I saved the following company statement in 2003.

"Our partnership with State of Georgia to help children and families remains strong with this contract award. We know that because of our child support collections efforts assist families in achieving self-sufficiency and remaining free of public assistance," said MAXIMUS CEO, Dr. David V. Mastran

　

I wrote asking for the raw data on how many families " in achieving self-sufficiency and remaining free of public assistance,". With no reply I began an investigation on the accuracy of the companies ability to deliver on the advertised results. Without MMS cooperation but with a sizeable international fellowship supplying documentation the statement is bogus. Of all the groups of various agendas I've contacted I've not received one report on one single family achieving self-sufficiency through the efforts of any collection agency operated by MMS. The number of reports of the payor not being able to pay as the result of MMS policy resulting in a loss to the payee and fees associated to MMS is astronomical. How can anyone trust a company that unabashedly lies on the companies stated purpose by misrepresenting the actual results.

How can any company involved in government contracts from the Dept of Justice to the Dept of Defence trust Maximus. I'll soon be asking that question to the companies, past, present or future involved with Maximus.

MAXED OUT

In many cases when a father isn't making a full payment they suspend that persons drivers licence. It could be that persons hours are cut due to seasonal or economic circumstances as is common in rural areas. For that person without a DL getting to and from work sketchy if not impossible. Consequently by removing this persons right to work the father cant make any payments. If the mother wasn't on welfare with partial payments odds are she would be without any payment. This is a common occurrence The `manufacture` of a very large number dead broke dads compared to real dead beats costs the mother and certainly decreases both the top and bottom line of Maximus.


In my case Family Maintenance Enforcement (FMEP) contracted out to the Canadian subsidiary, Themis, took it upon themselves to write letters to my previous employers. For a company hiring a crew putting someone in the works that loses 50% of their paycheck, before taxes, isn't a good choice for many obvious reasons.
I can supply many letters of reference I gathered from said previous employers showing I was at the top of the rehire list. After FMEPs letters I barely got in the front door. One personnel manager told me "no one will hire you".
By denying me my right to work when I was out of the work force with cancer I was only able to pay very little, the amount the mother of my children and my children lost is quite large. Tally that with all the other "manufactured" dead broke dads and the effects of both the top and bottom line. Company policies as currently expressed by the large number of manufactured dead broke and increased number of mothers and children on welfare can't be good for investor confidence as we move forward.

Second, close association with illegal activities.

Rules, bah we don't need no stinkin rules.

In Canada you do not need to apply for CPP till you are 60 years old.

Usually the people that falsify government documents defend their actions by saving "another disgruntled father trying to get out of paying child support".
Having the unfortunate experience of a loss of fine motor control my hand writing was not considered writing by a very English teachers ruled school so I went logging at 115 lbs and 15 years old.
At 17 I told a mine I was 18 so I could work underground. Working logging in the summer for the money and working the mine in the winter I worked my way through every logging job save grading road. In the mines I spent several years doing every job save diamond drilling. I even took a crash course in trigonometric functions to land an underground surveyors helper job. In a matter of a few years I set up an engineering office for a new mine. I got the job because I was the only person working in engineering, I was hired by recommendation of the retired mine super where I first hired on as a helper.
I switched in 1975 from logging in the summer to heavy construction, drilling and blasting. I have held several rock superintendent jobs including the 1989 port expansion in Prince Rupert BC.
Top of the rehire list to "no one will hire you". I think Canada could treat its serious cancer patients with a little more compassion, ah well thats just me,, and that's Maximus.


Human Resources, administered by the BC government forced me to sign the papers by withholding my pension check until I signed when I was 59, even though I told them they were not complying with the law. They forced me because FMEP would collect perhaps as much as $200 more than had I signed legally at 60. Its important to me as my total income is just over $9000/year but its more important to you.
The effect on investor confidence that Maximus policies are not working as advertised but also is associated with unlawful activities would make me run for cover. The first set of pages show I put "under duress" on every signature line before signing. The evidence of the illegal no sign, no check policy. The next was kindly presented to me from my file thanks to one of the staff. Notice it says I was happy about signing. First they break the law then they falsify government documents to hide what they did.
I've repeatedly asked FMEP why they would take away my right to work when I clearly couldn't work, seems they are stuck on either suggesting family court to answer the question or just reply "message noted".
If Maximus won't answer the question there must be a reason they won't,,, is Themis out of control could this be a bad economy to have this come to light?
From my extensive research the number of dead broke parents as the result of policy such as rules or even the rule of law is large enough for a noticeable affect on both top and bottom lines but the association to the pursuit of policy through illegal methods is the bigger picture.

Bankers lost trust for issuing sub-prime mortgages, how much confidence would they have lost had they been involved in manufacturing false documentation supplied to the government.


3 government `under duress` docs and the falsified doc.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=131f81f0f7d73bae&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3Dc95bc8d3e8%26view%3Datt%26th%3D131f81f0f7d73bae%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Df6209ccb754aff2a_0.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQICjOFefDYPDpVwVSRu10Asltf_w&pli=1

There must have been a reason.

I was thinking about how the mother of my children testified in court that she never denied access when she had previously said she had denied access many times for no reason. The judge remarked in her decision that she must have had a reason. She didn't elaborate on whether she was excusing the perjury or the contempt of court by refusing to abide by the court order.

I'm positive those connected to acting unlawfully and then on the same day create and insert in my file a total lie will be telling a lot more lies. It wasn't because of putting under duress as the worker never noticed. she put it in my file because I told her she was acting unlawfully. Falsifying the record of events on a government document was to cover her ---, she knew at the time when she said "no sign, no check".

I don't know what lies will be told so I will cover them all be laying out the complete story here.

In 1995 she moved out. I loaned her both my pickup and the company truck and said, "haul till you.ve got everything you want or the place is empty. The next month we sat down and drew up a separation agreement that where she would receive 2/3 of all the assets and took it to our lawyer to have it drawn up.
One day she walked into Peter Kennedy's office and said she was not going through with the agreement but was taking me to court. Mr. Kennedy at the time said she won't get near this much from the courts.
She quit a full time job to go on welfare to get a free lawyer. After she secured Michael Thornton she then went on unemployment benefits. At the time it was beyond me why Thornton would even take the case considering the ink was still wet on the settlement agreement unless there was a lot in it for Thornton. Remember that, it'll come up again.

Although she sold our brand new car and pocketed it I also paid any extra child support ordered. In 1996 I was diagnosed with cancer. Thornton requested to the courts any missed payments to come out of my share of the assets. The judge said that was a most unusual request. Even though I was not required to pay child support with a life threatening illness I volunteered to pay and an order for the minimum amount was drawn up.

Acting in accordance with the law I sold some of my personnel possessions to pay a joint debt of money we borrowed from my mother. I was found in contempt of court for not notifying the courts of my action in a timely fashion. Thornton tried twice to have the judge rule it was unjust enrichment because it went to a member of my family but both judges tossed that and held the contempt rule.

In 1998 the final decision was held, the money was turned over and soon after that FMEP took away my right to work. I was denied all access to my children under sole custody rules so I took losing my rehire status I worked all my life for drove me into a deep depression that still surfaces but for shorter duration.

I'm depressed not crazy.

I have never even threatened her with any sort of violence let alone raise a hand. It appears to me I've done everything right so it must be about the money. The story goes a judge ordered Thornton be paid before the children so he made out in a bill a scooped the child support money right out of the pool courts held.
FMEP is sticking to the story, even though child support was named by the federal government as the most important think to a child of divorce apparently there's a judge that puts the lawyers fees ahead of child support. I was wondering what was in it for Thornton when he took the case as a legal aid lawyer, he was going to corner a big chunk of the money by eventually charging full rate.