(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.

Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.

This blog discusses

“Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From:  “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010  / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit.  The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare,  against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty.  Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”  

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed.  That’s the game, folks.  Promise protection, then fail to deliver.  Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit.  What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit.  To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems.  These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.

What I (Let’s Get Honest blogger) do which is categorically different that almost any advocacy group or set of individuals I’ve run across, is SHOW that whether it’s about mothers, about fathers, about children — it CAN be described in business and economic terms.  This requires some basic vocabulary (and using that among each other) to discuss, and to get to the basic elements, one MUST (1) include the historical development and expansion of the nonprofit groups pushing:  women’s rights (it’s rarely called “mothers’ rights”), father’s rights, children’s rights, violence prevention, child protection, child support enforcement, child abuse prevention, (fill in the blank). 

Don’t Just Tell Our Stories– Report on Systems, in Detail, and Using Accounting, Incorporation, and Tax Status (exempt or not) Vocabulary.  

To tell “Their” Stories, meaning, those who profit from others’ losses, who build careers around writing up others’ tragedies, and take public and private funding for it, while the suffering continues — is (trust me) very empowering and counters the constant help-seeking mode, which is downright humiliating and frustrating for most people when dealing with systems this large.

Telling our stories and sharing experience is good for bonding, empathy, moral support and identifying one’s special interest group(s).  This only goes so far, and in fact some of the most successful special interest groups who continue to survive, often do so because they do NOT expose the true (fiscal) sources of their own income, or their associates, and especially not the game being played on the public at its own expense.  The Federal grants to the states are the powerhouse and tool of control as the state economies rely on that help for their poor.   So, while I thought the place when it came to the issues in my family courts to look was IN those courts, or IN the child support system, in fact, the real answers were closer to the US DHHS, and grants put in place as systems change incentives to the states (ALL states).  So the issues is more than at the state level, it’s about how people who can get to Congress, specifically, to push through appropriations to HHS (largest grantmaking agency around) to start up new programs, fail to monitor the existing one, and “turn the faucet on” while crying “broke” wherever possible, and being “broke” justifies not delivering on their basic services (i.e., for which they exist), AND further extortionist control of either mothers, or fathers, or children.

The genius of the family court + child support (and the program is now “Unified Family Courts,” to also include the dependency and juvenile sectors also — all of which can call upon more sources of funding to influence programming) — is that it can be pointed “at will” at either side of ANY custody hearing, almost any time.  However, certain sectors seem tweaked to aim at specific genders more than others.    Having funded both sides of the “gender wars” they can then claim to have suddenly been so generous and wonderfully “bridging the gaps” when, say, domestic violence groups bond with fatherhood groups at the family court level.   In fact, they have all along been cutting deals with each other behind their representative target population’s backs.

In this business, those who do NOT understand the basics of the system, including how (when it occurs) money-laundering can happen and where it is most likely to happen, lose.  It takes some dedicated time and attention to study to comprehend, but I can assure people who take this time — it’s NOT that complex; there are still business models (to the rackets which some of our institutions have become) and there are principles in operation from one sector to another, and from one state to another.

One place to start might be a list of the basic nonprofit trade associations that parallel government functions — and in THIS topic, that has to include NCSEA and their regional groupings; it is NOT government but a membership association whose members by definition are directors of child support agencies.    etc.

• TAGGS (HHS database) 1997 Grants to States for Access and Visitation, by %22Awards%22 search selecting CDA 93597 shows $1.1M total only 7 states (2pp)
• 2013 TAGGS AdvancedSearch, 93597 Grants=StateAccessVisitation (SAVP), 62 actions (Notice the date-switching of some actions)

Those are printouts (1997, 2013) of “Access Visitation” grants which help set up certain kinds of infrastructure (mandatory mediation, parent education, supervised visitation, etc. — varies by state) to promote increased noncustodial parent contact.  IF for fathers, they are not working, then fathers could research “what happened?” or why not.  However in reality what this did is set up privatized professions to be funded by the public, and which the public (who are in these custody battles) can be FORCED to consume, and the public (ALL public, by way of governmental funds and contracts to start with) is forced through HHS distributions, to fund.   Then “let the private association formation begin.”

I found one yesterday (December, 2014) in Utah, by noticing an odd detail in that A/V grant — it was switching from one agency to another, and (lo and behold), the PO box of the grant (which I googled) matched the PO box associated with the leadership of a certain private nonprofit (statewide umbrella organization), a little one it looks like, which is promoting “ADR.”   I may be able to blog soon, but the point is — look at those grants, run some reports, notice what looks strange, follow up.

http://www.uccr.net/pg1.cfm (About, scroll down to see the leadership).

http://www.uccr.net/nrich/:  Notice this is NOT a government site or group, but some of its leadership is, or at least was — this personis staff under the Administrative Office of the COurts in Utah (for more, similar, see blog above).

Nini Rich
Director, ADR Programs
Utah State Administrative Office of the Courts
P.O. Box 140241
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0241 

The related grant apparently only went to this PO Box first time in 2014 (see “2013 printout, above.”) In Other years, it went elsewhere, and by federal law, it can only go to ONE agency per state in any given year.  The states designate which agency gets these grants.

However However, when I clicked on it, this entity seems to have been receiving its $100K/year for more than just 2014:

Click to see that the PO Box matches — and that the HHS databse (TAGGS) has mislabeled it “State / Welfare Department.”  it’s not. It’s administrative office fo the courts!

I “Advanced Searched” for year 2014 only and got this $100K.

But click to see the total actions were 5, from “Action Issue Dates” spanning 2010 to 2014 (Fiscal year probably begins Oct. 2013, so the 4th one would be for “2013”):

Notice the grant awards all end in “SAVP” and are by year:  1102UTSAVP….12…13..14..15 etc.    Now look at the next chart, same state, same years. I did not select on the “Grantee:  Administrative Office of the Courts” (or any grantee) but did select on the CFDA# 93597 (5th column in from left) which represents this grant series, and again, which has been in place since 1988 (This database only goes back to about 1995, though)….

(Below, I took out the “93597” and Grant award columns, and added “Program Office’ to show that yes, these these come under “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement.);.

Those who watch closely will see that they are moving money around — watch both the dates, the amounts, and the fiscal year represented, and then put it into a factual sentence, in Chronological order, based on this information — and ask WHY would this be happening?  What’s really going on? 

Example: Fiscal Year 2014 (3 actions spanning two “departments” although (FYI) only one DUNS# throughout.  DUNS# is another grantee form of identification used in “TAGGS.hhs.gov.”

It can be a simple statement using the “date” as an ordering factor:

For Award (=”Grant”) __02UTSAVP, on ______,  $____ went to (from) [Dept].

OK, here goes, just an example, from this chart below:

“In Fiscal Year 2014, for Award 1401UTSAVP, on 12/11/2013 $100,000 went to UT ST DHS; on 12/31/2013, $100,000 was removed from UT ST DHS; and one week later, for Award 1402UTSAVP, $100,000 went to “Administrative Office of the Courts.”

For Fiscal Year 2011, for Award 1101UTSAVP, on 10/08/2010, $100,000 went to UT ST DHS; on 12/14/2010, $100,000 was removed from UT ST DHS, two days later, on 12/16/2010, $100,000, and for award 1102UTSAVP, $100,000 went to “Administrative Office of the Courts.”

Whatever the reason, it’s clear money is being “borrowed” for a short period, then “returned” and the next year’s grant kicks in.   Apart from what is that special mailbox and why is that the new “A/V” grant recipient (although I have some opinions on why), state governments often pool their holdings, and so even a small amount held for just a little while can earn some profits. (The largest AV states — see pdf for 2013 above — are, in descending order as I recall:  California (my state), Texas, New York?, Florida (or vice versa for those two), Illinois (Chicago is a center of ADR/mediation promotion), and, surprisingly (?), Georgia, then North Carolina — as to how many grants they got.  Grants are allocated along a complex formula stated in the federal code; it can be looked up.

Nini Rich linked in shows she’s been directing ADR at the state level since 2008, and her “ZoomInfo” shows almost exclusively a background in mediation, including being on the state roster, and of course on this nonprofit UCCR.  Another site, “Words of Caution” from someone else (“Marcie” Keck, J.D.) refers to her after warning about use of “unregulated mediators.”  They are still setting up the regulation (and enclosure) of this profession in Utah, perhaps.  As it turns out the referring person (from “Words of Caution”) shows many membership affiliations, including the “AFCC” which is of major topic in this blog, and significant in setting up programs to run through the courts.

Caution

Presently in Utah, as in most other states, mediation is an unregulated professional field. It is important that, as a consumer of mediation services, you investigate the background, experience, and relevant credentials of your mediator and that you are aware of the ethical standards to which your mediator aspires.

There is presently no governing body for mediators to enforce professional standards and ethical guidelines. Because mediators have various backgrounds and professional affiliations, differing ethical standards will apply to different mediators.

If your mediator is on the roster supplied by the Utah State Courts (www.utcourts.gov), your mediator has committed to abide by certain ethical standards and principles and has agreed to be accountable to the Court system, as well as to their clients.  Should you have questions about the conduct of your mediator who is on the Court roster, you may contact Nini Rich, Director of ADR Programs, at (801) 578-3800 to discuss any complaints or concerns.

Is this “helpful” site going to mention to anyone that there is a series of grants, federal, which go ($100K/year obviously in Utah) to support the profession they are seeking to control?  (no…)  I’ve uploaded the resume so you can see the affiliations.  She also cites the “UCCR” as one of them.  Clearly they are promoting their personal business as mediators and helping each other in that profession wherever possible.  While the allegiance is supposed to be in the public interest, through the federal grants connection (and enabling more of the money-movement above), the allegiance would seem to be with who is referring business to them, i.e., the courts, the state level of government, and not “the common man.”  In addition, there’s the Brigham Young Factor.

(Utah) AFCC Marcie Keck, JD, Accord Mediation, %22Words of Caution%22 about non-regulated mediators refers to (A:V Grantee involved) Nini Rich of UCCR-net

 I hope this is at least a teaser as to how you can start looking at the funding, and focus on one factor, explore it some more and realize it’s time to connect the dots.

BACK to ORIGINAL POST.

Despite the “Access and Visitation” grants program, which alleges that its purpose is to get the fathers back in their kids’ lives (and pay child support) — There is a truth to these statements.  In practice, kids often end up abandoned — because the government has lied to both the mothers, and the fathers when it comes to child support (and several other matters).   One area fathers tend to be more informed on is the OCSE’s dealings with them — and with the states.  Women tend to be 100% ignorant on the operations & incentives of these programs.  I plan to change this.

Recently it has been evidenced that “destruction-of-the-family court” judges refuse to reduce child support and alimony when a man loses his job because of the current economic climate. They tell the guy that it’s too soon to reduce support because “you might get another job” in a short time. Most often the guy never gets the same-salaried position and winds up making substantially less. All the while, he falls farther and farther behind, with no hope of ever making up the arrearages.

But, do the courts reduce support? No. They keep it there until the arrears are so high, that the guy’s credit is ruined, his driver’s and professional licenses are suspended or revoked (which is totally counterproductive in that if one cannot work, how can one pay court-ordered obligations?!?!?!?), and they start putting warrants out for his arrest, even though he did everything he was supposed to do by law.

(Putting aside whether this is true in every case — it is true in some cases, let’s follow the logic through)…

Judges then use detainers to hold the men in jail, somewhat like bail. But, it isn’t bail, because child support is a CIVIL debt. Detainers to keep the men in jail until they pay? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! It’s not about the children! Keeping a man in jail to pay support is an oxymoron. And, most Family Court judges are morons! How does one pay child support if in jail? Does he work in the jail making $10, $15, $20/hr. and have his wages garnished? Does this person invoke the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES when he gets out of jail, since he has no assets or income, and the jailing served as the remedy for the debt owed? Under the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES, the debt has been paid once the person has been jailed for it and released. But, the state will try and keep the arrears on the books. The reason for this: Because judges are granting such high orders and enforcing them stringently because the Federal government pays the states what is known as federal reimbursement incentive funding (Title 42 USC Section 658a) for amounts awarded, collected and enforced. This money goes into the state coffers, no strings attached (42 USC Section 658f). The first things paid out of state treasuries are judicial salaries and pensions and state employee salaries and pensions (along with bonuses and bounties for child support amounts awarded and collected).

This is a major unconstitutional conflict-of-interest that has been outlawed by the US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill and other cases. The Supreme Court held that judges and officials (i.e., child support officials and workers) who sit in judgment of cases that they have a financial interest in, are too tempted to abuse their contempt powers to jail unsuspecting litigants-taxpayers to extort/extract more and more monies out of them to increase the amount of funding, and ultimately increase their salaries and pensions.

(not to mention other monies possibly coming their way through relationships with nonprofit groups that the judges can order child-support-jailed Dads and ALL parents (with a custody motion) to partake of, i.e. “Parent Education” etc.  As in, Kentucky’s “Turning It Around” program, or as in California’s 2002 attempt to standardize “Kids’ Turn” as the standard program to offer during divorce (see my “Let’s Get Honest About Kids’ Turn & Judges’ Profits” post)….

Yet, family court judges continue to thumb their noses at these US Supreme Court mandates. This is not only contempt of the US Supreme Court, but felony official misconduct by judges, who are public officials that swore an oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and their respective state constitutions. By refusing to disqualify themselves from these cases, where they have a financial interest in the outcome of them, the Supreme Court has held that these judicial orders are essentially null and void and have no effect or force.

Of course, if no one calls them on this, no matter.  Or, if others simply refuse to self-recuse, what are the options for a litigant?

Some will say that if we don’t have judges or hearing officers to enforce orders, how then will they be enforced? As taxpayers and voters who are paying taxes to have these officials usurp and violate our constitutionally protected rights, that is not our problem. The government made the situation. They must fix it. They can fix it by empanelling a group of people that have no financial interest (for example, economists, vocational experts, marriage experts, accountants, psychologists, even lawyers and retired).** But, they cannot use arbitrary and capricious contempt powers to imprison for debt, and to re-institute peonage and forced labor, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution (prohibition against involuntary servitude), and in violation of Federal Criminal laws, Title 18 USC Sections 1581 and 1589 (Peonage; Forced labor).

(**I disagree — marriage experts are definitely often not without financial interest (see CFDA 93.086, Marriage and Fatherhood promotion), and most of these professionals tend to collaborate and conference around the private family court organization, “Association for Family & Conciliation Courts” and/or Children’s Rights Council (CRC), etc.) However I agree with the point he makes — there’s a conflict of interest — incentives to the states around child support arrears, and prolonging custody cases to collect interest on them.

Anyone arrested on one of these child support arrearage orders is being arrested on a fraudulent order; being arrested on a CIVIL matter. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd highest courts in the land) as well as the US Supreme Ct. hold that one can’t be arrested on a CIVIL matter because there is no 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime has been committed to issue an arrest warrant.

Because this system is capricious — as is the restraining order system (which I know F.R.A.M.E.D.may not appreciate me bringing in, but, it is — it’s literally not enforceable) — it undermines the normal business of life for separated, divorcing — and stable, married –parents.

…[Cites many other cases also, see link] In U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001), the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that child support is nothing more than a common civil, commercial debt, and that it is NOT any “special kind of debt”. Again, another fraud perpetrated by government officials. Every other Circuit has followed suit and hold that child support is a common commercial, civil debt.

CRIMINAL LAW — CRIMINAL PROTECTIONS (public defender, sentencing guidelines).

CIVIL LAW — Tort actions, contracts, etc.

FAMILY LAW — a total wildcard — it’s neither!  It sees itself as preventing divorce (yeah, right), saving families through assigned counseling, and its prime proponents in state after state declare that dispensing Therapeutic Jurisprudence is in the best interest of, well, just about everyone.  Meanwhile, a state Senator in Georgia (now deceased) “outed” the federal incentives to the states to adopt out children, or put them into foster case, as causing unbelievable trauma to families, and failing to protect children.  She also indicated that the system at least in her state, was probably beyond reform.

(This “Ron Paul” style blog cites Alex Jones “inforwars” articles on this).

Evidently she was exposing a child sex trafficking ring at the time, via CPS… and some (myself included) do not believe it was actually a murder-suicide:

State investigators say the husband of former state Senator Nancy Schaefer shot his wife before turning the gun on himself. The couple’s bodies were found in their north Georgia home Friday. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation conducted autopsies on the Schaefer’s Saturday—investigators say all evidence points to the deaths as a murder-suicide. The bodies of Nancy and Bruce Schaefer, 73 and 74 years old respectively, were found by their daughter at the couple’s home in Clarkesville. Nancy Schaefer was a two-term state Senator representing Georgia’s 50th district. She lost her seat in 2008. Schaefer was also a candidate for mayor of Atlanta, Georgia lieutenant governor and governor of the state.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show last May, Schaefer detailed how CPS is involved in child trafficking rings (see video below). After watching Schaefer’s interview with Jones, if you think Schaefer was involved in a suicide pact with her husband, you may also be interested in a famous bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

Listen to some of these youtubes (I have heard one or two of this woman speaking) and tell me if it sounds like someone whose spouse was on the verge of suicide and likely to kill her too — or someone with a reason to live and pursuing it, as a legislator:

YouTube – Nancy Schaefer on Alex Jones: “CPS criminality” 1of4

YouTube – Nancy Schaefer on Alex Jones: “CPS criminality” 2of4

YouTube – Nancy Schaefer on Alex Jones: “CPS criminality” 3of4

YouTube – Nancy Schaefer on Alex Jones: “CPS criminality” 4of4

Nancy Schaefer exposes the Child Protection Services
YouTube – Nancy Schaefer exposes the EVIL CPS

This “eulogy” by Katheryn Dearinger has a photo of the late Senator Schaefer, and a testimonial, including that it was no murder-suicide.  Here’s a segment:

To hear the news of former Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband’s death has devastated me beyond words. She became a dear friend to me after I contacted her when my daughter Jennifer was abducted and trafficked by Child Protective Services. Nancy was there for me during my 2 year long ordeal. She shared my pain and my grief, and made many calls on my behalf. When I finally got my daughter back last September she called and was just thrilled. I received a lovely card from her that I will always cherish.

Nancy was undoubtedly a very brave, courageous and wonderful “gem” of a lady who had such a great love for children and families. After she lost her Congressional seat she gave a speech that said “There are some causes that are worth losing for – and this is one of those times”. She never gave up. Afterwards she ran for US Congress so she could block the Federal Funds that was causing the corruption. She had an undying devotion and dedication to fight for abused children and their families who were so cruelly being victimized by ruthless court criminals. She was fearless. In the process of exposing the criminals she gave many speeches and wrote many articles of the unfathomable crimes and injustices that were occurring in our family courts and with CPS agencies across our nation. She tried to respond to the many letters and emails she received from victimized parents begging for help with their children. Nancy had such a compassionate heart and soul and it was heartbreaking for her to read such letters crying out in desperation……I still have the letter that she wrote to me that included the letter she wrote which caused her to lose her congressional seat.

(Click here or hover — Ms. Dearinger asserts why it was false reporting of their deaths):

Also in Georgia — “THe profit in nonprofits, Phoebe factoids and two men in Albany, GA“)

“Georgiawatch.org” (2009) reports on the situation:

[A project of nonprofit consumer advocacy group Georgia Watch, the Hospital Accountability Project examines the financial practices of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals in the state as they relate to health care consumers and affordability.]

(Inset:  “Uninsured rates in Albany soar far above the state and national average, leaving its residents to face substantial obstacles in financing health care“)

As with other counties in the state, unemployment rates continue to rise and the number of insured consumers continues to decrease. Because of Albany’s high health care costs, many residents postpone needed care, a delay that has a direct impact on their health.

In addition, the hospital has come under increased public scrutiny over the last few years due to its role in a controversy comparable to a John Grisham novel.  According to legal filings, Phoebe representatives allegedly harassed, threatened and intimated accountant Charles Rehberg and Dr. John Bagnato after the pair sent out faxes – known as the Phoebe Factoids – critical of the hospital. These faxes were sent to various businesses during 2003 and 2004, and focused on the distress of the uninsured through Phoebe’s overcharging and mistreated of uninsured and underinsured patients, including ones employed by the hospital. The controversy surrounding Phoebe – and the faxes – continues to linger, and legal cases arising from the ordeal continue in the courts.

About Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital

Established in 1911, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital became a tax-exempt nonprofit organization in 1991, forming Phoebe Putney Health System as the parent company. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital serves 26 counties in southwest Georgia. It is the largest employer in Albany, Ga

It went along for 80 years as a for-profit, and then in 1991, became a nonprofit…  Here is a 2009 Review of a Film on the matter:  Dr. Bagnato and (then-) office manager Charles Rehnberg (as I recall, and accountant) were indicted for their Phoebe Factoids…   “ears later, Dr. Bagnato remains adamant about his thoughts on health care practices in Albany. “What I’ve learned over the years in analyzing the not for profit hospitals and the uninsured is that what’s going on in Albany is going on statewide and nationally,” said Bagnato.”

Another (2005) blog article reviews the actual “criminal” counts, including petitioning the government for redress of grievances:

In an editorial January 7 [2004] Albany Herald Editor Kay Read acknowledged a serious problem facing our State- the Medicaid program is $173 Million short of funds… In our opinion, the solution is obvious. Phoebe Putney … has accumulated massive cash reserves due to years of excessive profits… Phoebe alone reported almost $217 million in the bank when it filed its 2002 Federal information return… The solution to Georgia’s Medicaid budget problem is simple- reduce Medicaid payments to public hospitals with excess reserves and profits, and redirect these funds to other providers… Phoebe alone has enough excess funds to solve the entire State of Georgia Medicaid crisis!”

March 2006, Redorbit, quoting the Atlanta Constitution— apparently the Hospital had some clout with the local D.A., who then took action against whoever was sending the anonymous faxes, detailing executive pay and financial practices at the hospital.  It got ugly:

Phoebe, pursuing the anonymous authors, asked the Dougherty County district attorney’s office to investigate the faxes, which the hospital system said were full of inaccuracies.

The office of District Attorney Ken Hodges requested grand jury subpoenas for phone records. After receiving the phone information, the DA’s office turned it over to Phoebe.

The trail led to Rehberg, and Phoebe sued him in August 2004, announcing the litigation at a news conference.

But just days before the lawsuit was filed, the former FBI agents hired by Phoebe confronted Rehberg at his office across the street from the sprawling Phoebe campus. The investigators blocked his pickup, Rehberg said, and threatened him and his family.

Meanwhile, as Rehberg was circulating the faxes in late 2003 and early 2004, with the help of Bagnato, the two also were gathering information about Phoebe’s financial practices involving patients with no health insurance. The two, who work at Albany Surgical, came to believe that Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital and other nonprofit hospitals were overcharging the uninsured and then aggressively seeking payment — thereby violating their charitable obligation as tax-exempt organizations.

Abuse of the tax-exempt status, persecuting poor people, and then in effect, it’s not really a charitable activity…. if they are being repaid for it by those clients after overcharging them!

Here’s a 2011 short article stating that the District Attorney (having lied?) claims immunity from prosecution.  (“SCOTUS” is “Supreme Court Of The U.S.”):

PHOEBE FACTOIDS CASE TO APPEAR BEFORE SCOTUS

Posted by Tom on Mar 23, 2011 in Libertarian, Local | 0 comments

When Dr. John Bagnato and Charles Rehberg stepped up and started sending out anonymous faxes regarding what they felt were unethical practices by Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, they probably had no idea that the case would end up before the Supreme Court, but it has.

The two men were prosecuted for crimes that were never committed, and Rehberg has been pushing his lawsuit ever since.  Now, the case against Dougherty County District Attorney’s office investigator James Paulk moves into the spotlight.  Former District Attorney Ken Hodges was determined to have absolute immunity from prosecution by an Appeals Court judge and therefore his case won’t appear before SCOTUS.

The Court will be hearing the case to determine if officials who give false testimony are immune to prosecution.

Personally, I can’t help but believe that the Court must determine that false testimony is grounds for giving up immunity.  The ramifications of anything else is downright scary.  The idea that someone can lie under oath and then be untouchable means that there would be no incentive for honesty from these officials in courts of law.

It will be interesting to see what the Court decides.

This article (2009) reports that this Ken Hodges was going to perhaps run for Attorney General of Georgia.  Great.   Read the account here (it’s the entire post):

Ken Hodges for AG? Let’s Hope Not

Posted on April 12, 2009 by Tom

Thanks to the intrepid reporters at the Albany Herald, former Albany DA Ken Hodges is “99% sure” he’ll run for Attorney General here in Georgia. Oh joy.  I say this because Ken Hodges currently is under a lawsuit regarding the infamous “Phoebe Factoids” case.  Mr. Hodges is currently implicated in a lawsuit by Mr. Charles Rehberg.  {{see above — he received immunity….}}

Mr. Rehberg alleges that Mr. Hodges targeted him for his part in the infamous “Phoebe Factoid” faxes that were sent out in 2003.  In all honesty, this is unique in that most District Attorneys operate under a sort of immunity while in office except for specific things.  One of those things is professional misconduct.  Judge Louis Sands allowed it to continue.

For those who don’t know the allegations against Mr. Hodges, let me lay them out for you.  In 2003, a set of anonymous faxes were made to businesses all over town called the “Phoebe Factoids”.  These alleged various abuses by Phoebe Putney Hospital.  Mr. Hodges allegedly used the power of his office to subpoena the BellSouth phone records, using specifically a 2003 grand jury, to uncover the originator of the factoids.

Now, using a grand jury to subpoena phone records is nothing new.  But what’s reallyoriginal is what Mr. Hodges allegedly did with those records.  He is alleged to have handed them over to Phoebe.  As Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” character would say, “isn’t that special?”  And, say they say on commercials, “but wait, there’s more.”

Mr. Rehberg was then charged with 6 counts of harassing phone calls, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of burglary.  Of course, since the supposed “harassing phone calls” were to businesses and the office of Congressman Sanford Bishop (who was supposedly “surprised” to find he was a victim) which can’t really receive harassing phone calls,  and the home he was alleged to have broken into was a home he’s never been to (it was also the site of the alleged aggravated assault), all charges were dropped.

Now, Mr. Rehberg wants to clear his name.  Ken Hodges, on the other hand, wants to move onto bigger and better things…like being able to do the same things at the state level?  I mean, if he can’t accept Mr. Rehberg’s right to free speech here in the Dougherty County Judicial Circuit, then what will he do with the much larger state budget?  Let’s hope we don’t find out.

Why am I picking on Georgia here?  Well, here’s another factor in Georgia (but probably not unique to it) — the Undistributable Child Support Funds Audit — like many other states, it didn’t report “undistributable” income, or interest earned on that income.    It also has a renowned Fatherhood Program:

http://dhr.georgia.gov/DHR/DHR_FactSheets/Fatherhood_program_06.pdf:

The Georgia Fatherhood Program, created by the Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) in 1997, works with non-custodial parents who owe child support through OCSS but are unable to pay. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is the largest state- operated fatherhood program in the country. Over 2,500 non-custodial parents received services through the program during the past year. Gainful, stable employment enables these parents to provide regular financial support for their children. Fatherhood Program participants paid $18.7 million in child support during FY 2005.

The Georgia Fatherhood Program is implemented by the Fatherhood Services Network, sponsored by the Department of Human Resources’ Office of Child Support Services. The Network includes:

• Georgia Department of Human Resources • Child Access and Visitation Program• V oluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program • Georgia Family Connections Partnership • OCSS, which contracts with

Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Department of Labor DeKalb County Fatherhood Initiative Network

• • •

(that factsheet dates to 2006:  Notice how quickly after the passage of welfare reform (1996) this state got its child support system hooked up with the Access Visitation funding.)  What  you see next is from the current government site:

“… DCSS also provides the Georgia Fatherhood Services Network and the Access and Visitation Program, both devoted to increasing non-custodial parent involvement in a child’s life.”

F.R.A. M.E.D. (Bruce Eden) writes:

The child support industry is a total fraud. It is a $5-$10 BILLION per year INDUSTRY that, if eliminated, the monies saved and sent to the children that supposedly need it, would wipe out all child support arrears in the US at one time. All that would be needed to do is send the BILLIONS in the form of a Social Security check or wire transfer, since child support enforcement laws are part of the Social Security Act.

Neither is there any respect for marriage by the women bearing those children. Fatherlessness breeds sexual promiscuity.** The socialist-liberals in the courts, the legislatures, and the editorial offices have created this national systemic problem. They have designed programs to throw money at the problem by using more enforcement processes. Those programs have the opposite affect from what was desired. Instead of slowing or stopping the problem, they made it WORSE, creating even MORE fatherlessness, and criminalizing more fathers. When you analyze the situation with an open mind, it may occur to you, as it has to many, that failure to pay child support might actually a rebellion against tyranny.

 

**That statement is ridiculousness, and shows an innate fear of women’s sexuality outside of property rights.  Many married Congressmen and several U.S. Presidents (Republican and Democrat both) have been extremely promiscuous, and I seriously doubt that all of them were fatherless and could use that excuse — which disproves that this is the single cause of promiscuity.

Besides which, there truly is a problem with FATHERS — not the best of them, obviously — sexually assaulting their kids, and physically and sexually abusing the wives.   Trying to blame this on the government is displacing blame and derail that conversation.  It is possible also to view feminism as a rebellion against tyranny by overentitled males.  When it comes to complaining about “government” as a whole, while there are men and women in government, one look at Congress (U.S.) tells us who is the dominant gender, which includes spending our country into oblivion, just about, and participating in wars, sometimes without adequate cause, in which thousands of young, virile, and self-sacrificing men DIE, or come back disabled and suffering from PTSD as well, sometimes expanding this to their families.   That cannot be blamed on women as a whole.  We have to get beyond that and separate the issues better.

HOWEVER, what women’s advocates (speaking of advocates against domestic violence — the professionalized, mainstreamed ones ) have done is gain both federal funding — centralized it into “coalitions” which then go conference with fatherhood advocates (behind their follower’s backs) and mutually agree to respect each other’s professional boundaries.

In other words, they are not going to openly converse about fraud, financial abuses, embezzlement, and lack of oversight — and lack of RESULTS! — in the grants-based programs.  Moreover, the women’s / mother’s groups (by which I mean NOW, and several prominent authors & nonprofits characterized as “Crisis in the Courts” groups) HAVE done is practice a virtual media blackout (when taken as a whole) on already-identified practices where the federal funding (in particular) and incentives actually affect custody outcomes – in violation of our civil rights, and (often) the rules of court designed to protect INDIVIDUALs from governmental abuses.

Child support has long since stopped being about supporting children or relieving taxpayers of the welfare burden. [TRUE.  Literature shows, and the Congressional Record shows, that relieving the welfare burden was a sales point — not an actual intention; see 45 CFR 303.109, regulations to the Access/Visitation grants of TItle IV-D.]   

It has now become a lucrative “REVENUE STREAM” for the states, bringing in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars per year.  [Probably TRUE — more in subsequent posts, I have been looking at the HHS/OIG’s own reports]

In addition, it is a Communistic “TRANSFER OF WEALTH” scheme for the entitlement of women, lawyers and child support INDUSTRY. [False.  The mothers (women) have been equally betrayed in this matter.  Remove the word “women” from that phrase, and you have the truth; add a few judges and those on boards of directors of facilitating nonprofits and spin-off industries, and more truth.

There is not a “Commie” behind every government program, and it’s quite likely that if society had been designed with less hierarchy (domination, class rank, gender rank, ethnic ranks, etc.) from the start — it might have been flexible enough to accommodate, for example, restructuring to eliminate slavery (instead of replacing one kind for another) AND to, since women were expected to bear children, raise them, mop up after wars, and go to work in the factories for a World War, then go back home to make room for the returning veterans and replenish the decimated ranks of humanity by child-bearing, etc., and in short change their collective identity to match whoever is currently in power – – – then there might have been fewer casualties of marriage as well as of divorce).

 

It is a discriminatory policy based on gender discrimination against men.   [FALSE.  That tide changed long ago — the child support system has been around since 1975.  Welfare Reform happened after “National Fatherhood Inititiave” got fully entrenched in the HHS department beginning in 1994, and welfare reform, 1996, this welfare reform presumed that the solution to poverty and abuse was “fatherhood” — when in fact certain fathers were abusive and economically neglecting their families while married.  I know of cases where a significant child support arrears was “handled” by simply switching custody to the other (defaulting) parent, and then charging a previously FT working single mother to pay the Dad while inflicting upon her severe emotional distress (and social disgrace, still) by eliminating contact with her children.  I know of women who have become working FT homeless through this, or BACK on welfare.  This type of talk helps neither women or men.

The perception that child support discriminates against men (when men voted the child support system into existence, I’ll bet — after all, any legislation passes Congress, and Congress is primarily male, in fact white male) — is an outworn adage that has been overcompensated for through the “fatherhood” legislation; the child support system yes, does extort men — but also women, because (as I said above) it’s capricious. \

 

Men account for 96-98% of all arrested in child support enforcement when they are in violation of child support orders. Some will claim that child support is not gender biased. If not, then why don’t we hear about DEADBEAT MOMS, who fail to pay ordered support in over 65% of cases?

I have actually looked at arrest records (i.e., who’s in jail on a given day, and for what) in various U.S. counties as part of researching individual cases, or counties around family law issues.  Typically, it’s not ONLY child support contempt that gets a Dad in jail — and if there is a Title IV-D case around, it’s more profitable for the government to force the father into some kind of grants-justifying program than to simply house him in jail.  On the other hand, for Dads who DO get to jail, there are programs in place, outreach programs, to help them contact their noncustodial kids; there are NOT (to my knowledge) similar programs for women.

There are also women being tossed in jail for refusing visitation (or refusing to force a minor child to engage in unsupervised court-ordered visitation with an identified molester, etc. – – – I’m thinking of the Lorraine Tipton case in Wisconsin, and others) and they too — once child support has been ordered on them — are at risk of  and threatened by jail if they cannot come up with not only the child support monies, but also the court-ordered fees for custody evaluations, etc.

These types of statements –without links to evidence (more than anecdotal) do not help.

What CAN help male/female and taxpayers is if women will begin to examine some of the fatherhood sites at least to see what’s going on, and to take a closer look at the child support system, and what (in part) some of these fathers are so angry about.  While emotions are high — rational thinking and observation is low.

I suggest that we start putting the financial matters on the FRONT burner for a while, because of this.

In my next post (or if I can get another blog up and running), I would like to expose some of the practices of LACK OF OVERSIGHT and “UNDISTRIBUTABLE CHILD SUPPORT” behaviors — that are already documented on government sites, and on some mens’ groups sites as well.  It will take a little reading of the material (not just my post) to grasp; but not an excessive amount.  

For example, “Framed Fathers” wrote in December, 2010:

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

A Basic Title IV-D Fact

• The IV-D program is grounded in both federal and state statutes as well as judicial rules and procedures.
• The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) within the Department of Health & Human Services of each state is the single state agency charged with administering the IV- D program in the respective states.

• The federal statutory basis for the program is U.S. Public Law 93-647, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Each state has a similar state statutory basis.
• The policies and procedures that govern most aspects of the child support program in each state are:

•  the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 45 CFR, Parts 232 and 301 to 308;
•  state child support statutes; and
• state Rules of Court.
• Additionally, existing policies and procedures may be affected by case law as well as court and judicial proceedings.
• No where in the Code of Federal Regulations or Federal Child Support statutes (42 U.S.C. Sections 659-671) does it allow for the incarceration/imprisonment of anyone for child support debts.

Like the incarceration of Richard Fine (formerly Esq.) after he began reporting — in large part — serious abuse by the Los Angeles District Attorney of withholding distribution of already-collected child support (in the amount of about $14 million) — and improper financial payments to Superior Court judges from the County, affecting cases in which the County was a party  — (i.e., conflicts of interest) — he was improperly put in solitary confinement for the purposes of forcing him to comply with a court order which he protested was inherently void (as I understand the situation).   The arrest record was later falsified on computer, which has been documented by other people such as Joseph Zernik, and possibly FullDisclosure.net . . .. .   We are truly in a situation in the U.S. where there is an alternate and parallel form of government and court procedures in place, in practice.

The longer men and women can be induced to fight each other (however legitimate the causes they fight over) — and lump in their PERSONAL vendettas and bitterness against an entire gender (not seeing clearly, in other words) the less is going to be done about the issues we actually do have in common.  Do not expect women who have been battered or seen their kids molested to “understand” that we are all (as a gender) just making it up, and that the U.S. Government is our real enemy.  That’s ridiculous.

On the other hand, the battered women’s advocates haven’t advocated properly for such women — being more concerned about their ongoing access to federal grants systems to conference and posture as experts, while failing to account for the amazing lack of accountability in BOTH child support, and towards their own grants systems — which to my awareness, count people served, services promoted — and not lives saved.

Right now, the middle way is to scrutinize the financial operations of this humongous system and to boycott it if it cannot be stopped.  We have to also do this realizing that the system currently has better control of the major media, and better technical support of their websites.  I’d say guerilla blogging without vested financial interest is a better way, combined with a data-driven conversation with your local Congressperson’s chief aide, and then the Congressperson, regardless of what their allegiance is.   The way to “negotiate” ALWAYS entails a balance of powers, and currently, there are (I think…..) some areas in which bullies and tyrants and embezzlers are still exposed and vulnerable to some accountability.

It takes courage, dedication, and the determination to get accurate information — and get that information OUT to the public.