The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced Melissa R. Hodgman, currently an Associate Director in the Commission’s Division of Enforcement, has been named Acting Director of the Division of Enforcement.

“Melissa’s dedication to investor protection, broad experience in the Division, and proven track record of collaboration and creative problem solving make her ideally suited to this role,” said SEC Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee. “As Associate Director, Melissa has overseen a wide range of complex and programmatically important matters, and has been a leading voice in the Division on critical issues of diversity, hiring, and labor-management relations. She is highly respected by her colleagues in the Division and across the agency for her intellect and dedication.”

“It has been my honor to serve with the incredibly talented staff across the Division of Enforcement for over a decade,” said Ms. Hodgman. “I am constantly inspired by the dedication of my colleagues in the Division and across the Commission, especially with the challenges of the last year. I look forward to continuing my work with them in the role of Acting Director and supporting the Commission’s mission of protecting investors and market integrity through the aggressive pursuit of all forms of fraud and misconduct in our markets.”

Ms. Hodgman is the wife of perhaps the most corrupt individual in US government history who’s not a politician, Peter Strzok.  Strzok was involved in the exoneration of Hillary Clinton and the set up and multi-year harassment and attempted coup of President Trump in the Russia-collusion national nightmare based entirely on lies.

The entire world got to know Peter Strzok after text messages between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page were released during the Russia-collusion sham investigation.  We now know that the FBI knew the entire case was a sham before they even moved forward with it and before the President won the 2016 election.

At that same time Strzok and Page were working on setting up the future President, they were reportedly having an affair.  Strzok was at the center of two historical cases, the Hillary Clinton exoneration for email abuse and President Trump’s multi-year harassment by the FBI and Justice System for a made-up Russia-collusion fantasy.

Strzok was finally put before Congress and Representative Louie Gohmert called him out on his lying – specifically lying to his wife.

The following is a report released by New York Attorney General Letitia James:

NEW YORK – Attorney General Letitia James today released a report on her office’s ongoing investigations into nursing homes’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since March, Attorney General James has been investigating nursing homes throughout New York state based on allegations of patient neglect and other concerning conduct that may have jeopardized the health and safety of residents and employees.

Among those findings were that a larger number of nursing home residents died from COVID-19 than the New York State Department of Health’s (DOH) published nursing home data reflected and may have been undercounted by as much as 50 percent. The investigations also revealed that nursing homes’ lack of compliance with infection control protocols put residents at increased risk of harm, and facilities that had lower pre-pandemic staffing ratings had higher COVID-19 fatality rates. Based on these findings and subsequent investigation, Attorney General James is conducting ongoing investigations into more than 20 nursing homes whose reported conduct during the first wave of the pandemic presented particular concern.

“As the pandemic and our investigations continue, it is imperative that we understand why the residents of nursing homes in New York unnecessarily suffered at such an alarming rate,” said Attorney General James. “While we cannot bring back the individuals we lost to this crisis, this report seeks to offer transparency that the public deserves and to spur increased action to protect our most vulnerable residents. Nursing homes residents and workers deserve to live and work in safe environments, and I will continue to work hard to safeguard this basic right during this precarious time.”

Background

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is the only law enforcement agency in the state specifically mandated to investigate and prosecute abuse and neglect of residents in nursing homes. In early March, OAG received and began to investigate allegations and indications of COVID-19-related neglect of residents in nursing homes. At the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, on April 23, OAG set up a hotline to receive complaints relating to communications by nursing homes with family members prohibited from in-person visits to nursing homes and formally initiated a large-scale investigation of nursing homes’ responses to the pandemic. OAG received more than 770 complaints on the hotline through August 3, and an additional 179 complaints through November 16. OAG also continued to receive allegations of COVID-19-related neglect of residents through pre-existing reporting systems.

Overview of Findings

The report includes preliminary findings based on data obtained in investigations conducted to date, recommendations that are based on those findings, related findings in pre-pandemic investigations of nursing homes, and other available data and analysis. Based on this information and subsequent investigation, OAG is currently conducting investigations into more than 20 nursing homes across the state. OAG found that:

• A larger number of nursing home residents died from COVID-19 than DOH data reflected;
• Lack of compliance with infection control protocols put residents at increased risk of harm;
• Nursing homes that entered the pandemic with low U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) Staffing ratings had higher COVID-19 fatality rates;
• Insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) for nursing home staff put residents at increased risk of harm;
• Insufficient COVID-19 testing for residents and staff in the early stages of the pandemic put residents at increased risk of harm;
• The current state reimbursement model for nursing homes gives a financial incentive to owners of for-profit nursing homes to transfer funds to related parties (ultimately increasing their own profit) instead of investing in higher levels of staffing and PPE;
• Lack of nursing home compliance with the executive order requiring communication with family members caused avoidable pain and distress; and
• Government guidance requiring the admission of COVID-19 patients into nursing homes may have put residents at increased risk of harm in some facilities and may have obscured the data available to assess that risk.

Undercounting of COVID-19 Deaths in Nursing Homes

Preliminary data obtained by OAG suggests that many nursing home residents died from COVID-19 in hospitals after being transferred from their nursing homes, which is not reflected in DOH’s published total nursing home death data. Preliminary data also reflects apparent underreporting to DOH by some nursing homes of resident deaths occurring in nursing homes. In fact, the OAG found that nursing home resident deaths appear to be undercounted by DOH by approximately 50 percent.

OAG asked 62 nursing homes (10 percent of the total facilities in New York) for information about on-site and in-hospital deaths from COVID-19. Using the data from these 62 nursing homes, OAG compared: (1) in-facility deaths reported to OAG compared to in-facility deaths publicized by DOH, and (2) total deaths reported to OAG compared to total deaths publicized by DOH.

In one example, a facility reported five confirmed and six presumed COVID-19 deaths at the facility as of August 3 to DOH. However, the facility reported to OAG a total of 27 COVID-19 deaths at the facility and 13 hospital deaths — a discrepancy of 29 deaths.

Lack of Compliance with Infection Control Policies

OAG received numerous complaints that some nursing homes failed to implement proper infection controls to prevent or mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 to vulnerable residents. Among those reports were allegations that several nursing homes around the state failed to plan and take proper infection control measures, including:

• Failing to properly isolate residents who tested positive for COVID-19;
• Failing to adequately screen or test employees for COVID-19;
• Demanding that sick employees continue to work and care for residents or face retaliation or termination;
• Failing to train employees in infection control protocols; and
• Failing to obtain, fit, and train caregivers with PPE.

For instance, OAG received a complaint that at a for-profit nursing home located north of New York City, residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were intermingled with the general population for several months because the facility had not yet created a “COVID-19 only” unit. At another for-profit facility on Long Island, COVID-19 patients who were transferred to the facility after a hospital stay and were supposed to be placed in a separate COVID-19 unit in the nursing home were, in fact, scattered throughout the facility despite available beds in the COVID-19 unit. This situation was allegedly resolved only after someone at the facility learned of an impending DOH infection control visit scheduled for the next day, before which those residents were hurriedly transferred to the appropriate designated unit.

OAG received reports that nursing homes did not properly screen staff members before allowing them to enter the facility to work with residents. Among those reports, OAG received an allegation that a for-profit nursing home north of New York City failed to consistently conduct COVID-19 employee screening. It was reported that some staff avoided having their temperatures taken and answering a COVID-19 questionnaire at times when the screening station at the facility’s front entrance had no employees present to take that information or when staff entered the facility through a back entrance, avoiding the screening station altogether.

At yet another facility in Western New York, a nurse reported to OAG that immediately prior to the facility’s first DOH inspection in late April, a nurse supervisor had set up bins in front of the units with gowns and N95 masks to make it appear that the facility had an adequate supply of appropriate PPE for staff. The nurse alleged that the nurse supervisor came in to work unusually early the day of the first inspection and brought out all new PPE and collected all of the used gowns. Although the initial DOH survey conducted that day did not result in negative findings, DOH returned to the facility for follow-up inspections, issued the facility several citations, and ultimately placed the facility in “Immediate Jeopardy.”

Nursing Home with Low Staffing Ratings Had Higher Fatality Rates

There are 619 nursing homes in New York, and 401 of these facilities are for-profit, privately owned, and operated entities. Of the state’s 401 for-profit facilities, more than two-thirds — 280 nursing homes — have the lowest possible CMS Staffing ratings. The Staffing rating reflects the number of staffing hours in the nursing department of a facility relative to the number of residents. As of November 16, 3,487 COVID-19 resident deaths (over half of all deaths) occurred in these 280 facilities. Some of these facilities have also been known to transfer facility funds to owners and investors, rather than use them to invest in additional staffing to care for residents.

Pre-existing, insufficient staffing levels put residents and staff at increased risk of harm during the pandemic. As nursing home resident and staff COVID-19 infections rose during the initial wave of the pandemic, staffing absences increased at many nursing homes. As a result, already-low staffing levels decreased even further, to especially dangerous levels in some homes, even as the need for care increased due to the need to comply with COVID-19 infection control protocols and the loss of assistance from family visitors. OAG’s preliminary investigations reflect many examples where for-profit nursing homes’ pre-pandemic low staffing model simply snapped under the stress of the pandemic.

OAG received a complaint from a resident’s son about a for-profit nursing home in New York City alleging that his mother was not receiving proper care because of critically low staffing levels at the facility. His mother was never tested for COVID-19, but later died while exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms. Between late March and early April, the facility was so understaffed due to staff quarantining, working from home, and pre-existing low staffing, that the onsite management of the entire facility was left in the hands of just two nurse supervisors. During the week of April 5, 33 residents died at that facility, 15 percent of all its residents.

In addition, preliminary investigations indicate that when there were insufficient staff to care for residents, some nursing homes pressured, knowingly permitted, or incentivized existing employees who were ill or met quarantine criteria to report to work and even work multiple consecutive shifts, in violation of infection control protocols. These policies put both residents and staff at great risk.

Immunity Provisions

Despite these disturbing and potentially unlawful findings, due to recent changes in state law, it remains unclear to what extent facilities or individuals can be held accountable if found to have failed to appropriately protect the residents in their care.

On March 23, Governor Cuomo created limited immunity provisions for health care providers relating to COVID-19. The Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) provides immunity to health care professionals from potential liability arising from certain decisions, actions and/or omissions related to the care of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is reasonable to provide some protections for health care workers making impossible health care decisions in good faith during an unprecedented public health crisis, it would not be appropriate or just for nursing homes owners to interpret this action as providing blanket immunity for causing harm to residents.

In order to ensure no one can evade potential accountability, Attorney General James recommends eliminating these newly enacted immunity provisions.

Attorney General James encourages anyone with information or concerns about nursing home conditions to file confidential complaints online or by calling 833-249-8499.

This report is the collective product of investigative work undertaken since March 2020 by the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit’s (MFCU) 275 attorneys, forensic auditors, police investigators, medical analysts, data scientists, electronic investigation team, legal assistants, and support staff in eight offices across New York. MFCU is led by Director Amy Held and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Paul J. Mahoney. MFCU is a part of the Division for Criminal Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice José Maldonado and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

MFCU receives 75 percent of its funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award totaling $60,071,905 for Federal fiscal year (FY) 2019-20, of which $45,053,932 is federally funded. The remaining 25 percent of the approved grant, totaling $15,017,973 for FY 2019-20, is funded by New York state. Through MFCU’s recoveries by means of law enforcement actions and civil enforcement actions, it regularly returns more to the state than it receives in state funding.

I was just told that there are two possibly three signed executive orders, undated until the appropriate time, SERIOUSLY restricting firearms and ammunition. Part of the EO includes restrictions within MILES of government or federal lands, creating huge gun free zones

That encompass entire towns, cities, counties, including YOUR OWN HOME. Firearms kept in your home would then be illegal and subject to confiscation and additional licensure and fees.
Prohibitive taxes on arms and ammunition are proposed

As well as making all firearm transactions non-transferable. Meaning you can never sell a firearm, it has to be turned in to the government if you want to buy another one, because they intend to limit the amount you can own.
I am told Pelosi helped write these.

It's ok, I'm sure Cj Roberts will decide it's entirely "Constitutional"🙄

It's a way for them to break up "States Rights" by enacting this around Federal lands.
You're under arrest, I have a state permit, yes, but you drove through a "federal gun free zone".🙏

Originally tweeted by John (@Johnheretohelp) on January 28, 2021.

Biden starts staffing a commission on Supreme Court reform

He pushed the idea as a candidate during the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation fight. Now, he’s getting it going. After refusing the answer questions about court packing for months in fear of losing voters who care about democracy and don’t want to be RULED.

The Biden administration is moving forward with the creation of a bipartisan commission to study reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

The commission will be housed under the purview of the White House Counsel’s office and filled out with the behind-the-scenes help of the Biden campaign’s lawyer Bob Bauer. Its specific mandate is still being decided. But, in a signal that the commission is indeed moving ahead, some members have alreadybeen selected, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

Among those who will be on the commission are Cristina Rodríguez, a professor at Yale Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama Department of Justice, who has been tapped to co-chair the commission. Caroline Fredrickson, the former president of the American Constitution Society, and Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush Department of Justice, will also serve on the commission, those familiar with discussions said.

Fredrickson has hinted that she is intellectually supportive of ideas like court expansion. In 2019, she said in an interview with Eric Lesh, the executive director of the LGBT Bar Association and Foundation of Greater New York: “I often point out to people who aren’t lawyers that the Supreme Court is not defined as ‘nine person body’ in the Constitution, and it has changed size many times.”

Rodríguez’s opinions on court reforms are less clear. Goldsmith’s selection, meanwhile, is likely to be the one to frustrate progressives. A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Goldsmith did not support Trump and is a friend and co-author of Bauer. But he was a vocal advocate of Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the high court — an appointment that sparked Democratic advocacy for expanding the number of Supreme Court seats.

“He will also be an influential figure within the Supreme Court building,” Goldsmith wrote in 2018 about Kavanaugh in a Time article titled, “Brett Kavanaugh Will Right the Course of the Supreme Court.” “He is a brilliant analyst with a deep scholarly and practical knowledge of the law. His legal opinions are unusually accessible. He is a magnanimous soul.”

The White House declined to comment. But a source familiar with the discussion expects between nine and 15 members total to be appointed to the commission.

Rodríguez and Goldsmith did not respond to a request for comment, and Fredrickson declined to comment.

Politico Confirms in a new report.

Former President Donald Trump announced Monday the official opening of the “Office of the Former President” in Palm Beach County, Florida, which is tasked with overseeing the 45th president’s official activities in his post-presidency life.

“The office will be responsible for managing President Trump’s correspondence, public statements, appearances and official activities to advance the interests of the United States and to carry on the agenda of the Trump administration through advocacy, organizing and public activism,” the office said in a statement. “President Trump will always and forever be a champion for the American people.”

Mr. Trump and former first lady Melania Trump departed Washington for Florida the morning of January 20, choosing not to welcome President Joe Biden and first lady Dr. Jill Biden to the White House and skipping the new president’s inauguration.

Trump knows his job didn’t end when he left the White House, his job is bigger than that of the Presidents.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1353860577672753159?s=20

Biden so far has done an amazing job showing people how corrupt the government truly is.

Lin Wood recently interviewed a posted a series of videos interviewing a new Epstein whist blower. See them below.

Chief Justice John Roberts must resign today. Over the past several weeks, I have met with a courageous whistleblower who has risked his life to tell you the truth. Jeffrey Epstein arranged for the adoption of Roberts’ children. Roberts used the children to gain entry into the cabal of power & influence. FBI, Rod Rosenstein & Crowdstrike knew it all.

Vice President Pence must resign today. Pence is on videos captured by FBI. Discussions about murdering judges. Roberts was involved. So was Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton thought she had rigged the 2016 election. The plan after her election was to kill federal judges so that Hillary could stack the judiciary. US Supreme Court targeted. FBI was complicit.

Justice Scalia learned of the plan to kill members of the judiciary. He reported it to the White House. Shortly thereafter, Justice Scalia was murdered.

I have previously provided the entire interview of the whistleblower to agents of the U.S. Secret Service. His evidence reveals a level of evil, perversion, & criminality at the highest levels of government that is so shocking that it is hard to believe.

Believe it.

The whistleblower is a truth-giver. When he speaks, listen carefully.

From Lin Wood

Abstract

Separation of powers in the federal government inevitably generates conflicts among the branches. In recent years the executive branch’s authority to impound funds appropriated by Congress and to make war without congressional approval has been questioned. In earlier days debate raged over the Supreme Court’s authority to nullify legislation passed by Congress. A recurrent example of this phenomenon has been the struggle between Congress and the judiciary over the scope of congressional control of federal court jurisdiction. The recent controversy over school busing has highlighted this problem. The problem is, however, neither novel nor peculiar to the busing issue. In considering the first judiciary act Congress debated the scope of its authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In the last twenty years unpopular decisions by federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have led to serious discussions of curtailing federal court jurisdiction.

After Brown v. Board of Education there was a movement to withdraw Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear school desegregation cases. During and after the McCarthy era, and perhaps in response to it, the Supreme Court conferred upon citizens what some felt to be unduly broad protection from legislative investigations. This prompted a proposal to curtail Supreme Court jurisdiction to review cases involving contempt of Congress, as well as cases involving state and federal regulation of subversive activities. After Reynolds v. Sims a bill which passed the House of Representatives would have withdrawn jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and the district courts to hear cases in which plaintiffs sought to force reapportionment of state legislatures. From 1953 to 1969 over 60 unsuccessful bills were introduced in Congress to curtail some aspect of federal jurisdiction. Today, because of a number of district court decisions ordering the busing of schoolchildren to overcome segregation, the issue of congressional dominion over federal court jurisdiction is again of vital national importance.

During the current controversy there have been two approaches to the subject of Congress’ control of federal jurisdiction. The position taken most often in contemporary debate begins with the assumption that Congress has authority to abolish the lower federal courts. Since Congress has the power to abolish, this argument runs, Congress must have plenary control over inferior federal jurisdiction. Others have begun with the same assumption but feel that a resolution of the subsequent questions is not so easily achieved. Must Congress, they ask, to satisfy Article III, vest jurisdiction in some federal court to hear all cases within the federal judicial power? What are the limits on congressional control of Supreme Court jurisdiction? If Congress can remove an entire class of cases from the district court level, can Congress also limit the remedies available to a court once it is given jurisdiction to hear a case? Virtually all of those who have engaged in this contemporary debate, however, assume that Congress may abolish the lower federal courts.

That such an important assumption should be unquestioned in the current furor over busing is surprising. Clearly it limits the range of argument open to those favoring broad mandatory federal jurisdiction. If the assumption is false, inquiry should be redirected to whether Congress may selectively withdraw jurisdiction to grant a particular remedy from district courts and to whether it may withdraw a particular case or class of cases from those tribunals.

This article will attempt to demonstrate that the premise that Congress may abolish the lower federal courts is false. Such courts may in the beginning have been a luxury for the young nation. Today they are almost as necessary as the Supreme Court in performing the functions given the federal judiciary in the Constitution. “The life of a nation” has come to depend in no small degree on these bodies and their too hastily assumed mortality should be a matter of general concern. If it is true, as I argue, that inferior federal courts may not be abolished, then resolution of the corollary questions of whether Congress can selectively curtail jurisdiction or resort to certain remedies is more difficult.

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1351209455392858115?s=20

“The American people deserve transparency about the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2020. The DoD IG Report will be but one of many efforts to provide that transparency and the Department will do everything it can to ensure that review is fulsome, thorough, and holds parties to account.  We are proud of the efforts of DoD personnel to secure the Capitol on January 6th when called upon on and throughout the Presidential Inaugural events next week.”