Post

More from @qaggnews

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

@qaggnews

Apr 13

I’m going to keep posting about this until everyone sees it

Across dozens of U.S. states, parents are losing their children based on drug test results that courts should never have trusted. From Alaska to Georgia, California to Ohio, laboratories have been caught falsifying test results, billing for unnecessary procedures, and engaging in illegal kickback schemes, yet their services are still being used in family courts. These labs, many of which have already faced Department of Justice investigations or civil settlements, continue to supply the very tests that child protective agencies and juvenile courts rely on to justify emergency removals and terminations of parental rights. In states like Indiana and Kentucky, parents have lost custody after being falsely flagged as drug users. In Missouri and Utah, courts have relied on unconfirmed positives to delay or deny reunification. In Ohio, even antacids were misidentified as narcotics.

The legal consequences are staggering. The Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent’s right to the care and custody of their child. Supreme Court precedent in Santosky v. Kramer (1982) and Troxel v. Granville (2000) affirms that parental rights are fundamental and require rigorous due process protections. Yet in case after case, these rights are steamrolled by faulty drug tests rubber-stamped by courts without challenge or oversight. Even more alarming is the constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment. In Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001), the Supreme Court held that drug testing for law enforcement purposes without informed consent was unconstitutional. In the child welfare arena, the same principles apply, ]yet thousands of parents are being subjected to testing under threat of losing their children, with no safeguards in place.

The legal framework is clear, when state actors violate constitutional rights using flawed evidence, they may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But for many parents, the damage is already done. Children are uprooted. Families are fractured. And in too many cases, these removals are permanent. This isn’t just a legal crisis, it’s a human one. Child welfare systems are using unreliable drug testing as a shortcut to remove children rather than a tool to assess actual danger. Until courts demand verified, scientifically sound evidence and allow parents a real chance to defend themselves, the system will remain dangerously broken

Read the full investigation and state-by-state breakdown of lab misconduct:

[)artkitten2.medium.com/fraudulent-lab…

In recent years, drug testing has become a routine procedure in family court and child welfare cases. While the intent is to ensure child safety, the reality is that drug testing can sometimes lead to unwarranted family separations and violations of parental rights. Multiple drug testing laboratories across various states have been implicated in fraudulent activities, including false billing schemes, illegal kickbacks for referrals, and substandard or falsified testing practices. These issues have been documented through Department of Justice press releases, court records, and state investigations. Several of these laboratories provided services in child welfare and family court settings, causing significant concerns about the reliability of test results influencing decisions on parental rights.
Legal authorities and case law affirm that parents possess fundamental rights concerning the custody and care of their children. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguards these rights, ensuring that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In cases such as Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), the Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental nature of parental rights. Therefore, courts that rely on faulty or unconfirmed drug test results as a basis for removing custody violate due process requirements, particularly when procedural safeguards are insufficient.
Government mandated drug testing engages the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court, in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001), held that a state hospital’s policy of conducting involuntary drug tests on pregnant women for law enforcement purposes constituted an unreasonable search, thus violating the Fourth Amendment. This highlights the necessity for consent and reasonableness in drug testing practices, especially when such tests can significantly impact individual rights. Parents facing testing requirements should understand these risks before offering samples that could dramatically impact their family’s future. This report identifies laboratories in various states that have been investigated for fraudulent schemes or providing false results in drug testing operations.

Read 17 tweets

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

@qaggnews

Apr 2

For some reason the article keeps mentioning Jeffrey Epstein

Read 5 tweets

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

@qaggnews

Mar 27

For nearly two decades, Gene Evans was the top spokesperson for two Oregon agencies charged with doing right by children.

But, as OPB reported this week, two former students say he sexually abused them when he was an Oregon teacher in the 1980s, including one who said he began an intense sexual relationship with her when she was just 17 and he was 31.

oregonlive.com/education/2025…

The plot thickens

For nearly two decades, Gene Evans was the public face of state agencies responsible for protecting Oregon’s children and holding accountable people who abuse them.

As spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Education and the Department of Human Services, Evans was regularly quoted in news outlets around the region on the well-being of students and investigations into physical abuse against children, including at Oregon schools.

“Our highest priority is the safety and protection of children,” Evans, then a state spokesman, said in a 2012 column in The Oregonian.

Read 7 tweets

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

@qaggnews

Mar 26

Investigations and legal proceedings throughout recent years have unveiled widespread fraudulent practices within drug testing laboratories across the United States, including kickback schemes and the issuance of medically unnecessary or unreliable test results. These activities defraud government healthcare programs and jeopardize public trust in medical and legal systems.

CAPSTONE

Capstone Diagnostics, LLC, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, has become a focal point of federal scrutiny for its role in fraudulent urine drug testing. Between 2017 and 2021, the laboratory collaborated with the *Do It 4 the Hood* (D4H) program, which was meant to mentor at-risk teenagers but mandated urine drug tests for participation. Capstone paid D4H operators a percentage of Medicaid reimbursements for these tests, despite their lack of medical necessity. Capstone’s D4H program extended into the Carolinas, where co-conspirators Bree’Anna Harris and Glenn Pair laundered proceeds from fraudulent drug tests. Their prosecutions reveal interstate collaboration in Medicaid fraud. Over $1 million in fraudulent claims were submitted to Georgia Medicaid, resulting in at least $400,000 in improper payments.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Capstone exploited federal testing protocols by substituting cheaper COVID-19 tests with costly RPPs, which screen for multiple respiratory pathogens. Sales representatives forged physician signatures and falsified diagnosis codes to justify billing, netting the lab millions in illicit reimbursements. CEO Andrew Maloney and COO Rachel Sheats pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges, with Capstone agreeing to a $14.3 million settlement.

PRECISION TOXICOLOGY

Precision Toxicology, based in San Diego, settled allegations of $27 million for billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs for unnecessary urine drug tests over a decade. The company provided free drug test cups to physicians in exchange for referrals, violating the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Read 10 tweets

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

@qaggnews

Mar 26

While everyone is distracted with whatever gate … this is happening in the Virgin Islands 👀

The lawsuit against V.I. Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett by victims of Jeffrey Epstein is “baseless and frivolous,” attorney Eric Breslin said in a statement Monday, after a ruling by a New York judge allowed the case to proceed.

In an order issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the six victims’ claims against nearly all of the original defendants, including former governors John deJongh Jr. and Kenneth Mapp, former V.I. first lady Cecile deJongh, former senators Celestino White Sr. and Carlton Dowe; and former Attorney General Vincent Frazer. The parties have 14 days to refile the claims in the Virgin Islands.

Subramanian also dismissed most claims against Plaskett, but found the court does have personal jurisdiction over her, and the case may proceed. The judge has not yet ruled on the merits of the victims’ allegations, including claims filed by attorney Jordan Merson that Plaskett accepted campaign contributions and a $30,000 loan in exchange for approving over $300 million in tax breaks for Epstein’s companies and ensuring he had access to victims.

“While it would be ideal to put an end to the baseless and frivolous claims made against my client, Stacey Plaskett, the legal proceedings this week have brought us one step closer to justice,” Breslin said in Monday’s statement. “This week, the Court addressed the pending Motions to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss views the facts favorable to the plaintiff and asks the Court to reject part or all of a case based on technical issues or deficiencies in the complaint itself.”

The judge “examined these motions and dismissed certain counts or specific allegations against Stacey Plaskett. This is good news for all of us. It’s important for the public to understand that many of the dismissals for other defendants were due to technicalities like jurisdictional issues, settlements they signed, and arguments about their positions as elected officials at the time of these crimes. We are actually excited by the opportunity the judge has given us!,” Breslin wrote.

For example, Subramanian ruled that the victims are barred from bringing claims against Cecile deJongh and all other former employees of Epstein’s, because of releases they’d signed under a settlement with Epstein’s estate.

“What remains for Ms. Plaskett is a single count. Our legal team is confident that this remaining allegation is not only factually unsupported but impossible to sustain,” Breslin wrote, adding that they intend to demonstrate during the legal process that the allegation is “not supported by the facts!”

There will be another round of motions and arguments soon, and Breslin said Plaskett’s legal team looks “forward to showing everyone, once again, that the accusations against Stacey are nothing more than a fabrication. The facts they are alleging that Plaskett gave tax benefits in exchange for campaign contributions do not make sense — since she did not have that ability and was not at the agency when the tax benefits were approved.”

Plaskett worked as counsel for the V.I. Economic Development Authority from 2007 to 2012, and had left by the time the board renewed Epstein’s tax benefits in 2013. Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. was serving as chairman of the EDA board at the time, and signed off on the decision, even after Epstein was convicted of child sex crimes in Florida.

The multi-millionaire would go on to serve an 18-month sentence in that state and register as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands — all while receiving tax exemptions from the EDA’s Economic Development Commission.

Plaskett went on to work for the law firm of Kellerhals, Ferguson, and Kroblin, before she was elected to Congress in 2015. Other attorneys for the firm have represented Epstein and his various businesses, as well as his estate.

The V.I. government sued Epstein’s estate and associates after his 2019 suicide, and settlements totaled $254.78 million, of which $182 million was allocated to the territory. Legal fees and charitable donations total $74.74 million, and there are $156 million in funds available to the V.I. government, according to Finance Commissioner Kevin McCurdy.

The government also sued JPMorgan, accusing the bank of facilitating Epstein’s crimes, and Plaskett was deposed as part of that case. In her deposition, Plaskett said she met privately with Epstein at his New York apartment to solicit campaign donations, after he was already a convicted sex offender.

After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, Plaskett publicly defended her decision to take campaign contributions from him, citing her personal “litmus test” that she said Epstein had passed, despite being a registered sex offender.

Plaskett initially said she would not return $8,100 she had received from Epstein. But as public pressure mounted, Plaskett reversed course and said she would instead donate an equivalent amount to the Women’s Coalition of St. Croix and the Family Resource Center on St. Thomas.

She accepted around $30,000 in total campaign contributions from Epstein and his employees, according to a transcript of her deposition in the JPMorgan case, and asked him to donate the maximum individual contribution of $30,000 for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The DCCC rejected Epstein’s contribution, and when asked if it was because Epstein was a sex offender, Plaskett said she “was not sure of the totality of the circumstances,” according to the deposition transcript.

Following his death, around 150 victims received compensation from Epstein’s estate totaling over $121 million. In exchange for accepting settlement offers to resolve their claims outside of court, the victims agreed to sign a release barring them from pursuing civil claims against “Epstein’s estate and any related entities or individuals,” including former employees like Cecile deJongh, who worked as Epstein’s office manager in the Virgin Islands for two decades.

According to Breslin, the plaintiffs’ attorneys, “have fabricated facts and insinuations for a payday for themselves at the expense of the Congresswoman, and the people of the Virgin Islands and even the victims who have to relitigate this matter again.”

Read 12 tweets

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

@qaggnews

Mar 15

A Cambridge magistrate criminally charged 12 of the 28 alleged customers of a high-end brothel network that operated in parts of Cambridge and Washington D.C. suburbs at a Friday morning hearing.

Nearly 18 months after federal prosecutors first arrested three of the brothel network’s ringleaders, 12 of the 28 alleged clients were summoned to appear at the Cambridge District Court for Friday’s probable cause hearings. Cambridge police, arguing in front of a clerk-magistrate instead of a judge, made a case for charging them with paying for sex.

The charge typically does not result in jail time, even in the case of a conviction. Probable cause hearings are held only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to file a criminal complaint. None of the men have been found guilty of a crime or gone to trial.

Clerk Magistrate Sharon S. Casey agreed to advance charges against the 12 men summoned today, issuing criminal complaints that will bring them to trial within the next several weeks.

Though all men were required to appear in-person for the Friday hearing, only 29-year-olds Mark Zhu and Jason Z. Han were present for the hearings. Han is a radiologic technologist at the Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Five different lawyers representing Kerry H. Wu, John J. Doran, David LaCava, Peter H. MacGillivray, Jonathan P. Lanfear, and Pinhao Chao — none of whom appeared in court — argued that Casey should either dismiss the cases or grant a year-long continuance.

Casey said that she was “not inclined” to hear arguments from the lawyers representing the 10 defendants who chose not to attend, instead advancing criminal charges shortly after hearing testimony from the Cambridge Police Department.

Boya Zhou, Yihong Zou, Pablo D. Maceira, Patrick Walsh, and their lawyers did not attend the hearings. CPD Lieutenant Jarred Cabral read the police reports for each and Casey ruled shortly after.

With criminal complaints filed, the 12 men will be summoned to return to the Cambridge District Court in the next few weeks. If they do not appear then, a warrant for their arrest can be issued.

The police reports read by Cabral for each individual included text messages that detailed the schedule and nature of the visits to the brothel sites in Cambridge.

The reports revealed details of how the brothel network operated. Men would text a phone number managed by brothel operators — a “brothel phone,” according to Cabral — to arrange the details of their visits before arriving at the apartment complex where the women, referred to only by “stage names,” were located.

The texts are peppered with acronyms — for example, Cabral said many of the alleged clients paid more than $300 for a “GFE,” or a “girlfriend experience,” which he said referred to spending more than an hour with one woman who “provides a more intimate experience,” including sex acts.

In series of short text exchanges, the men would communicate when they arrived and wait for the operator of the “brothel phone” to tell them to enter through a side door, according to complaints filed by Cabral with the Cambridge District Court. The 12 men summoned in Friday’s hearing all allegedly visited the Cambridge locations of the brothel network, including several units at 90 Fawcett St.

The men did not appear to have keys to the apartments. According to Cabral, security footage obtained by CPD shows that they were let in by someone already inside.

The police reports presented to the Clerk Magistrate cited surveillance footage collected from both the first and fourth floors of 90 Fawcett Street, which showed the men entering and exiting the building at times consistent with the text exchanges with the “brothel phone.”

All 12 of the men allegedly visited the brothel multiple times between July 2020 and November 2023, when the brothel network was busted by federal authorities. The three “ringleaders” of the brothel network — a woman and two men — have all pleaded guilty in federal court, and will be sentenced over the next month

None of the women have been named or charged. The police reports include only fake names that were used to refer to the women in the text messages.

The remaining 16 clients are scheduled to appear at probable cause hearings on March 21 and 28 at the Cambridge District Court’s satellite branch.

Read 29 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @qaggnews

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Qᴀɢɢ.ɴᴇᴡꜱ

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!