THE CASE-STUDY HUB · REAL EVENTS, SOURCED

In the News — Case Studies

B · Established reporting Facts come from named news organizations. The underlying documents have not been independently reviewed by this project. How we verify →

When a story breaks, the lenses still work. Each case study takes real reported events — from named sources like ProPublica, AZCIR, the Navajo Times, NPR — and walks through them the way this site teaches: claims kept separate from findings, systems examined instead of people condemned, and always linked so you can check us.

Protect Yourself & Your Relatives — the fraud patterns by topic, each with its case study and the door where you report it.
The Modern Vascular matter — a federal fraud case over vascular clinics that treated Navajo patients — including a lead surgeon with a documented criminal past and prior board discipline who had earlier worked in Tuba City: allegations vs. actions, and the border-clinic oversight seam.
The sober-living scheme — how vulnerable relatives were recruited into fake treatment while Arizona Medicaid paid, and the seams the scheme used — with Operation Rainbow Bridge, the Nation’s response.
The Diné College dispute — board oversight and administration colliding, step by documented step.
ZenniHome & the contested $24 million — a claims-versus-findings walkthrough: what’s established, what’s alleged, and how to tell them apart.
Ethics & Rules, explained — not a scandal but a system: how oversight of officials actually works, from the former director’s own account.

How to read a breaking story

Ask the case-study questions of any headline: What is established, and what is alleged? Which system had the duty here — and did it act? Who benefits from the fog? The five lenses and the obstacle map work on the news the same way they work on candidates.

Suggest a case study — news worth investigating

This is community journalism, covenant-style: we don’t break stories; we assemble the record. A case study here means public sources compiled, a timeline built, the civic lesson drawn — claims labeled as claims, findings as findings, the verification key throughout. Seen recent news the Nation should understand deeper?

Suggest one (tap to open)

Anonymous · public sources only — a link makes a suggestion actionable

How this works: we log types of issues and patterns — never names of people or offices. Nothing posts directly: volunteers review and de-identify everything, and only combined counts publish, dated.

Suggested — under review

Approved suggestions appear here with their public source while a case study is assembled — nothing publishes from the form directly. Empty for now; yours could be first.

Know a reported story that deserves this treatment? Suggest it — with a source we can verify.

How this site handles a case study

The same rules on every one. The Covenant

We name no private individual. Public officials are named in their public capacity, and their own statements are printed alongside.
An allegation is not a finding. An indictment is an allegation. A dismissal on jurisdiction decides nothing about the facts. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Where a party declined to comment, we say so — and we do not treat silence as an admission.
Claims are labeled as claims, findings as findings. Every page carries a verification level.
No case study is linked from any candidate’s profile, in either direction. A case is not a mark against a person.
These exist to practice evaluation — not to decide a dispute. The five lenses

Think we got something wrong? Tell us, and we will publish the correction.