Tag: Bill Schuette

Attorney General Bill Schuette on Friday announced felony charges against 11 individuals from across Michigan for allegedly abusing the Medicaid-funded Independent Living Services Program (Home Help Services Program). In many cases the defendants, who were often family members of the Medicaid beneficiaries, allegedly received checks for services rendered to the beneficiaries after they died.

Schuette filed criminal charges against Ollie Brent, 59, of Pontiac; Marilyn Davis, 45, of Harper Woods; Janet Dixon, 59, of Grosse Pointe Woods; Anna Goree, 35, of Detroit; Theresa Hines, 40, of Marcellus; Kristina Jurek, 44, of Macomb; Selandra Jo Mitchell, 46, of Detroit; Marilyn Oakes, 57, of Muskegon;  Patricia Ann Tompkins, 65, of Roseville; Sherita Ware, 38, of Detroit; and Carla Williams, 44, of Pontiac.  All 11 defendants improperly received Medicaid funds intended to pay for home help services for Medicaid beneficiaries. In total, the 11 defendants defrauded the Medicaid program out of more than $60,000. Schuette says

 "Vulnerable adults across Michigan depend on Medicaid personal care services, but scammers who abuse the program threaten its integrity. The message is clear: we will not tolerate any form of health care fraud at the expense of patients and taxpayers."

Defending Michigan's sovereign status before the US Supreme court, the attorney general makes this argument:

"If France opened an illegal casino in Michigan, the State could enjoin it, rather than arresting French workers or suing President Francois Hollande.  Surely domestic tribes are not entitled to greater immunity than foreign sovereign nations."

In fact, how can the sovereign nature of the tribes produce candidates or legal contributors/lobbyists in Michigan politics? Or to put it another way, if Ohioan citizens decided to run for Michigan representative seats or make laws for activities in Michigan, how is that different from that of the tribes acting and ruling as sovereign entities within their boundaries, then stepping out to engage in our processes outside of them?

As a state, the Ohioan argument above stands. As a nation, Schuette's point is quite valid, and could be taken a bit further.

Dismantle the BIA, and rid ourselves of these special rights endowed upon the 'neighboring' nations inside our borders. And as the discussion before the US supreme court goes forward, perhaps a reaffirmation of the US as a nation of laws can begin.

Of course said nuttiness joined by what we might have expected to see; a particular "wise Latina woman" making a mockery of equal protection under the law. A fascinating read of the first day's hearing on the case reveals even liberal biases will not paint the 2006 referendum result as an unconstitutional achievement.

"Arguing that a referendum that bans racial discrimination and preferences is itself a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause was always a stretch. Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration told USA Today that the lower court ruling striking down the referendum was  "an indefensible decision."  The liberal Slate writer Emily Bazelon called Schuette "the affirmative action case liberals deserve to lose."  And the Obama administration, which intervened in last term's affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas, did not participate in the Schuette case."

Also revealed; the percentage changes mentioned in yesterday's post appearing to be more of a 'census guidelines' effect, and cannot be completely attributed to actual numbers of minorities attending the school. (given the President of the university promised to break the law anyhow, should we be surprised?) The numbers as noted by Michigan solicitor general John Bursch, revealed the changes as expected from a 30 school study are not different than what the actual percentages showed.

And I did mention the self designation of Sonya Sotomayer.  Her commentary should not really be of any great surprise, yet reveals that elections do indeed have consequence.

"It's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children and now you're going to do away [with] that preference for them.  It seems the game posts keep changing every few years for minorities."

Sadly, its being sold from the equivalent of sniper on a clock tower using a scope that reaches the entire country.  We are all targets if a "wise Latina Woman" wishes it.

The subject was a Michigan "LAW OF THE LAND", banning the use of racial preferences in school selection efforts.  Schuette is arguing to sustain the 2006 "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative," a referendum that was overwhelmingly supported with a 58-42% margin. As a reminder, 2006's prop 2 based addition to the state constitution reads:

§ 26 Affirmative action programs.

Sec. 26.

(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(3) For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

(4) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(6) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan anti-discrimination law.

(7) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

(8) This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section.

(9) This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 7, 2006, Eff. Dec. 23, 2006

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Solomon's words of wisdom here have been quite helpful this past week and a half, when I've had the sense to heed them.  Further relevant advice comes from my dad (a Mustang pilot during WW2) and one of my elementary school teachers (a Mitchell navigator during WW2):  If you're not drawing fire, then you're not over your target.

Judging by some of the flak I've been catching since Labor Day, I'd say I've discovered a target the value of which neither the blueblooded old guard party elites nor the Snyder-Calley "nerd herd" want as public knowledge.

Truthfully, I am not sure if it has ever happened.  In 2014 it would likely succeed, according to polling by iCaucus that was completed on Friday and finalized this weekend. The scientific polling was done over a week targeting a specific group that will decide who is the GOP flag bearer going forward; active, educated and engaged republican delegates.

As a foreshadowing through early results had revealed, there is little question of where folks are at this point in time, and on the eve of Snyder signing Obamacare capitulation into law in Michigan.  The polling shows Rick Snyder in disfavor with delegates, and unwelcome to nearly half. Less than 40% would NOT like to see a primary challenge.

Not surprisingly to this writer, the results are not as clear with Lt Governor Brian Calley, who has results that are within the margin of error.  Outside of the polling there is a sense that many conservatives still find the problem to be with the governor himself, and Calley to be more incidental and possibly holding the governor to more conservative positions than he would be otherwise.

If this is a true and factual account, (there is no reason to suspect it is not) then there had best be some heads mounted on the Attorney General's trophy room wall before long. Scotty Boman, former US Senate candidate and current candidate for Detroit City Clerk underwent an assault on his person July 30, and his rights were violated by those who pledge to serve.  According to the Michigan Libertarian website:

Campaigning has become dangerous for Detroit City Clerk candidate Scotty Boman. According to Boman, a member of the WCCCD campus police attempted to intimidate him while he was taking pictures of his opponent's (Janice Winfrey) signage at the early voting location at the Northwest Campus of WCCCD on Tuesday July 30th. After he moved to where volunteers for other candidates were handing out literature, he was assaulted by the officer, then thrown to the ground by additional officers as he attempted to hand campaign literature to a passers-by. Boman said he was then held prisoner until a campaign forum, that the officers knew he was scheduled to attend, was nearly over.

"As soon as I took out my camera and pointed it at Janice Winfrey's banner (which was draped over the voting location's entrance) this one officer stormed out of the polling place and shouted, `What do you think your doing!' I responded that I was taking a picture of the banner." Boman went on to say, "I then went to take a picture of another nearby sign that read `Vote here Janice Winfrey City Clerk.' At this point a poll-worker, came out to where I was taking the picture. I started recording video of our conversation regarding Winfrey's signage when the Officer who previously shouted at me came out and told me to put away the camera. I asked if my photography was illegal, and which law it violated. I emphatically stated that I would follow her instructions immediately if she asserted I was breaking the law, but she could not cite any."

After he was detained in a closet by police.  

Trespassing?  On publicly owned property?

The bizarro side of the world is wondering what you might be up to, but we have less tolerance for the games.  Don't play on their turf, because at some point you will realize all the friends you brought with you are gone. A realization of the truth will make short work of this:

"Consistency and the state constitution demand that Attorney General Bill Schuette fight to protect the pensions of Detroit retirees from being downsized in bankruptcy court. It's Schuette's job to defend state laws, and he can't pick and choose which ones he fights to protect.

Schuette filed Monday to intervene in the bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of pensioners.

The move puts him at odds with Gov. Rick Snyder, who supports Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr's position that retirees will have to sacrifice along with other creditors to resolve Detroit's $18 billion debt."

The Michigan Constitution has many things that need to be enforced, but Article 9 Section 24 cannot be used in this case. The average Joe can tell you that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US constitution says so.

"Both state legislation and state courts tended to use debtor-creditor laws to redistribute money from out-of-state and urban creditors to rural agricultural interests. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states alone governed debtor-creditor relations, and that led to diverse and contradictory state laws. It was unclear, for instance, whether a state law that purported to discharge a debtor of a debt prohibited the creditor from trying to collect the debt in another state. "

The constitution of the US is primary. Federal bankruptcy law which is derived from specific mandates it is absolute under this example.