Appeal Response Letters

Four Letters Sent - No Response

- Letters SENT November 7, 2025

One Month Later (Dec 5th) — No Responses

Four Pillar Harms:
• Pillar 1 – Notice: Collapsed
• Pillar 2 – Access: Collapsed
• Pillar 3 – Accommodation: Smitten Into Pulver
• Pillar 4 – Harm: Everything Has Collapsed

FYI: Accommodation Requirements on file require:
• Acknowledgment of receipt within 48 hours – Pillar 3 collapsed.
• A written response timeline within 10 business days – Pillar 3 collapsed again.

A letter from Judge Anthony de Sam Lazaro, issued on the date of the so-called “hearing” (which never actually started), recommends “DISMISS the appeal as abandoned.” Two days later, that recommendation is adopted as an ORDER by Renee Ladd, Co-Chief Human Services Judge.

Below are key quotes from the dismissal order that arrived two days after the call (unlike the Notice of Hearing for the revised date and time, which never arrived at all).

Document: Minnesota Department of Human Services Letter (DHS) DISMISSAL ORDER (no date in header)

Agency: Hennepin County.

Although the header has no date, the two signatures are dated:

  • Judge Anthony de Sam Lazaro – October XX, 2025 (Date of Non-Hearing)

  • Renee Ladd, Co-Chief Human Services Judge – October XX, 2025 (two days later)

Quoted findings (from the order):
“9. When the human services judge called for the hearing on October 20, 2025, the appellant declared that before he would participate in a hearing he required that each of the Agency representatives present, as well as the human services judge, declare that they were mandatory reporters and whether or not they had reported maltreatment he claimed to have suffered. The appellant asserted that if the Agency representatives and the human services judge did not report the alleged maltreatment, they were “abusing him,” breaking the law, and that he would refuse to participate in the hearing with them.

“10. The human services judge informed the appellant that if he refused to participate in a hearing, the appeal would be dismissed. The appellant argued that he was not refusing to take part in the hearing, and accused the human services judge of refusing to honor his request. The human services judge reiterated that if the appellant would not consent to the hearing, the appeal would be dismissed. The appellant continued to assert that it was the human services judge, and not him, who was refusing to hold the hearing. The human services judge then disconnected the call.

“11. Under these circumstances, I find the appeal has been abandoned. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismi…” [SIC]

Four appeal response letters were sent to the DHS Appeals Division on November 7, 2025. Together they document case-labeling errors, missing notice, and failures to honor ADA accommodations that blocked a vulnerable adult from meaningfully appealing the denial of home accessibility supports.

As of December 5, 2025, there has been no response by email or postal mail. DHS has 10 business days to respond, so this delay is far beyond the legal requirement and directly violates the Accommodation Requirements on file.

Summary of the four letters:

Personally identifying details and limited medical information have been redacted in these public versions. The structure and substance are preserved so others can see how one disabled person tried to assert rights using Minnesota law, the ADA, and basic transparency tools.

THE RECORDING HAS THE FACTS

The judges’ dismissal order claims I “abandoned” the appeal. The official recording disproves that claim point by point. I am using the word LIE in its legal sense: a false factual statement entered into the record.

The transcript shows that, as the appellant, I asked to clarify how the process would work before consenting to begin the hearing.

The judge repeatedly tried to start the sworn hearing. I declined because my procedural questions did not require entering an official record first. I needed answers so I could participate intelligently once testimony began.

My questions about procedure, along with my question about mandated reporting, clearly upset the judge. His tone shifted. He began threatening to terminate the call and ultimately did so by going silent, without any stated conclusion, instruction, or formal end to a hearing.

He kept repeating that he would terminate the call unless I allowed the formal hearing to begin. Those statements were tentative and unclear, while he continued pushing to swear people in.

I stated, more than once, that I would not let the official hearing start until my questions about the process were answered. Judge de Sam Lazaro insisted those questions could be handled “in the hearing,” but that would have been too late for me to use the information to prepare or shape my testimony.

After that, the phone line went silent. My questions were not answered. There was no response. I stayed on the line anyway. The judge and the Hennepin County Appeals lead, Keeley Broderick, simply abandoned the call. I remained on the line for nearly an hour.

The recording makes this plain: the judge never formally ended a hearing, never stated that the case was dismissed, and never announced any ruling. A supervisor later emailed claiming the call ended after the judge said “case dismissed,” but three independent transcription tools confirm no such statement was made. I remained on the line in silence and every 10 minutes calmly stated my name and that I could hear nothing. After close to an hour, the judge disconnected the line. I did not.

This directly contradicts the order’s claim that “the appellant declared that before he would participate in the hearing he required…” The recording shows I never used those words. It is a false paraphrase of what I actually said.

On the mandated reporter issue, I stated that I had been the victim of fraud the day before, with a credit card shut down again following my assault, robbery, and traumatic brain injuries. Those facts are in my record, yet it appears the judge had not read the file in full.

Because I had just described a new fraud event, I asked Judge de Sam Lazaro whether he was a mandated reporter. He said he did not know. I asked if he worked for DHS. He said yes. I told him that if he works for DHS, he is a mandated reporter, and as a vulnerable adult I am entitled to mandated-reporter protection for the fraud I had just reported.

I understand that I have the right to refuse to proceed with a judge who does not know basic laws protecting disabled people and vulnerable adults. To me, that disqualifies him from presiding. I cannot receive a fair hearing from a judge who does not know the legal framework governing the case. It also suggests DHS training failure, because DHS employees are required to complete mandated-reporter training.

Judge de Sam Lazaro then replied, in a pointed tone, “How would I know if you are a vulnerable adult?” That question is proof he had not reviewed my file, which documents my severe disability status (Class E), my vulnerable-adult classification, and my accommodation requirements. My case manager was on the line and could have confirmed this, but he did not ask, and she did not advocate for me.

FOUR PILLARS LENS

This dismissal order collapses under the Four Pillars.

  1. Pillar 1 – Notice: The order relies on a procedural story that does not match the recording and ignores missing or unusable notice leading up to the hearing.

  2. Pillar 2 – Access: I was denied basic procedural clarity needed to participate meaningfully, and the call was ended without explanation.

  3. Pillar 3 – Accommodation: Written accommodations on file were ignored, including communication and processing needs that directly affected participation.Pillar 4 – Harm: The combined failures produced administrative harm: loss of appeal rights, retraumatization, and continued denial of medically necessary accessibility supports.