Share


Tweet

Nevada's Welfare Department and other Nazi Bastards*

*Includes rubber-stamping, jack-booted Court Masters and jackass ADA's

Nevada's War on Grandparents and Grandchildren

 

Only in Nevada could this happen
In June 2014, a Court Master in Reno, Nevada refused to accept DOCUMENTED FACTS, but instead accepted the testimony of an Assistant D.A. (ADA) because she (the ADA)
"ASSUMED" that the child in question did not live in the home of her Court appointed legal guardians.

The legal guardians vigorously protested because the ADA was wrong to
ASSUME anything. This was in a Court of Law, after all. In what other state in America can a prosecutor assume something as opposed to knowing the facts, and then testify about her assumptions--which were wrong?

The petitioner in this case had prepared a two page, typed plea to the court showing that the Welfare Department of the State of Nevada had broken the law and engaged in harassment of the Caucasian guardians.

The Court Master ruled that this (his court) was not the proper place to pursue illegal actions by the Welfare Department.
If not in a court of law, where can a citizen report improper actions by the Welfare Department?
Answer: To the Welfare Department !!!!!


Welfare Court  Master

I have news for those bastards. The internet is still free. Here are the facts of how it works in Nevada.

1. A Caucasian couple goes to court to obtain legal custody for a grandchild whose father is deceased and whose mother can no longer care for the child.
2. The aged couple applies for temporary financial help including Medicaid from the state.
3. The Welfare Department begins to harass the aged couple, asking such questions as, In April 2011 how many times did your daughter stay overnight in you home? (THIS WAS IN JUNE of 2014! --three years later!) THEY KNEW A 70 YEAR OLD MAN HAS NO ability to remember that--maybe, no one can remember back to 2011!? BESIDES, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE COULD IT MAKE?
The Welfare's Schutzstaffel storm troopers filed a complaint against the biological mother for child support, whom had not been employed for two years because of serious medical issues.
4. They conferred with the ADA and set a plan into motion. The ADA files the papers and sets a date for the hearing before a Court Master.
5. The Court Master, sometimes referenced as Your Honorable Rubber Stamp, opens the court, takes the opening statement from the ADA who is flanked by two Hispanic looking assistants and one from the Welfare Dept.
6. The Court Master then accepts the ADA's ASSUMPTIONS as true, while refusing to consider or bother to read documented facts.

One such fact is as follows: In February 2014, the Welfare Dept. canceled legally acquired Medicaid for the child but did not notify anyone about their illegal action. The child was without medical coverage until the Legal Guardian accidently discovered it. The Legal Guardian protested and the coverage was re-instated. In May 2014, again without notification to the Legal Guardian, transferred authority from the Legal Guardians to the biological mother without a hearing or a court order.

That was a violation of law and violated a previous court order by a real Judge in 2011 which transferred guardianship to the grandparents. The judge at that time ORDERED the Guardians to obtain medical coverage for the child. That Medical coverage was in the form of MEDICAID.

Another flagrant action occurred when -without consulting with the Legal Guardians- assumed the child no longer lived with the grandparents, based on absolutely nothing other than an ASSUMPTION.

7. Then, as in this case, the Court Master rubber stamps the ADA's complaint. He held the biological mother responsible for $5,000.

8. The Welfare department then reports to the Governor's office that they saved the tax payers $5,000 !! Of course, they probably failed to mention that it cost $30,000 in the court's time, the court assistant's time, the court clerk's time, typing various notifications, the welfare dept.'s employees time, filing of records and issuing rulings and so on and on and on.

Quiz: How many Hispanics on a percentage bases are taken to this court compared to Caucasians on a percentage basis, I do wonder. I'd guess 75% of Caucasians and 1% of Hispanics. Following in italics, is the full plea to the Court Master which he refused to consider or even to read. (Some identifying remarks of participants are herewith removed.)

Petition to the Court Written May 30, 2014 by (the petitioner)
Copy to: Div. of Welfare, 4055 S. Virginia St. Reno NV 89502 (via mail)

Your Honor Court Master,
The Welfare Department has engaged in a number of questionable and possibly illegal actions.

Please Witness the following.
Case number GR08-xxxxx, Dept. Five (5) in which a Court Judge ordered Guardianship of (
child's name) to (petitioners names) on xx xxxx 2011. That court's order establishes our legal guardianship rights and responsibilities regarding the child named (child's name). The District Judge stated that we would have full authority regarding the interests of (child's name) including visitation decisions. He further stated that (child's mother) could live with us, (the guardians) to assist (the child's mother) recover from her medical disability.

On xx xxx 2012, Case # FV12-xxxx, the Court Master ordered that (the child's father), the father of (child's name), would pay child support totaling $140.00 per month. The (child's father) was unemployed at that time and continuing to be so until his death. He died shortly after the aforesaid order for child support.

1. Later, as legal guardians of (child's name), we were not informed of any other Court Master’s ruling to require (child's mother) to pay child support nor were we informed to attend any hearing before the Court Master. We have never asked that (child's mother) to pay child support. She had no steady job between 2010 and 2014. She had no income and no savings. Had we been at the alleged hearing, we would have  protested the Welfare Dept. requiring her to pay child support. The majority of time in  2012 and in 2013 she was under medical care. That care presently continues.

2. In February 2014, I (petitioner's name), discovered that Medicaid for (child's name) had been canceled by the Welfare department. I discovered this when I called the Medicaid Provider to ascertain which Dentist was authorized to provide dental care for (child's name). They informed me that her coverage had been canceled earlier by the  Welfare Dept. for reasons unknown.
We are the legal guardians for (child's name) under the Court ruling dated xx xxxx 2011 and were ordered to obtain medical coverage for (
child's name), for which we complied. The Welfare Department‘s canceling (child's name)'s coverage and not consulting with her Legally appointed guardians, compromised that Court’s order. It was an illegal act.

3. I managed to have (child's name)’s Medicaid restored after writing a letter of protest. (I could not get through on the telephone after waiting four hours). Therefore, we again complied with the Court’s order to provide medical converge for (child's name).

4. A  letter reportedly typed on 19 May 2014 by an unnamed person in the Reno's Welfare Dept., Case ID xxx xxx xxx, and received by me in Sparks, NV on 29 May 2014, stated that (A) The Medicaid (Medical Assistance) coverage for (child's name) would be canceled on 20 June 2014; and
(B) that I had “13 days” from the date of aforesaid letter to request a hearing; and
(C) they claimed that (
child) no longer lived with us, her legally appointed guardians.

5. The Welfare Department is not the legal guardian of (child's name). The grandparents are the legal guardians under Nevada law.

6. That letter took ten days to go from Reno to Sparks based on the alleged date typed on the letter. ( I believe the letter was backdated.) The 13 day cut-off requirement makes it impossible to comply. Tomorrow is Saturday and by then the 13 day response time will have expired. This letter cannot arrive at the welfare Department until Monday or Tuesday. Furthermore, it will take the Welfare Dept. weeks to respond based on their past performance.

7. The Welfare Dept.’s letter stated that (child's name) no longer lived with us, or with the "Assistance Unit"-whatever that means, but they are in error again. (The child) has a private bedroom and living with her Legal Guardians as per the original Court’s order in 2011. She is cared for by her legal guardians. She lives in a safe environment. But the Welfare Dept. continues mauling and interfering with our legal rights as Custodians / Guardians.

8. Furthermore, another questionable action was taken by the Welfare Dept. They scheduled a court hearing deriving from Case No. FVxx-xxxxx on 2 June 2014. It’s suspicious that the letter of termination of Medicaid for (child's name) arrived just ONE business day before we must attend that hearing. I will be at the hearing, and I will support my daughter against the continuing persecution and harassment against my family by the Division of Welfare & Supportive Services.

9. The Notice for the latest hearing (in item 10), was addressed only to (the grandfather). That is improper. (Both grandparents) are the legally appointed guardians of (child's name). Yet the Welfare Dept. addressed the summons only to (the grandfather). This is sloppiness and incompetence on their part. The court proceedings scheduled for June 2014 should be permanently dismissed based on the overall incompetence and legal errors made by the Welfare Dept.

10. Regarding the Medicaid issue, (child's mother) received a letter from Lewis Clark of the Welfare Dept. stating that effective 1 June 2014 (child's mother)  (child's name)’s biological mother-but not her legal guardian, were authorized for Medicaid. That is to say, the Medicaid obtained for (child's name) by her legally appointed Custodians is now co-joined with that of her biological mother, (the child's mother) who has no legal standing or rights whatsoever.

I restate that (the grandparents) are the Court’s appointed legal guardians of (child's name). The child's biological mother is not the legal guardian.
The Welfare Dept. is not the legal guardian.
The State of Nevada is not the legal guardian.
The Governor is not the legal guardian.
The Police are not the legal guardian.
The President of the United States is not the legal guardian.

Furthermore, the unsigned letter sent to me allegedly dated 19 May 2014, but which took ten days to arrive from Reno(a distance of zero miles), was dated on the same day as the letter written in Las Vegas to (
child's mother) on 19 May 2014.

11. Taking those letters together, we can logically conclude that the Welfare Dept. already made the decision to move control of medical care for (child's name) from (the legal guardians) to (the child's biological mother). That was just one Business day prior to the court hearing ordered for June 2014. They are conniving at least and criminals at most. They should be fired.

This concludes this compilation of facts. I pray that the court takes these facts into consideration and dismisses the hearing of  June 2014, because the Welfare Dept. used ambush tactics and may have violated the law, and certainly compromised the Court’s order by a real Judge in 2011.

(signed by petitioner.)


NV Welfare's Chief Advisor?


To the Welfare Dept. State of NV, keep you nose out my business. To the Court Masturbator, trade your rubber stamp for some brass balls.

MORE

site search by freefind advanced