In your work with AfC we would hope you or your connections are familiar with Impartial Hearings. For Impartial Hearing decisions have you received, read, looked at decisions attributed to being written and signed by Impartial Hearing Officers.

How many did you notice that, be it interim or final decisions, are true signed?
In our experience NONE are true signed.
We will be working to research the entire case records database to see what information is there.

Notwithstanding, please forward Case Numbers of any and all cases such that we may obtain any in the public record. Or please send a copy – redacted if you must. As part of our research, we are most interested in seeing which Impartial Hearing Officers have ever true-signed decisions of which therefore a final decision has really been rendered and for the State Review Officer can move to examine on appeal. If the decision is not true-signed then we have more questions.

Additionally we have been impeded to access the true records of appeals at the State (New York) level which should we gather include the alleged IHO true signed acceptance document and true signed appointment document – both of which are … repeating, true signed.

Would the SRO action to rule upon a IHO decision that is NOT a decision – in that it was not written by the alleged IHO, IHO not duly appointed to be on a case, or not signed by the alleged IHO – be a criminal act. Willful blindness as it were. And a determent to parents of disabled children or to districts paying for decision rulings which were not legitimate decisions.

So when the SRO rules either for or against a parent or for or against a school district – resulting in either to lose money or pay money based on a fraudulent and knowingly fraudulent action or document … then the question is how do you hold the SRO accountable?

Thank you in advance for your response and cooperation.