 75 of title 31 of the United States Code, 31 U.S.C. 7501 to 7507 pertaining to audit evaluation of the internal controls of this state and the state's compliance with material features of laws and regulations related to major federal assistance programs.

EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION ORDER (EXCERPT) E.R.O. No. 2007-22, Off. October 1, 2007: MCL 18.46 Transfer of powers and duties of internal auditors of principal departments under MCL 18.1486 and 18.1487 to office of the state budget director; transfer of powers and duties of principal departments to appoint and supervise internal auditor under MCL 18.1486 to state budget director.

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Costs:
There are no costs associated with this bill, as its purpose is to reduce and ameliorate waste, abuse, and fraud.

Benefits:
1.    The reduction and amelioration of waste, abuse, and fraud in federally funded grants will provide for the opportunity to more efficiently utilize funding and resources by targeting and capturing the recoupment of funding from fraudulent activities.
2.    In turn, this will allow the state to receive 10 percent of the recoupment of the federal share of fraudulent claims.
3.    There will be a decrease in the state percentage of the formula match of its federal grants, further improving resources and operations of the state.
4.    Public image of the state as an ARRA accountability and transparency demonstration improves, encouraging new economic development.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impact of this bill will increase efficiency of state operations in the reduction and amelioration of waste, abuse, and fraud of federal funding and will demonstrate compliance with the ARRA and the U.S. Office of Management Budget Circular A-133.

HOUSE BILL No.______

______________, 2009, Introduced by Reps. ___________ and _________ and referred to the Committee on __________________.

A bill to amend 2003 PA 1, entitled
"AUDITS AND EXAMINATIONS"
(MCL 13.101) by adding the term “annual” in section 1 and by adding sections 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 2c to chapter 13.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

CHAPTER 13

13.101 Auditor general; duties; powers; employment and compensation; influencing action of examiner as misdemeanor; definitions.
Sec. 1.
(1) The auditor general shall conduct ANNUAL audits and examinations of all branches, departments, offices, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, and institutions of this state.
(a) THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT ALL FINDINGS OF AUDITS AND EXAMINATIONS OF ALL BRANCHES, AGENCIES, AUTHORITIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, DEPARTMENTS, INSTITUTIONS AND OFFICES OF THIS STATE TO THE LEGISLATURE.
(b) THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL IMMEDIATELY REFER VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(2) In connection with the audits and examinations described in this act, the auditor general may examine, or cause to be examined, the books, accounts, documents, records, performance activities, and financial affairs of each branch, department, office, board, commission, agency, authority, and institution of this state.
(3) Upon demand of the auditor general, deputy auditor general, or any person appointed by the auditor general to make the audits and examinations provided in this act, the officers and employees of all branches, departments, offices, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, and institutions of this state shall produce for examination all books, accounts, documents, and records of their respective branch, department, office, board, commission, agency, authority, and institution and truthfully answer all questions relating to their books, accounts, documents, and records of their respective activities and affairs.
(4) In connection with audits and examinations described in this act, the auditor general, deputy auditor general, or any person appointed to make audits and examinations may issue subpoenas, direct the service of the subpoena by any police officer, and compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses; may administer oaths and examine any person as may be necessary; and may compel the production of books, accounts, papers, documents, and records. The orders and subpoenas issued by the auditor general, deputy auditor general, or any person appointed with the duty of making the examinations provided in this subsection may be enforced upon application to any circuit court as provided by law.
(5) The auditor general may employ and compensate auditors, examiners, and assistants as he or she considers necessary. In addition, the auditors, examiners, and assistants shall be paid their necessary traveling expenses while engaging in the duties provided under this act. Compensation and expenses shall be paid out of the funds appropriated for that purpose. The auditor general and the deputy auditor general shall receive their actual traveling expenses incurred while engaging in the duties provided under this act, which shall be paid out of the funds appropriated for that purpose.
(6) Any person who gives or offers to any examiner, accountant, clerk, or other employee of the auditor general, any money, gift, emolument, or thing of value for the purpose of influencing the action of the examiner or other employee, in any matter relating to the examination of any public account authorized by this act, or for the purpose of preventing or delaying the examination of any public account, or for the purpose of influencing the action of the examiner or other employee, in framing, changing, withholding, or delaying any report of any examination of any public account, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 nor less than $200.00, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months and not less than 30 days, or both.
(7) Any person appointed by the auditor general to make the examinations provided for under this act, or any officer, clerk, or other employee of the auditor general, who receives or solicits any money, gift, emolument, or anything of value for the purpose of being influenced in the matter of the examination of any public account authorized by this act, or for the purpose of being influenced to prevent or delay the examination of any public account, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and not less than $200.00, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months and not less than 30 days, or both.
(8) As used in this act:
(a) “Audit” means a post audit of financial transactions and accounts or performance audit as described in section 53 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963.
(b) “Auditor general” means the individual appointed auditor general under section 53 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963.
(c) “Examination” means an inquiry, compilation, or review within the scope of the auditor general's authority under section 53 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963.
SEC. 2. SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS.
(a) THE AUDITOR GENERAL MAY CONTRACT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATE LICENSED ENTITIES: CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANS; QUALIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS; ATTORNEYS; AND OTHER PERSONS OR FIRMS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN PERFORMAANCE AUDITS, THE AUDITOR GENERAL MAY CONTRACT WITH ANY STATE AGENCY. THE AUDITOR GENERAL MAY CONTRACT WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR THE CONDUCT OF JOINT AUDITS OF A STATE AGENCY OR A PORTION THEREOF.
(b) THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL ADOPT RULES ESTABLISHING QUALIFICATIONS FOR NON-LICENSED PERSONS WITH WHOM HE MAY CONTRACT.
(c) THE AUDITOR GENERAL MAY DESIGNATE ANY PERSON WITH WHOM HE CONTRACTS AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A POST AUDIT OR INVESTIGATION UNDER HIS SUPERVISION. THE AUDITOR GENERAL MAY DELEGATE HIS POWERS AND AUTHORITY RESPECTING POST AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS TO SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS OTHER THAN THE POWER OF SUBPOENA, BUT ANY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATHS OR TAKE DEPOSITIONS MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND LIMITED TO A PARTICULAR AUDIT OR INVESTIGATION.

Operation Peek-A-Boo, We See You

beverlytran — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 03:58:49 GMT

Turning up the HEAT to Stop Medicare and Medicaid Fraud in Michigan

Most health care providers are doing the right thing and providing care with integrity. But sadly, due to the illegal actions of a small but active group of heath care fraud perpetrators, billions of dollars are stolen from taxpayers each year. Medicare fraud schemes have grown bolder and more elaborate, resulting in billions of dollars in false billings and fraud schemes which are robbing Medicare and Medicaid blind and leaving our most vulnerable citizens at risk.

Medicare fraud affects every American. Not only is waste, fraud and abuse taking critical resources out of our health care system, it contributes to the rising cost of health care for all Americans and harms the short-term and long-term solvency of these essential programs.

Eliminating fraud will cut costs for families, businesses and the federal budget and increase the quality of services for those who need care.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are working together to help eliminate fraud and investigate fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid operators who are cheating the system.

Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are taking the fight against Medicare and Medicaid fraud to a new level. They have committed senior officials from HHS and DOJ to work together on the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT).

Read Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Holder on New Medicare Fraud Initiative at a Press Conference with HHS Secretary Sebelius (05-20-09)

The HEAT Team will expand efforts to stop fraud and prevent it from happening in the first place. These efforts will include:

Stopping Those Who Perpetrate Fraud:

Continuing to utilize Strike Force teams that fight fraud in Miami and Los Angeles;
Creating Strike Force teams in Detroit and Houston; and
Helping State Medicaid officials conduct provider audits and monitor activities to detect fraudulent activities.
Using modern technology to complete in a matter of days analysis of electronic evidence that previously took months to analyze using traditional investigative tools.
Background on the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team
Criminal Prosecution as a Deterrent to Health Care Fraud (PDF - 89 KB), Testimony of Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, 5/20/2009
Attorney General Holder and HHS Secretary Sebelius Announce New Interagency Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team

Preventing Fraud:

Building demonstration projects focused on Durable Medical Equipment. These projects will increase site visits during enrollment so we can block out imposters and make sure criminals aren't posing as real providers;
Increasing training for providers on Medicare compliance and offering providers the resources and the knowledge they need to help identify and prevent fraud;
Improving data and information sharing between the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and law enforcement so we can identify patterns that lead to fraud.
Strengthening program integrity activities to monitor and ensure Medicare Parts C (Medicare Advantage plans) and D (prescription drug programs) compliance and enforcement; and
Working with Americans to identify fraud via hotlines and Web sites.

Future Happenings – Stay Tuned:

New initiatives will be added in the weeks ahead;
Look for a new HHS/DOJ joint Web site that will track the progress of these efforts; and
New strategies for involving and getting the word out to the public.
And this is my little addition: Operation Peek-A-Boo: a Task Force dedicated to stopping child welfare fraud in Michigan.

For more information, visit my blog for the lastest updates of the U.S. DHHS OIG and U.S. DOJ AG Partnership: http://beverlytran.blogspot.com

Michigan Celebrates False Claims Awareness Day With HB 4117

beverlytran — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:23:00 GMT

It's easy as 1-2-3! Ending false claims that is! On 1.23.2009 we celebrated Michigan False Claims Awareness Day with the introduction of The Michigan False Claims Act, HB 4117 on January 22, 2009 by Rep. Gino Polidori and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Every year across this nation, taxpayers are paying billions of dollars in false claims to the unregulated industry of child welfare. Medicaid Fraud is threatening our nation's economic security. Social Security is a bi-polar system with one end the aged and the other end the child.

For the first time in the nation's history, a state has introduced legislation that empowers the people to regulate and monitor the contractual arrangements of public and private operations of the state. It is in this manner that the State Attorney General and County Prosecutors may conduct the symphony of accountability and transparency in concert with the voice of the people. Michigan has positioned itself to become a model, not only for the rest of the nation, but for the world.

Join in on the celebration to end the waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars by showing your support for Michigan in becoming the global leader in accountability and transparency.

It only takes one phone call to end fraud and Save A Child

Call 1-517-373-6920 or 1-517-373-7256 or 1-517-482-0253

Fore more information on False Claims visit:

The Central Registry of Child Welfare Fraud

Michigan Adoption Awareness Day is November 25, 2008

beverlytran — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:37:52 GMT

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General
Cadillac Place, 10th Floor
3030 W. Grand Blvd., Suite 10-200
Detroit, MI 48202                            November 15, 2008

Dearest General Cox:

I am writing to request that you initiate a petition for writ quo warranto as an original proceeding in the Michigan Supreme Court, requesting that the Court remove the Superintendent of Michigan Children’s Institute (hereinafter “MCI”), William J. Johnson. In addition, I request that you request Justices Clifford M. Taylor and Maura D. Corrigan to recuse themselves from presiding over the matter. In addition, I request that you that you seek to have the Court enjoin the Office of the Governor to produce the certificate of appointment and biographical questionnaire of the Superintendent William J. Johnson that has been formally presented to the Senate President and to enjoin the Senate to produce the public confirmation of the appointment. In addition, the Court should enjoin the Superintendent, William J. Johnson, from performing any official duties pursuant to The Act. Finally, I request that you seek to have the Court to review all decisions made by the Superintendent, William J. Johnson.

The basis for the petition is as follows:

Public Act 220 of 1935. MCL 400.202 was enacted to create what is known as the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI). This was a brick and mortar building, residing in Coldwater, Michigan, which housed orphans and unwanted children.

Public Act 280 of 1939 MCL 400.2 established the Social Welfare Commission. This was a body of 5 citizens, appointed by the governor with advice of the legislature, with duties to oversee and appoint the Superintendent of the MCI. The authority of delegation of powers and duties to the MCI Superintendent was originally delineated by what was termed as Michigan Social Welfare Commission. This statute of 1935 designated the title of superintendent because his duty was to superintend the actual institute: the physical building and the physical inhabitants, orphans. The institute no longer exists as a physical brick and mortar building; the institute is now a theoretical institution. According to The Social Welfare Act, the Superintendent is to be an appointed public official from the powers of a public body.

Public Act 220 of 1955 MCL 400.215, 400.216 repealed MCI as a brick and mortar building which amended the MCI by removing land usage. This was a point of dismantlement of the physical Institute, itself. By this time social programming was being formulated to take over the ideology of the state housing and caring for children by placing them within the counties and extended from which they came.

MCL 16.553 of Public Act 380 of 1965 abolished the Michigan Social Welfare Commission.

MCL 16.107 § 7(b) Public Act 380 of 1965 never iterated nor reified the Type III transfer of the administrative duties of the Superintendent.

MCL 556.112 § 2 (c) applies as a civil designation and not one of a democratically elected public official or as of an official granted powers by the Governor.

MCL 710.45 et seq. does not acknowledge that the Superintendent is a representative of any public body or court and does not denote his established powers. These powers were self-granted, in essence, under no Michigan public body’s review. The powers have been self executed with little or no basis of credibility and all cases decided by the superintendent since 1974 should be revisited. MCL 710.45 explicitly states in its title the power to withhold consent for adoption is vested in a “representative” or a “court”. There is no definitive explanation as the Superintendent being this “representative”. The Superintendent has taken on these powers without any authority enumerated in the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION. The Superintendent has seized the role of a policy maker sans the will of the people. This Section 710.45 is part of the Probate Code of 1939. The term “representative” is then to be understood as a designee or appointment of the court. As written in MCL 400.202, the Superintendent is to be appointed by the Commission established under MCL 400.2.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION Article V § 3 Superintendent is not a representative of the people of Michigan through a democratic process of election and in not appointed by public designation of the official duties. The official powers of the Governor and the Senate have been usurped by the MCI, not in accordance with the just powers delineated in the Michigan Constitution. Thus, this state’s courts have over burdened with oversight of decisions taken by the Superintendent without oversight by the public representatives who were rightly beholden for their actions to the citizens of Michigan.

Public Act 422 of 1984 § 722.131-722.140 recognizes the MCI Superintendent as a public member and a stakeholder of the decisions of this body. The Foster Care Review Board (hereinafter “FCRB”) is to be comprised of the members of the community. As MCI Superintendent is tasked with being the sole legal guardian of Michigan’s children whom are awaiting adoption, he advocates for foster care in his official capacity Superintendent. He is not to advocate foster care because he is supposed to remain objective, but he thus enters the legal arena with skewed objectives. He is required to enter into these important decisions of human lives without prejudices, but his very membership on the FCRB belies otherwise. The Superintendent is the final decision maker in adoption decisions, with the authority to override the decision of a judge.

MCL Public Act 422 of 1984, section 722.137 are so extensive that the Superintendent is required to disclose his affiliations with the FCRB with the lower court. This calls into question the honesty of his responses to questioning of the attorneys of record. The superintendent is on the advisory committee of the FCRB for the state; therefore, his participation in recommendations to the governor and the legislature becomes a clear and convincing fact of evidence that there is bias inherent in decisions, taken or advised.

Public Act 61 of 2004, effective July 1, 2005 changed the regulation of the social work profession under the authority of the Department of Community Health. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Health Professions, Complaint and Allegation Division only has the power to regulate the Community Health Agency. There is no provision in Michigan law for any complaint filed against the Superintendent to be investigated. From an initial investigation, it was found that the Superintendent, William J. Johnson of MCI, directly while dealing with Children and Family Services, does not possess the appropriate licensing, as outlined in General Rules of Social Work for the State of Michigan, R 338.2907 -2909 et seq. of June 24, 2005.

Public Act 368 of 1978, MCL 333.18504, amended as Public Act 61 of 2004, effective July 1, 2005, it explicitly states: In the capacity of Superintendent, the responsibilities mandate Macro and Clinical Master Social Work licensing. William J. Johnson possesses neither, nor any form of academic credentials similar.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6 § 3 sets forth the duty of oversight to the Chief Administrator of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, for the Supreme Court Administrative Offices (hereinafter “SCAO”), the judicial, not the executive branch. SCAO oversees the FCRB, on which the Superintendent of MCI, William J. Johnson, functions as a decision maker. Neglecting to provide the public with concise written statement of ministerial obligations over the FCRB and decision making associations with the MCI Superintendent provides ground to question the impartiality of the Chief Justice participating in the decisions to deny Petitioners of any and all child welfare matters leave to appeal.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 § 6 expresses that on June 15, 2007, Justice Maura Corrigan publicly advocated the activities of the Superintendent of MCI, on radio station WJR 760 AM without authority. Justice Corrigan publicly denied having any knowledge pertaining to the question of authority of the MCI Superintendent, when the very matter was simultaneously pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Corrigan, further, went on to publicly defend the administration and functioning of MCI in a commentary to the Detroit News, July 2, 2007. In the public pronouncements she jeopardized her ability to decide the case at the very same time that the court was faced with an internal decision: the opportunity to protect children in the foster care process. Justice Corrigan purported her own public issue of a successful foster care system in one of Michigan’s largest newspapers rather than remaining impartial on a matter pending before the Court. The private membership of Justice Corrigan on the Pew Foster Care Commission 2004 should not have allowed her to decide on any public matter dealing with foster children and adoption. Neglecting to provide the public with a timely concise written statement of previous ministerial obligations over the FCRB and decision making associations with the MCI Superintendent, as former Chief Justice, who also has run her recent campaign for Chief Justice on the privately funded platform of foster care and adoption, provides ground to question her impartiality.

Public Act 1 of 2003 provides for the audit of MCI, yet MCI has never filed an evaluation of its operations nor has never been audited.

Public Act 220 of 1935 MCL 400.207 inscribed the financial philosophy of MCI through the codification of the MCI Trust Fund has never been repealed. It is unknown if there continues to exist the MCI Trust Fund, Public Act 249 of 1982, MCL 21.171 but it is known that any estate of a child whose parent’s rights have been terminated becomes absorbed by the state and the child ward of the state is stripped of all rights to inheritance and their estates.

MCR 2.613 (c) establishes the responsibility of the lower court to verify the credibility of witnesses who appear before it. Lower courts neglect to examine the proper licensing required for the position of Superintendent. Therefore, family courts fail to establish the credibility of the Superintendent and due account should be taken of the rule of prejudicial error in the revisiting of all adoption decisions made under this Superintendent.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 § 7 maintains the principles of common law and tradition to uphold the constitution and protect the well being of citizens, yet becomes challenged when there are no recusals due to conflict of personal interests and the abolishment of the Social Welfare Commission, whereby making the position of Superintendent of MCI repugnant.

    MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6 § 27 does not provide for the authority to aver the acceptance nor the discharge of duties of Superintendent of MCI by the Supreme Court Justices Taylor and Corrigan in their respective positions of Chief Justice,

I, respectfully, request that you act upon this request and file the petition on an expedited basis. The position of the Superintendent of MCI continues to accelerate the precipitous climate of destroying families in the state and false claims of federal funding. As the alleged legal parent to the children remanded to the guardianship of MCI, the Superintendent has perpetuated a culture for abuse, neglect and murder of children to thrive.

Because there are pending decision for the Superintendent of MCI to render, time is of the essence. To avoid the continuance of false federal claims of children improperly under the auspices of MCI, I pray that you will expeditiously provide me with a written answer pertaining to the issue of supervising authority of the Superintendent of MCI, William J. Johnson. I will contact the Chief Deputy, Carol Issacs, on or before November 24, 2008, to work with your Department to establish a reasonable expedited deadline for your decision.

With Serenity and Sincerity,

Beverly Tran