Rebecca would not send me the MODEL FAMILY folder.<\/p>\n
She allowed Dana and me to review selected pages at the attorney general\u2019s office.<\/p>\n
I understood the restriction.<\/p>\n
I disliked it anyway.<\/p>\n
Daniel led us into a small evidence room with no windows.<\/p>\n
A camera watched from one corner.<\/p>\n
On the table sat a laptop disconnected from the internet.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a forensic copy,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n
\u201cMeaning?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou can read it. You can't alter the original.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI wasn't planning to.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana smiled.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe's explaining procedure.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI've had enough procedure for several lifetimes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel almost smiled.<\/p>\n
Then he opened the folder.<\/p>\n
MODEL FAMILY.<\/p>\n
Twelve subfolders.<\/p>\n
Most were identified by initials.<\/p>\n
HB.<\/p>\n
MB.<\/p>\n
PN.<\/p>\n
DW.<\/p>\n
Others I did not recognize.<\/p>\n
He opened HB.<\/p>\n
Helen Bennett.<\/p>\n
The earliest file was from 2015.<\/p>\n
Before Martin\u2019s first false claim.<\/p>\n
A spreadsheet contained information pulled from Harrison\u2019s contractor archive.<\/p>\n
Helen\u2019s address.<\/p>\n
Age.<\/p>\n
Relationship to Robert.<\/p>\n
Robert\u2019s relationship to his employer.<\/p>\n
Old telephone numbers.<\/p>\n
A note:<\/p>\n
No known current Harrison affiliation.<\/p>\n
Then:<\/p>\n
Low contact risk.<\/p>\n
I felt my jaw tighten.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat does contact risk mean?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe believe likelihood the person would interact directly with Harrison.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo because Helen had no connection to the company, she was safer to use.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is our interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Martin had tested the provider enrollment with her identity in early 2016.<\/p>\n
The claim passed.<\/p>\n
He documented every step.<\/p>\n
Legacy identity accepted.<\/p>\n
Manual certification accepted.<\/p>\n
No independent provider verification.<\/p>\n
Payment issued.<\/p>\n
The notes read like a laboratory experiment.<\/p>\n
Except the material under observation had been a woman.<\/p>\n
My mother-in-law.<\/p>\n
Daniel opened another document.<\/p>\n
After Helen\u2019s death:<\/p>\n
Mortality match triggered closure. Future workflow should monitor deceased-status indicators before claim submission.<\/p>\n
I stared at it.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe learned from getting caught by the death record.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNot morally.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOperationally.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana touched my arm.<\/p>\n
I had not realized I was gripping the edge of the table.<\/p>\n
\u201cI'm fine.\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel waited.<\/p>\n
\u201cContinue.\u201d<\/p>\n
The next folder was mine.<\/p>\n
MB.<\/p>\n
Created November 2016.<\/p>\n
Four months before Derek\u2019s first claim.<\/p>\n
I stared at the date.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow did Martin know I might become relevant?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel opened the first note.<\/p>\n
Literacy volunteer registration matched Bennett contractor family network.<\/p>\n
\u201cRobert.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe connected me through Robert.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe think he was testing whether the consolidated databases could identify extended family relationships.\u201d<\/p>\n
A diagram appeared.<\/p>\n
Helen Bennett.<\/p>\n
Arrow.<\/p>\n
Robert Bennett.<\/p>\n
Arrow.<\/p>\n
Margaret Bennett.<\/p>\n
Then another line.<\/p>\n
Potential dependent household links unknown.<\/p>\n
Martin had mapped us before he ever knew Emily or Lily.<\/p>\n
Not personally.<\/p>\n
Structurally.<\/p>\n
I felt exposed in a way the forged signature had never quite produced.<\/p>\n
A signature was one false act.<\/p>\n
This was observation.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid he access my volunteer background check?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMy Social Security number?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe system displayed a masked version, but his administrator tools could retrieve the full identifier.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDid he?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cLogs indicate yes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNovember 2016.\u201d<\/p>\n
Months before Derek\u2019s application.<\/p>\n
Martin had my Social Security number before Derek ever mentioned me at the workshop.<\/p>\n
The later application had not caused Martin to search.<\/p>\n
It had given him a reason to use what he already found.<\/p>\n
Daniel opened the next note.<\/p>\n
Retired teacher. Likely family-care potential. Age profile favorable. Existing background verification.<\/p>\n
I stared.<\/p>\n
\u201cAge profile favorable?\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana looked disgusted.<\/p>\n
Daniel answered carefully.<\/p>\n
\u201cMartin appears to have believed retired adults were statistically more likely to provide unpaid family childcare.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat part isn't unreasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt becomes unreasonable when he starts assigning our identities to claims.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
The next line:<\/p>\n
Low digital engagement probability.<\/p>\n
I laughed.<\/p>\n
Daniel looked at me.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI email. I shop online. I video call my sister-in-law. I once taught twenty-seven children how to use tablets.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana smiled.<\/p>\n
\u201cApparently Martin underestimated you.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe assumed age meant invisible.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEssentially.\u201d<\/p>\n
I kept reading.<\/p>\n
No active provider portal.<\/p>\n
No prior reimbursement history.<\/p>\n
Potential clean enrollment.<\/p>\n
Clean again.<\/p>\n
Like Patricia.<\/p>\n
A person without conflicting records was administratively valuable.<\/p>\n
Then February 2017.<\/p>\n
Employee consultation: Derek Collins identifies unpaid MIL caregiver, Margaret Bennett.<\/p>\n
Legacy match confirmed.<\/p>\n
Strong candidate.<\/p>\n
There was the moment.<\/p>\n
The database profile became a target.<\/p>\n
Strong candidate.<\/p>\n
I felt something harden inside me.<\/p>\n
\u201cCandidate for what?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel answered.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor streamlined provider enrollment, according to Martin\u2019s formal explanation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd according to his private messages?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel opened another document.<\/p>\n
Personal note:<\/p>\n
Ideal test of passive-family workflow. Existing identity + real care + employee-controlled finances.<\/p>\n
I stopped breathing for a second.<\/p>\n
Employee-controlled finances.<\/p>\n
Martin knew Derek controlled household money.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBenefits consultations included financial questions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDid Emily consent to her household finances being used like this?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe're reviewing the scope of employee disclosures.\u201d<\/p>\n
I thought of my daughter working overtime.<\/p>\n
Martin had seen exactly the imbalance Derek was hiding.<\/p>\n
Instead of identifying risk, he identified opportunity.<\/p>\n
Real childcare.<\/p>\n
Unpaid grandmother.<\/p>\n
Husband controls finances.<\/p>\n
Grandmother unlikely to ask.<\/p>\n
Perfect.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid Martin know Derek planned to hide it from Emily?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel opened a message.<\/p>\n
February 2017.<\/p>\n
Derek: Wife thinks benefit doesn't apply because her mom won't charge.<\/p>\n
Martin: Don't complicate household discussion until claim approved.<\/p>\n
Derek: Better if she doesn't know.<\/p>\n
Martin: Your household, your call.<\/p>\n
Emily had not seen that message.<\/p>\n
I asked for a copy to be released to her through Dana.<\/p>\n
Daniel said prosecutors would consider it.<\/p>\n
I hated that sentence.<\/p>\n
But I understood.<\/p>\n
The later files were worse.<\/p>\n
Martin tracked claim behavior.<\/p>\n
No provider inquiry.<\/p>\n
No spouse inquiry.<\/p>\n
Renewal successful.<\/p>\n
After six months:<\/p>\n
Passive-family model validated.<\/p>\n
I closed my eyes.<\/p>\n
\u201cValidated.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana\u2019s voice was angry now.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe used Margaret to validate a process that bypassed consent.\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel nodded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is one theory prosecutors are evaluating.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOne theory?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have to use careful language.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFine.\u201d<\/p>\n
I looked at him.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don't.\u201d<\/p>\n
He nodded.<\/p>\n
Fair enough.<\/p>\n
The file continued into 2018.<\/p>\n
2019.<\/p>\n
2020.<\/p>\n
Martin occasionally checked my provider account even when he no longer processed individual claims.<\/p>\n
Why?<\/p>\n
Because I had become a case study.<\/p>\n
A successful model.<\/p>\n
After he moved toward consulting work, he copied anonymized\u2014or supposedly anonymized\u2014lessons from cases like mine into training materials.<\/p>\n
Except he also exported the real data.<\/p>\n
Theory and identity traveled together.<\/p>\n
Then Daniel opened the last document.<\/p>\n
Date created:<\/p>\n
Three days after Emily and I visited Martin\u2019s office.<\/p>\n
My stomach tightened.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat did he write?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel turned the screen.<\/p>\n
MB ACTIVE RISK.<\/p>\n
For a moment, I almost admired the efficiency.<\/p>\n
Years earlier:<\/p>\n
Low contact risk.<\/p>\n
Strong candidate.<\/p>\n
Passive provider.<\/p>\n
Now:<\/p>\n
Active risk.<\/p>\n
I read.<\/p>\n
Provider has become aware of historical claims.<\/p>\n
High persistence.<\/p>\n
Likely legal escalation.<\/p>\n
Family member Emily Collins informed.<\/p>\n
Potential exposure across Harrison\/Larkwell migration.<\/p>\n
Recommended action: isolate legacy exports, minimize written discussion, route all contact through counsel.<\/p>\n
Dana exhaled.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe knew exactly what she could uncover.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDid he delete anything?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel hesitated.<\/p>\n
\u201cAttempts were made.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBy Martin?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cUsing credentials associated with his consulting company.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat did he try to delete?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cExport histories. Provider mapping files. Certain email archives.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSuccessful?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cPartially.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow did you recover this?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBackups.\u201d<\/p>\n
I smiled.<\/p>\n
\u201cNever underestimate lawyers and backups.\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel laughed.<\/p>\n
\u201cExactly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Then I saw another line.<\/p>\n
MB motivation appears personal, not financial. Settlement may not resolve.<\/p>\n
I stared at it.<\/p>\n
Martin had understood me better after one meeting than some people had after years.<\/p>\n
Not financial.<\/p>\n
He knew money would not end my questions.<\/p>\n
The next sentence disturbed me more.<\/p>\n
If MB connects HB history, pattern becomes difficult to characterize as employee misconduct.<\/p>\n
HB.<\/p>\n
Helen.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe knew I might find Helen.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYour family connection was in the Model Family file.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe realized if I traced backward, I'd find his first fraud.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
I thought of our meeting.<\/p>\n
His polished office.<\/p>\n
His confidence.<\/p>\n
Then the moment Emily noticed the golf photograph.<\/p>\n
The moment I asked how many families.<\/p>\n
His fear had not been abstract.<\/p>\n
He had known exactly where the trail could lead.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid he contact Harrison after we left?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat did he say?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel opened an email.<\/p>\n
Martin to former Harrison compliance manager:<\/p>\n
Bennett provider matter may expand. Recommend treating as isolated employee misuse pending internal confirmation. Avoid unnecessary historical provider review unless legally required.<\/p>\n
I laughed once.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat's almost exactly what Harrison did.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana looked at Daniel.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid Harrison follow his recommendation?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are investigating communications between Martin and current or former Harrison personnel.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo he influenced the company\u2019s response after Margaret confronted him.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cPotentially.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWas he still consulting for them?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo formal contract.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cInformal?\u201d<\/p>\n
Daniel would not answer.<\/p>\n
That answer was enough to worry me.<\/p>\n
We reviewed files for another hour.<\/p>\n
Then Daniel closed the laptop.<\/p>\n
Outside, Dana and I walked toward the parking garage.<\/p>\n
She said, \u201cYou okay?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you want to talk?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNot yet.\u201d<\/p>\n
I drove to Emily\u2019s house.<\/p>\n
She was home early.<\/p>\n
Lily was still at school.<\/p>\n
I told her about the files.<\/p>\n
Not every line.<\/p>\n
Enough.<\/p>\n
When I reached the message about keeping Emily uninformed until the claim was approved, her face became expressionless.<\/p>\n
\u201cDerek said that?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBetter if she doesn't know.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd Martin said it was his call.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
She walked to the kitchen sink.<\/p>\n
For several seconds she stared through the window.<\/p>\n
\u201cI keep finding new versions of the same betrayal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI know.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAt first I thought Derek hid money.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen I learned he used you.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen I learned he felt ashamed.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen I learned Martin encouraged him.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNow I learn they discussed keeping me ignorant before the first claim even happened.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
She turned.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat changes something.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI kept thinking maybe the first lie happened quickly. Maybe he panicked and then got trapped.\u201d<\/p>\n
I understood.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut he planned around you.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
She nodded slowly.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat matters.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt does.\u201d<\/p>\n
She sat.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you think people can change?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you think Derek has?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSome.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEnough?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFor what?\u201d<\/p>\n
She looked at me.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo ever trust him again.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat isn't my decision.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI know.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you want my opinion?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
I chose my words carefully.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think Derek now understands more about what he did than he did when this began.\u201d<\/p>\n
She waited.<\/p>\n
\u201cI also think understanding after discovery is different from honesty before discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n
Her eyes filled.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo no.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI didn't say that.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou almost did.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo. I said change and restored trust are different questions.\u201d<\/p>\n
She looked down.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds like teacher language.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt probably is.\u201d<\/p>\n
The criminal case continued.<\/p>\n
Martin pleaded not guilty.<\/p>\n
Brian Shea\u2019s lawyer began negotiating.<\/p>\n
The BenefitBridge manager also entered discussions with prosecutors.<\/p>\n
Then Troy agreed to testify.<\/p>\n
Derek\u2019s cooperation remained uncertain because of the hidden envelope.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors believed much of his information.<\/p>\n
They did not like discovering evidence after he claimed he had disclosed everything.<\/p>\n
Rebecca told me that credibility was a bank account.<\/p>\n
\u201cDeposits take time,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWithdrawals happen quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds like something I would have put on a classroom wall.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cPlease don't.\u201d<\/p>\n
Harrison\u2019s settlement terms arrived.<\/p>\n
Dana reviewed them.<\/p>\n
The compensation offered to me was substantial enough that Emily stared when she saw the figure.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat much?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAre you taking it?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDana?\u201d<\/p>\n
Dana answered.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe terms preserve Margaret\u2019s right to cooperate with investigators, discuss her experience, and pursue claims against other parties. Harrison requires release of civil claims against the company.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWould you recommend it?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it is reasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n
I looked at the number.<\/p>\n
Months earlier, eleven thousand seven hundred sixty dollars had seemed enormous.<\/p>\n
Now this larger number felt strangely beside the point.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat will happen to the other providers?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSimilar framework.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTax help?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIdentity restoration?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNotification?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIndependent audit?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHarrison has committed to one.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cPublic findings?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSummary findings.\u201d<\/p>\n
I frowned.<\/p>\n
Dana smiled.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou cannot negotiate every corporate governance reform personally.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy not?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause I would like to retire someday.\u201d<\/p>\n
I signed.<\/p>\n
Not because Harrison had earned forgiveness.<\/p>\n
Because the agreement corrected records, paid costs, compensated harm, and forced changes that would protect other people.<\/p>\n
Settlement was not absolution.<\/p>\n
It was another form of accountability.<\/p>\n
I deposited the money into a separate account.<\/p>\n
Emily asked what I planned to do with it.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don't know.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cVacation?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMaybe.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNew kitchen?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis kitchen has survived worse than Derek.\u201d<\/p>\n
She laughed.<\/p>\n
Then Lily suggested Disneyland.<\/p>\n
Naturally.<\/p>\n
I told her negotiations were ongoing.<\/p>\n
A week later, Martin\u2019s lawyer requested mediation with several affected providers.<\/p>\n
Dana advised against my participation.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe wants sympathetic victims.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI am not sympathetic?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNot to him.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFair.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAlso, prosecutors don't want witnesses entering side agreements that complicate testimony.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAm I going to testify?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cProbably.\u201d<\/p>\n
That word sat heavily.<\/p>\n
I had testified at school board meetings.<\/p>\n
Parent conferences.<\/p>\n
Union hearings.<\/p>\n
Nothing criminal.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat will they ask?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe truth.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds suspiciously simple.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is simple.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEasy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
That evening, I found Martin\u2019s letter again.<\/p>\n
I reread his line:<\/p>\n
I hope someday you will recognize that the original purpose was to help families receive money they had earned.<\/p>\n
Then I thought of Helen.<\/p>\n
His first false provider.<\/p>\n
His own claim.<\/p>\n
No employee needing help.<\/p>\n
No overwhelmed father.<\/p>\n
No bureaucratic injustice.<\/p>\n
Martin himself had used a stranger\u2019s identity to collect money.<\/p>\n
The noble explanation collapsed at the beginning.<\/p>\n
He had not started by helping.<\/p>\n
He had started by testing whether he could get away with it.<\/p>\n
Then he built a philosophy around the success.<\/p>\n
That realization gave me something I had not expected.<\/p>\n
Relief.<\/p>\n
For months I had tried to understand whether Martin had crossed a line gradually.<\/p>\n
Perhaps he once meant well.<\/p>\n
Perhaps shortcuts became habits.<\/p>\n
Perhaps incentives corrupted a useful program.<\/p>\n
But Helen\u2019s file answered the question.<\/p>\n
Before the workshops, before Free Money Club, before Derek, Martin already knew what he was doing.<\/p>\n
He chose a woman he did not know.<\/p>\n
Signed her name.<\/p>\n
Took money.<\/p>\n
Observed that nobody called.<\/p>\n
Then wrote:<\/p>\n
Need scalable workflow.<\/p>\n
The scheme did not drift into dishonesty.<\/p>\n
It was designed there.<\/p>\n
And now, for the first time, prosecutors had enough evidence to tell the story from its true beginning.<\/p>\n
Rebecca would not send me the MODEL FAMILY folder. She allowed Dana and me to review selected pages at the attorney general\u2019s office. I understood the restriction. I disliked it … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10630,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insightdrama"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10644"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10644\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10664,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10644\/revisions\/10664"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/10630"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}