reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @ALegalProcess

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

🚨NM Governor EO Declares Public Health Emergency | Lying about Guns and Child Deaths Guns are NOT the leading cause of death for NM children, and it's not even close. Lets look⬇️ Data on NM minor deaths is easy to obtain, difficult to analyze bc, for whatever reason, many government agencies are defining "youths" up to 19 or 24 yo, or combine reporting years, obscuring actual data on minors. This report appears the most comprehensive and looks at ages up to 17yo, but despite published as the "2022 Report" - the data includes child deaths from 2015 thru 2021, selecting and reviewing 163 child deaths to draw general conclusions on trends/leading causes. So, let's start here: 1/ Homicide is only 11% of all minor deaths (up to age 19) from 2015-21, with 18 deaths during that period. 2/ Suicide, on the other hand, is 27% of all minor deaths, over 2x the number of homicides, consisting of 44 children from 2015-21. 3/ Accidents, including vehicles but also accidental gun deaths, is the number 1 cause of death - by far: 45% of all deaths, total of 77. Here's another chart for reference :

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

2/ Turning to another source - selected health data annual report 2019, we can see where the politicization of data really kicks in: In this report, reporting on "youth" deaths include adults up to 24 yo. In this report, rates (not actual number) of leading causes of death by age looks horribly tragic and terrible -and something must be done! - but, the data had to include "youths" up to 24yo to do it: Tucked into an appendix is the actual number of deaths, lumping young adults up to 24yo with teenagers 15-17. NM is a small state. These numbers are, comparatively, very small. But they are making the data hard to extract and interpret for a reason. And yesterday, the governor just told you why.

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

3/ Finally, it must be said - this is the reality about the number one cause of death for children in NM. End.

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

https://t.co/hiugQACcT9

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

📢NM Governor is lying about child gun deaths - the real reason for her EO is that NM is being overrun by dangerous human traffickers The real reason why NM is suspending constitutional rights but blaming children's gun deaths: the southern border is collapsing.… https://t.co/typvfOYmRR

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

Public Records Law | @KariLake vs Maricopa: Where is the AZ Republic - why don't they care about this precedent-setting case? Maricopa says Kari doesn't fall into one of the statutory or judicial exceptions entitling her to inspect signed affidavit envelopes. Maricopa says ARS 16-168(F) applies to public disclosure of the signed envelopes, and although there are exceptions, none would apply to Kari Lake. But you know who expressly does get the exception under that statute? <> Strangely, tho, they don't care about this case, despite their history in shaping Arizona judicial precedent in public records law. Their decision to sit this one out is out of character for them...and very curious: Phoenix Newspapers Inc. (d/b/a AZ Republic) has a long-standing history of intervening in important cases to enforce a broad interpretation of public records law - favoring disclosure. Through these interventions, the Republic has shaped legal precedent in this state. They care about this issue - as they should. The AG Handbook on Public Records Law (exerpt below) cites favorably some of the cases where they jumped into a high-profile case to shape judicial precedent in favor public disclosure. Here's one that Maricopa is using now to reject Kari's demand to see the signed envelopes: the "Best Interest of the State Exemption." This exception allows a custodian to withhold records if disclosure "would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of the officials or agencies in question." The "Best Interest of the State Exception" is one of Maricopa's affirmative defenses to producing these records to Kari. So, that's ONE issue the Republic would normally jump on to intervene to ensure the court won't unduly restrict their future access to public records with a bad decision. Maricopa's other affirmative defense is statutory: Maricopa says ARS 16-168(F) makes voters' signatures confidential, and although exceptions exist in the statute, none of them apply to Kari Lake. So what exceptions exist? ARS 16-168(F) is unfortunately poorly written (like many in AZ), so I break down the exceptions in bulleted points here. The general rule is that voter registration records are available for public disclosure, except certain items, such as records containing a voter's signature, shall not be disclosed except to (see bullets): Yes, it is that obvious. According to Maricopa - Kari Lake doesn't get the voters' signatures now, but if she still worked for local media or was doing a "news gathering" piece, by all means - here you go, no redactions. Or would they? Judges can be unpredictable - will this judge protect the "media privilege"? With this explicit exception for media on the judicial chopping block - you'd think the Republic would have a special interest in this case - to fend off bad case law that may narrowly restrict a reading of the statue to limit their future access. You'd also think they intervene to stop a judge from further narrowing the "best interest of the state" judicial exception they worked hard in the past to oppose. Both these affirmative defenses implicate the media's right to public records. Both defenses would normally compel the Republic owners to intervene in such a precedent-setting, high-profile case, and seek to maximize public disclosure. But no, not for Kari. They are willing to cede judicial encroachment, they are willing to give up future rights to public records, and limit their own ability to expose corruption. Because its @karilake.

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

@AbeWarRoom @Rach_IC AZ senate outsources an audit? AZ Republic files amici brief bc “The Public Records Law would be rendered meaningless” if they can’t see the records. Most irregular and maladministered election in state history and MC outsources vote processing? AZ Repub: Not THOSE records!

@ALegalProcess - TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed)

Public Schools | Unregulated Mental Health Service Providers (dba "certified counselors/social workers"): @azedschools publishes new guidance, with state medicaid agency, to expand presence of licensed mental health providers in AZ schools, transforming our understanding of schools as primarily academic-focused institutions into a hybrid school/mental health clinic model euphemistically called "community schools." Here's what you need to know. Source here: https://azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/BehavioralHealthServices/SBH_ResourceGuide.pdf Some good, some bad, so here's MY reader's guide to the guidance: 1/ "Community" Framework. Transforming schools from primarily academic centers into "community schools" with one-stop academic, physical and mental health services, the guidance purports to provide a framework to enter partnerships with licensed mental health professionals (referred to as "community providers") to take school service referrals. The framework includes: Delineation of roles between ADE-certified social workers/counselors/psychologists, and board-licensed professional mental health providers. >By this metric, the guidance fails to adequately distinguish the scope of practice between the two. As I've repeatedly written, "certified" mental health providers in schools are not subject to the same professional standards of care regulated by the board of licensing, nor are they subject to discipline by a professional board. >The failure to clearly delineate roles can be attributed to the guidance's reliance primarily on the advocacy positions of the American School Counselors Association. ASCA is not a professional licensing board, they are a volunteer association with no enforcement or disciplinary power over members. >The "certified" vs "licensed" distinction is not even mentioned in the guidance. The authors apparently do not want to highlight the difference - and I think that's purposeful to obscure the increasing "professional creep" of unlicensed workers into areas of mental health practice that IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT OTHER THAN SCHOOLS - would require licensing from the board. >The authors stay in the "gray zone" where ADE-certified workers gradually assume greater roles in the provision of mental heath that ordinarily requires licensing and oversight by the state board. You can see this "professional creep" in this graphic, taken from ASCA research, with my redlined addition. Where on this continuum should a child be referred to a licensed mental health provider? At what point does a school employee call the parent and refer out? The guidance does not say: Likewise, note closely how many times and in what priority "family" is mentioned on the right, "community" (i.e., board licensed)-side of the "Whole School" pyramid model. Now look on the ADE-certified side where "family" is at the bottom. What does this even mean? Does the relative priority reflect the fact that, by law, board licensed mental health providers must obtain prior, informed consent from parents of a minor before treatment - but an ADE-certified school counselor can just stop a kid in the hall and say, "let's talk during your lunch period?" (To be continued...)