SCHIZO-FRISCO and the GOLDEN RULE

REGARDING THIS PERSON M.JOHNSON who pretended he knew me in high school and then ended up make threats to my family as he went and purchased a bus ticket to Santa Ana, the day me and Mrs. Kim had to evicted him from the property!!!

CRAZY PEOPLE....LEAVE ME ALONE...I'LL CATCH UP WITH YOU SOON..DON'T WORRY.....

So what would you do if someone you did not know. Kept irritating you with none sense and trying to get close to you. Then turn around and start telling those around you, at the Salvation Army Transitioning Program, nothing but lies. Lies such as he knew me in high school and that he, family and other friends from high school are concerned about my substance use and the DRUG CHART CHALLENGE. That he is in Las Vegas and hopefully he can be of some help to. He even told people that my insisting and over dramatized actions towards the DRUG CHART CHALLENGE has altered my entire mental ability and that I am not the same as I use to be.

Any attempt by me to intentionally be down (why pretend about that which I do not have nor am willing to put effort to obtain) was criticized as he let others be influenced by his hearsay. I confronted him and let him know, that I am REALLY at the SALVATION ARMY for salvation...Their Mission STATEMENT IS; The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

And after reading William Booths In Darkest England https://www.canonsociaalwerk.eu/1887_ldhreclassering/1890Boothdarkestengland.pdf there was nothing in me that was concerned about the lies that he was spreading. If people really wanted to believe those lies, then I felt let them. Less stress for me.

This person use to also try to get me involved with ZOOM ZOOM behavior. As I posted several times, the song by Aretha Franklin, "Who's Zooming Who"https://youtu.be/pOjjxXwjglM explains how I feel about those who ZOOM in on a person life, they end up being ZOOMED themselves. So I never found a need to search the internet to find out about the people who are attempting to associate with me. WHY, that would be a waste of time, seeming I have nothing to hide and for the most part STILL BELIEVE IN THE GOLDEN RULE and trust most people (not all today!!!).

He pushed me to research him. And when I finally did, I didn't truly believe the story I found about him (which is sort of impossible to find today. Back then I suspected it was PHISHED and still today, unless otherwise informed.) I found out that he was on some political candidates team. Finally she won office and then he started embezzling funds from her campaign. I didn't find it truthful, although I did research the candidate, who in 2008 had won office again, without him on her team.

It's bullshit like this that never really got explained. And at the same time the FBI was doing a sting operation on the Salvation Army.

Sometimes this is just unbelievable, and then coupled with the bullshit from SCHIZO-FRISCO, why would I believe any bullshit. And when it comes to professionals I verbally want to say WELL WHEN ONE PROFESSIONAL DOES YOU WRONG AND LIES AND MISGUIDE YOU, HOW ARE YOU TO BELIEVE ANY OTHERS??? http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2015/02/case-manager-neglect-importance-of.html

Margret Finn of South West Behavioral Services, LIES about Phoenix Police Department.

Margaret Finn of South West Behavioral Services, LIES about Phoenix Police Department. (Case Manager Neglect ) by: Paul Goree

This is the ongoing details regarding the neglected actions and defamations of South West Behavioral Services case manager Margaret Finn. Till date 4 years have elapses and still no conclusion or actions have been taken against Margaret Finn. Margret Finn herself has failed to acknowledge her wrongful actions, and there effect upon client Paul Goree. Thus I will continue to disclosure valuable details of the events as they occurred from Nov 2012 to the present.

In is imperative that all case managers and civic personal that interact with citizens, understand the affect they have on an individual. Deceptive behavior and expression, not only cause confusion for clients, but also reflect upon inter civic departments.  For example, Margret Finn has cost the state of ARIZONA and CALIFORNIA, valuable social service dollars, as I continue to be unable to progress forward without CLOSURE of her actions.  I think Mrs. Finn fully needs to understand the doubt she has cast upon other interlinked departments, such as the Phoenix Police Department is detrimental to the social collective.

“There is a police/social work partnerships that serve as a community response to crisis situations signaled by calls for police service.” (Charles W. Dean, Ph.D., University of North Carolina). The importance of the police/case management partnership is to provide communicational link by which the police department aids in the socio-factors of development for the client. These factors are within the environment of the client’s placement. And aid the police department as the officers secure a safety-productive environment not only for the client, but for the general society.

November 2012, Margaret Finn’s clients Paul Goree and Angel Thurman had an incident with the Phoenix Police Department. Client Angel Thurman called 911, and made a complaint against client Paul Goree. The complaint expressed notions that Paul Goree had threaten Angel Thurman with several knives. The 911 dispatched 5 Phoenix Police units to 4802 N 19th Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85015. The police officer after securing the apartment and gathering the report, concluded by providing a CIVIC 101 Lesson of appropriate usage of 911 services to Angel Thurman. The officer then requested the name and phone number of the case manager: Johnny Garcia/Margaret Finn South West Behavioral Services. Finally the officer informed me as he wrote upon his report, that he would be requesting a SEPARATION INTERVENTION, seeming he had concluded that Thurman and Goree’s living arrangement was not going to be practical: and would only result in repeat incidences.

I agreed with the officer and later reflected upon the monetary cost, Angel Thurman’s false phone call cost the city of Phoenix. That cost also includes the 2 later complaints (December 2012 and February 2013).  Three 911 calls to the Phoenix Police Department, expressing complaints from Angel Thurman about the living discomfort both he and I were experiencing. Yet not one intervention from Margret Finn and South West Behavioral Services.

When I confronted Margaret Finn with questions as to why she nor Johnny Garcia intervene as the Phoenix Police Department had requested, she replied, “She had not received any police reports or incident reports from the Police Department.” Once again Margret Finn lies to conceal her unethical manners.  I questioned whether Mrs. Finn actually expects me to believe that the Phoenix Police Department is lying. This is the type of character flaw that should to be examine regarding Mrs. Finns conduct as a case manager.

The 911 calls and the corresponding police reports can easily be pulled to provide the evidence needed to conclude Margaret Finns and South West Behavioral Services neglect. Had Mrs. Finn attended to the 3 police interventions ranging from November 2012 thru February 2013, I would have been placed in a different environment, and proceed forward productively.  At this point, I will seek legal representation against Mrs. Finn and South West Behavioral Services. I think Mrs. Finn does not fully understand the importance of her position as if affects the lives of others and incurred financial expenses and continued dependency upon social services, effecting the state’s economic security.

Case Manager Violating 5th Amendment! What is fair and not in America these days?

All the time this discussion was going on, client 2 was in his room, with a few of the strangers who were not interested in what client 1 had to say. A few days following this discussion, client 2 walked into the apartment with equipment he had purchased from Cox Communication. Client 1 had already had an account with Cox Communication for Wi-Fi service only. The account was established September 2012. Client 2 opened a new account in his own name for DSL telephone service (seeming the apartment lacked the stated telephone for emergency calls) and cable television services (the only television was in client 2’s bedroom). In order for the DSL telephone to function, it needed client 1’s Wi-Fi box and service. At first client 1 had no problem with letting client 2 use the service. However on this particular day, client 1 was working on some class work on his blackberry phone, seeming client 2 had stolen his laptop. Client 2 arrived home and went to turn on the DSL, interrupting the Wi-Fi signal of client 1.

 A confrontation resulted, whereby client 1 unplugged the Wi-Fi box and placed it in his room. Client 2 demanded that client 1 plug it back in. Client 1 refused. Client 2 then proceeded to go to the front office of the apartment complex and call the case workers. Client 2 returned and informed client 1 that both case workers were coming over. When the case workers arrived they attempted to resolve the problem. They did not address any of the prior 6 months of neglect and police reports, or the condition of the apartment, the welfare of the clients, simply the issue at hand. Client 2 explained the event, by accusing client 1 of not allowing him to use the cable signal for a telephone call. Client 1 respondent by informing the case managers that the cable signal is not the problem, the problem is that he was in the middle of doing some class work on his private property, with his private account that he had invested over $700 in over the past 10 months with Cox Communication, and that he did not feel he had to attend to Client 2’s disrespectful demand! Client 1 pointed out to the case managers that not only has he let client 2 use the Wi-Fi box, not once did client 2 show any appreciation with a simple thank you. He was upset with client 2’s constant plug in of the DSL box when both clients have cell phones, and that it cost him $75 dollars deposit for the connection to function, by which client 2 didn’t pay one dime. Thus in order for it to be equally shared doesn’t seem possible, seeming client 1 had the main account first and paid the deposit.

 The case workers respondent by urging client 1 to cooperate and let client 2 share the Wi-Fi signal. Client 1 concluded at this point that these two case workers were incompetent and that actions must be taken to have them reviewed.  A temporary agreement was made, which client 2 enjoyed, but client 1 felt was unfair. How could two case manager instruct a client as to how they need to allocate their private property against their will. This was a violation of client 1’s civil liberties (5th Amendment.). Within the 5th Amendment, it is stated..."be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." Considering this clause, it is important that the following is understood, with regards to private property:

1.) The owner's exclusive authority to determine how private property is used.

2.) The owner's peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private property.

3.) The owner's ability to make contracts or decisions to use, sell, rent, or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private property. (Tom Deweese, 2012).