REGIONAL HUD and HUD LETTER GRIEVANCE FROM CITIZEN PAUL GOREE

From: paulgoree@live.com
To: mharris@michaelharrisgroup.com; roger.morris@quarles.com; info@sbhservices.org; rhed@hud.gov; contactcenter@gpo.gov; pgoree@asu.edu
Subject: Grievance Procedure of South West Behavioral Health Phoenix AZ
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:13:18 -0700


To Whom It May Concern;

The following inserts, represent 3 months of attempts to file a grievance against South West Behavioral Health case workers Johnny Garica and Margret Finn. The letter detail events that occurred in Phoenix Arizona regarding HOWPA housing. Information regarding unethical case worker behavior can be found on blog: http://paulgoree.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/person-environment-and-case-worker-neglect/

Please attend to this matter, seeming I was/am a social welfare student and find it very difficult to continue under ASU and NASW code of ethics, when two professional case workers at South West Behavioral Health have neglected and violated the professional ethics when dealing with myself and two other clients.

These are the HOWPA codes violated:

HOWPA statue 24 CFR 574.440

24 CFR 83.306(d)

24 CFR 574.310(e)

Also client confidentiality and unethical quasi employment intent (where I as a social welfare student, was held responsible for the actions of two roommates and requested to report to Johnny Garcia, but not to consider my actions as employment! These actions of both Finn and Garica are in violation of National Association of Social Workers)

Paul Goree
(602) 330-6758
paulgoree@live.com

Non-Effective Case Managers (Margaret Finn and Johnny Garcia)

Consider Johnny Garcia...In 02/2013 he called me to ask if I had a laptop that was stolen at the apartment, that me and "A" share. I informed him yes. He then asked if I filled out a police report? I informed him "No, that I'm tending to it my way, and would consider-should I or should I not!" Then he asked me, "If I was seeing/dating/involved with "A"?" I told him, "No". He then told me, that
"A" claimed that I rapped him!"  and conversationally ended the call.

First thing, since when does the case manager call the culprit/the accused. I'd rather he called the police department, like codes/ethics instruct all personals from any industry to do. Just to think had I really rapped "A" and Johnny had called me and I had it out for "A".  How non-effective of him!!!

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).