Ontario -> FRO (Family Responsibility Office) -> Maximus -> Themis = BAD!

[IAMI]

I was digging around to find out about the company Maximus and it's relation to the Family Responsibility Office in Ontario (and FMEP/MEP I believe). In googling I found this session of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. About half way down you can read the questioning regarding the software the FRO is using. Themis apparently created the software for them. They are wholey owned by Maximus. Maximus has a horrible reputation in the USA, and many States are abandoning them as enforcement agencies. The FRO plays stupid and says over and over that their contract is with Themis and they have no idea about the reputation of Maximus.
Way to do your background check on such a huge deal there Government... Sharan Van Son even speaks and drives home my confidence in these people.

Let the ineptitude commence!

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/commi...mates/E017.htm

Wednesday 17 May 2006

...
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Now I'll turn it over to Mr. Prue and the NDP.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'll start on a new field that hasn't been touched yet by anyone, the FRO software. You've hired a company called Themis, a subsidiary of Maximus, an American corporation. Can you tell us why you chose this company?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: I'll turn it over to the deputy minister to answer that question.

Mr. Costante: We did go through a competitive process for the selection of the software for the Family Responsibility Office. A number of firms put in bids. There were criteria for assessing those, and we chose Themis. Themis also has a history of building software for this particular field and had designed the system used in BC, which is considered to be one of the leading systems in Canada.

Mr. Prue: Maximus corporation has what can only be described as a terrible history in the United States -- absolutely abysmal. I'm going to go through each one of the states and the problems they've had. Did you investigate any of these?

Mr. Costante: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of Maximus corporation in the United States. We have a contract with Themis.

Mr. Prue: With their wholly owned subsidiary in Canada, Themis.

Mr. Costante: Yes.

Mr. Prue: Okay, let's just go through some of these things and just tell me if you weren't aware or you didn't look at them. In the state of Wisconsin, there was an audit done. They found that Maximus staff travelled and worked on out-of-state projects from September 1997 through March 2000. Forty-six staff in the Milwaukee office also worked on other Maximus projects that were unrelated to their work and what they were being paid for. In total, 724 hours of these staff were incorrectly billed to W-2 -- that is the Wisconsin program -- resulting in overcharges of $51,000.

I'm only starting: Were you aware of any of this and what the Wisconsin Legislature had to say about this company?

1620

Mr. Costante: No, we're not.

Mr. Prue: Were you aware that in Wisconsin -- let me just give you some of the questionable transactions found by the auditor of Wisconsin -- there was an overpayment charge of $40,178 made to a vendor that provided Maximus telephone systems to an office supply store, and the overpayments were not noted for computer purchases? Were you aware of that one?

Mr. Costante: Can I state that I understand that when we first started this process in Themis, they were not owned by this company. It's our understanding that that took place midway through. Our contract is with Themis, not with this American company.

Mr. Prue: Maximus bought out Themis in 2002.

Mr. Costante: Okay. That's not our understanding, but we can check on that.

Mr. Prue: That's the information I have here, that it was bought in 2002. I want to go on to some of the other shenanigans. I just want to make sure that we're not getting ripped off here, because I have a feeling that we may be ripe for getting ripped off.

Some of the more egregious things Wisconsin found were: $15,741 in expenditures that benefited Maximus or its employees, including a meeting held in the Interlaken Resort; a holiday party at the Milwaukee Clarion Hotel; hotel rooms in Lake Geneva; corporate memberships; and agency-sanctioned parties and other social events. Is Themis allowed to do any of these things?

Mr. Costante: No, they're not.

Mr. Prue: Have you audited them at all to make sure they're not doing the same thing as their parent company?

Mr. Costante: What I'd like to do is ask the assistant deputy minister for the Family Responsibility Office to talk about the checks and balances we have in the contract and how we operate this to assure you that -- we can never be 100% sure, I think everyone knows that, but as much as possible, we make sure that public money is used appropriately, accounted for, and there is no wrongdoing going on.

The Vice-Chair: Could I have you put your name forward, please?

Ms. Sharon van Son: My name is Sharon van Son and I'm the assistant deputy minister with the Family Responsibility Office. I would just like to answer Mr. Prue's question a little bit in terms of the process we went through to obtain Themis as the vendor for this project. It was a very rigorous process, and I would say that it established a very high standard to ensure that we did not run into the issues you are talking about at this point. We retained a fairness commissioner who obviously oversaw the entire process to ensure that everything we did was appropriate, met the OPS standards and that there was fairness at every step of this process.

There was a pre-release of a posting of a draft RFP for approximately four weeks to the vendor community to seek out whether there were vendors who were interested. Then there was the actual posting of the RFP. All the documentation prior to this posting was reviewed by this fairness commissioner. This was referred to as a blind review, so as we were going through the vendors' proposals, we did not know whose proposals we were reviewing, and as a result, fairness was ensured. They had to meet a strict number of criteria before we would award the contract. The RFP, if I may say, is probably one of the best that has been developed in government in recent times and was actually noted by the centre as being a best practice, because of the due diligence that was put into this process.

There were mandatory requirements that every vendor had to meet. The evaluation of criteria was sound and focused on three areas in terms of the solution functionality of the proposal that was being put forward. There was a strict evaluation of an implementation plan, and obviously an evaluation of the proponents' experience and their qualifications. At the end of all those written reviews, the vendors then had to demonstrate their solution and were also interviewed. At that time, for the vendors that were successful in passing the mandatory criteria, there was again a very in-depth evaluation, reference checks, and then a final decision-making that was again reviewed in its totality by the fairness commissioner.

We have our contract with Themis Consulting. The contract is a deliverable-based contract, so they do not get paid unless they meet the terms and conditions of the contact and deliver on all aspects of the contract as required in the RFP.

I'm quite confident in this process because, like you, Mr. Prue, we certainly do not want to be in a situation where we have a vendor that does not have integrity or does not deliver as they are required to do.

Mr. Prue: How stringently are you auditing them? This is the same firm that is very controversial and active in BC.

Ms. van Son: I'm unaware of the controversial aspect of them, but we work there on-site. There is a team from Themis that is on-site, and has been on-site with us since July of last year. We meet. There is a whole governance structure in place. They have met with the deputy on a regular basis. There are deliverables that they must meet and we are holding them to those. The contract, if you look at the RFP, is quite clear in terms of what they must do in terms of their work with us.

Mr. Prue: I would take it that to date there has been no experience such as that found in the United States. Most states that have contracted Maximus, the parent company, have got out of it: Colorado; Arizona, I understand, is trying to get out of it or has got out of it; most of the others as well. You've not had any difficulty whatsoever?

Ms. van Son: No, quite to the contrary.

Mr. Prue: Is that because we have a better contract or we're smarter or we watch it better, or what?

Ms. van Son: I think we've done our homework. We attended public accounts, and one of the things we talked about was the necessity of having a proper process in place and due diligence, and we have met that criterion. I would like to think very much that we have done our due diligence and have a contract that can stand up with confidence.

Mr. Prue: Some of the places in the United States found out their costs actually increased. Have we done a cost-benefit analysis to see whether or not we're saving any money with Themis, or is it too early?

Ms. van Son: Saving money in terms of the actual operation of the system?

Mr. Prue: Yes.

Ms. van Son: We're still in the process of developing the system, but certainly the system we currently have in place, which is an old mainframe system written in COBOL, a 15-year-old financial accounting system, is inefficient and not cost-effective. One of the reasons we went to a new system was to create a system that was much more flexible, had greater efficiencies both in terms of productivity and cost.

[IAMI]

Mr. Prue: The reams of paper that I have here on this company and everything they have done illegally, immorally and everything in the United States is really quite shocking. Would you be interested in looking at this company we've contracted with?

Ms. van Son: It's very worrisome in terms of what you have said, in terms of Maximus, but I just want to confirm with you that our contract is with Themis and that they are the sole signing authority throughout this contract. Certainly, if there is material you'd like us to read, I'd be happy to read it, but I have to say our experience is anything but that.
...

[IAMI]

A bit more info... on Themis

----------------------------

US CORPORATION REMOVES CANADIAN'S PASSPORT

Fundamentally, the Attorney General of BC contracts out the collection of family maintenance to a US corporation that has powers that vastly exceed those of the CCRA. All the CCRA (Revenue Canada) can fine you and eventually take you to court. The FMEP can fine you and also remove licenses and passports without even a hearing. The vast majority of the population is completely unaware of this travesty of democracy and justice.

The numbers are incredible. For example, the Federal Governments report indicates 9,154 applications from BC, and only 4,500 for all of the rest of Canada for the year 2001.

The Attorney General's documentation indicates that there are 8,127 Federal license denials, in BC, as of March 31, 05. These, one can assume are a fair number of Passport removals, which directly violate Section 6 of the Charter of Rights. The FMEP has a total of about 39,000 files, which means that they are using this sledgehammer approach to punish, rather than to simply collect.

B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada which contracts out its FMEP tasks. B.C. has renewed its contract to 2008 for about $10M US a year (~100 employees) to a company called Themis:

Themis Program Management & Consulting Ltd.
P.O. Box 8851
Victoria, B.C.
V8W 3Z1
250-382-5170
fax 250-382-5177
www.themis.bc.ca

Themis has 3 Regional Client Offices in Victoria, Burnaby, and Kamloops. The Burnaby office services about 20,000 cases in the Lower Mainland, Sunshine Coast, and Fraser Valley. There are 3 Enforcement Managers with about 45 staff in total, and 6 legal counsel with 3 legal secretaries at the location. The Burnaby location is at:

Themis Program Management / FMEP
5000 Kingsway Plaza
Suite 408-4980 Kingsway
Burnaby, B.C.
V5H 4K7

Themis is owned by a U.S. company called "Maximus Canada Inc." out of Reston Virginia, which seems to do similar FMEP business in the U.S.. Maximus also owns an unknown company called "Gaea Management Ltd." which recently donated $1,000 to Canada's Paul Martin as a political donation.

According to Maximus, "B.C.'s FMEP has a reputation for being technologically advanced and being a leader in providing customer-focused service."

Cheers,
IAMI

[fighting_father]

Bottom Line,

If the guidelines were some what FAIR, and in real time proportion (net income) I think that many more Fathers would be a little more co-operative, and wouldn't be thinking about slitting their throats.

They can take government privileges away, and government benefits away, but they can't take away our freedom and rights.

Since B.C. contracts out to third party debt collectors and it is now in the hands of FMEP, the ‘court’ system cannot take one back to ‘court’ for contempt. In my opinion it would be a conflict of interest. Judge creates order, hands it to third party, both bringing motion, conflict of interest.

E.G:
Ex tries to take you back to ‘court’ or FMEP tries to take you back for contempt, since there is a third party and judge cannot testify or be a witness, it creates a conflict of interest and you’re not granted a fair trial.
Since the judge created the order, he has to stand by the order, and for any claims of relief the judge has to bring the action. The judge did not grant anyone anything until he/she upholds the order. How can he do this, the assumption that an injured party brings this action to ‘court’, no evidence, no proof of claim, no jurisdiction.

This maybe a little bit ass backwards, but think about it, why should the judge creating such orders be allowed to get away with it, stand behind their bogus order.

Since I’m supposedly in contract with FMEP_FRO_MEP, brining one back for contempt of ‘court’ order, the ‘court’ has no jurisdiction anymore, they handed it over to the extortionists. Since extortionists have no proof of claim, then there is a conflict of interest, stale mate. The third party has the burden of proof now, ball in their ‘court’.
Do not waiver from this, if you do, it will give them jurisdiction.

Hold the scumbag judges accountable, they created the bogus order under coercion and duress, let them rectify it or dismiss it.
I’m the type of person to see what move they make, then answer the summons with a NoD. Oh you are asking me to do this, wait before I do it, (switch burden back) I need to clarify a few things, and if you do not clarify these things, I’m not expected to enter your realm and therefore any judgment made in my absents is null and void.

I understand doing an NoD before hand and going through the Notary default, and even doing an affidavit of truth and a VoD. Why give them the opportunity to get a game plan together, you will act as if nothing is going on, let them bring the action and then you respond accordingly.

As for IAMI’s newly discovered removal of a particular benefit, send NoD now to the appropriate department of government and demand claim of rights.
See the extortionists will go ahead as planned and do what they like, so you must do the same. Can’t fight them in ‘court’ fight them on the side, then you have ammunition when they pull you into ‘court’ that you refused to 'act' and they refused answer your NoD.

Your entitled to a fair trial, them not answering, what is fair ?
Just like I did with the Sheriff, stopped it hopefully before going to ‘court’. They may make another order, but I will do the same, as if there wasn’t anything in place.

Third parties:
ICBC, FMEP_FRO_MEP, CRA are NOT allowed to testify, they are a third parties and do not have first hand knowledge of the facts, therefore they have to be dismissed if brought in to testify. NO CASE !!! That’s how they play the game.

Fight with our rights and freedoms !!!
Sorry if some things do not make sense, had to type as fast as possible while fresh in my head.

Anyone else follow me ? Any Comments ?

PEACE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AT ALL TIMES
NO ASSUMPIT CONTRACT
NO VALUE ASSURED
NO LIABILITY ASSUMES
Any Information expressed in these posts is only an opinion and should be construed as such.
Legal advice can only be given by practicing Attorneys, I’m not a lawyer.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by fighting_father

Bottom Line,

If the guidelines were some what FAIR, and in real time proportion (net income) I think that many more Fathers would be a little more co-operative, and wouldn't be thinking about slitting their throats.

They can take government privileges away, and government benefits away, but they can't take away our freedom and rights.

Since B.C. contracts out to third party debt collectors and it is now in the hands of FMEP, the *court* system cannot take one back to *court* for contempt. In my opinion it would be a conflict of interest. Judge creates order, hands it to third party, both bringing motion, conflict of interest.

E.G:
Ex tries to take you back to *court* or FMEP tries to take you back for contempt, since there is a third party and judge cannot testify or be a witness, it creates a conflict of interest and you*re not granted a fair trial.
Since the judge created the order, he has to stand by the order, and for any claims of relief the judge has to bring the action. The judge did not grant anyone anything until he/she upholds the order. How can he do this, the assumption that an injured party brings this action to *court*, no evidence, no proof of claim, no jurisdiction.

This maybe a little bit ass backwards, but think about it, why should the judge creating such orders be allowed to get away with it, stand behind their bogus order.

Since I*m supposedly in contract with FMEP_FRO_MEP, brining one back for contempt of *court* order, the *court* has no jurisdiction anymore, they handed it over to the extortionists. Since extortionists have no proof of claim, then there is a conflict of interest, stale mate. The third party has the burden of proof now, ball in their *court*.
Do not waiver from this, if you do, it will give them jurisdiction.

Hold the scumbag judges accountable, they created the bogus order under coercion and duress, let them rectify it or dismiss it.
I*m the type of person to see what move they make, then answer the summons with a NoD. Oh you are asking me to do this, wait before I do it, (switch burden back) I need to clarify a few things, and if you do not clarify these things, I*m not expected to enter your realm and therefore any judgment made in my absents is null and void.

I understand doing an NoD before hand and going through the Notary default, and even doing an affidavit of truth and a VoD. Why give them the opportunity to get a game plan together, you will act as if nothing is going on, let them bring the action and then you respond accordingly.

As for IAMI*s newly discovered removal of a particular benefit, send NoD now to the appropriate department of government and demand claim of rights.
See the extortionists will go ahead as planned and do what they like, so you must do the same. Can*t fight them in *court* fight them on the side, then you have ammunition when they pull you into *court* that you refused to 'act' and they refused answer your NoD.

Your entitled to a fair trial, them not answering, what is fair ?
Just like I did with the Sheriff, stopped it hopefully before going to *court*. They may make another order, but I will do the same, as if there wasn*t anything in place.

Third parties:
ICBC, FMEP_FRO_MEP, CRA are NOT allowed to testify, they are a third parties and do not have first hand knowledge of the facts, therefore they have to be dismissed if brought in to testify. NO CASE !!! That*s how they play the game.

Fight with our rights and freedoms !!!
Sorry if some things do not make sense, had to type as fast as possible while fresh in my head.

Anyone else follow me ? Any Comments ?

PEACE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AT ALL TIMES
NO ASSUMPIT CONTRACT
NO VALUE ASSURED
NO LIABILITY ASSUMES
Any Information expressed in these posts is only an opinion and should be construed as such.
Legal advice can only be given by practicing Attorneys, I*m not a lawyer.

sorry i couldnt resist;

when you write "they can take their benefits from us" did you flip your skirt up to show your back sides?

sorry, i'm in a pissy mood and i needed to laugh after reading the 2nd paragr.

[shrinkwrapped]

Originally Posted by idknow

sorry i couldnt resist;

when you write "they can take their benefits from us" did you flip your skirt up to show your back sides?

sorry, i'm in a pissy mood and i needed to laugh after reading the 2nd paragr.

And your post helps in what way? I'm sorry you're pissed too.

So you're being pissed allows you to treat others unkindly?

Wow...with all of the stars after your handle one would think being pissed was beyond any excuse to spew on a fellow member trying hard to learn.

[shrinkwrapped]

Thanks for the info! You are working hard to try to learn. It can be disheartening when corruption abounds, but apparently this matrix is filled with it.

WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD! (or welcome to the world of TPTB would like to IMAGINE real, attempt to welcome you into....don't fall for it, more than 98% of humanity is good...)

Did not have time to competely finish reading your posted info but will do so, as education is the key to life.

In my gut, it all leads down to "the personal".

One man inflicting something on another.

The remedy my gut tells me (you have no reason to trust it, ..., although I do ) tells me to look down those avenues.

These are only people, it either comes down to agreement, or, force.

My question then becomes...which path are you on and which path do you choose to take?

You must hold injustice personally accountable. Otherwise the Nazi idealism of "I was just following orders" will prevail.

Those are just my thoughts. In no way intended to be guidance, helpful or otherwise.

Thanks for your efforts on self-educating.

It is a much needed path for souls to choose.

Peace and much luck.

[fighting_father]

Ok I must admit (Idknow), after reading it again I got the picture of Mel lifting his skirt... LOL

I know your position shrinkwrapped, thank you for the support in having posts that are educational and some what helpful.

We all come here for one reason or another, if one takes comfort in laughing reading these posts, then by all means laugh.

I'm not offended, but I am annoyed if no mention of what we are talking about is correct or incorrect.

IAMI and myself are frustrated and want some good honest first hand experience of what others have been through, and what they are doing about it.

We still keep acting on are own instead of a collective. I'm willing to share what works and what has not worked for me in the past. I wish others would do the same and not just assume to know, we can do that on our own.

Notorial Dissent in a few posts was correct in mentioning that the system just does not care, then why should we.

I think Fathers think it is a personal battle still, it is not, it affects all Fathers in this situation equally. Don't be ashamed of admitting the system is corrupted and thinking if you come forth that it is an admission on not wanting to be there for your children or help them financially. Most Fathers ask for help when they end up in the Lions cage, myself included.

The fight is for our livelihood, being beaten down to nothing and expected to live with nothing, while others thrive on our energy. I’m not into slavery, and I would not enslave my enemy.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AT ALL TIMES

PEACE

[KeyboardWarrior]

Hey IAMI,

Thanks for the post - very informative and things like this may help in getting the bastards kicked out of Canada!

Curious, how did you find the link? Is there a search function for legislative sessions like this, like the way they are on Canlii?

I'd like to see what heat they've gotten into in BC!

[IAMI]

Originally Posted by KeyboardWarrior

Hey IAMI,

Thanks for the post - very informative and things like this may help in getting the bastards kicked out of Canada!

Curious, how did you find the link? Is there a search function for legislative sessions like this, like the way they are on Canlii?

I'd like to see what heat they've gotten into in BC!

Actually I found it through Googling the FRO and Maximus. I can't remember the terms exactly. There doesn't seem to be a search function specifically in the Legislative site.

I just thought the information was very interesting. Knowing how crappy the company Maximus is (and possibly Themis), our Government went ahead anyway. Blah blah blah it all came down to the lowest bidder.

Cheers,
IAMI