After last, interesting post, in which I found innumberable mediation companies that had failed, had their licenses suspended, were delinquent, and/or raised a LOT of money but simply forgot to tell the Registrar of Charitable Trusts in California that they even existed . . .. It comes out why:

Another great idea out of Los Angeles. Go figure!

After another day at the databases (= why my last post was so fat…. I mean, long), I finally went to the national nonprofit database and simply typed in (something like) “MEDIATION.”  Of course this is going to bring up some non-family-law situations as well (landlord/tenant, civil, etc.).

But get this: (I got it from NCCSDATAWEB site, simply searched “Mediation” and “State of California.”

Now that’s a first — about $7K in the hole:

CHARITy status (hardly surprising, with this track record).

Details from above show ZERO documents filed, almost.  Notice year filed.  In 15 years, not one tax return filed correctly? Or not one acknowledgment to the state of california that it was operating as a nonprofit?  At what point do we get to drop the word ‘PROFESSIONALS” ???

The basic sense of the word “profession” has to do with SAYING something, i.e., profession of faith.

I’m learning (see previous examples) to look at:   State Level: Corporate, Charity, Public Website, Street address, and Personal, and when I get around to it:  national registration.   Maybe I should incorporate — for profit (too much paperwork registering and if I mess up, getting nasty letters from the Attorney General Charitable Trusts registry) — and hire someone to do this database look up.  I could then form a membership organization to Un-PROMOTE the practice of mediation throughout the land given that the people promoting it can’t comply with filing regulations, for the most part.

It says (in RRF form) that if an organization grosses more than $100,000, it has to fork over $25 to the registry of charitable trusts.  Vacaville Public Education Foundation (last post) allegedly raised over $1 million without reporting, and I believe it’s in trouble now.  Maybe the people on these Boards are spreading themselves too thin, so they (or someone in the organization) forgets to do a simple thing like this — send in an RRF and $25!

This time, this group did:

LIKE MANY  OTHERS the interest in such groups seems to correspond with the TANF welfare reform, which frees up some funding to, in part, promote mediation for noncustodial parental increased hours, and social science demonstration projects as promoted by the HHS.  However, there’s more causes behind it as well.

Anyhow, this is a one-person organization to start with, at least one person incorporated it and signed:

That’s nice to narrow down the location some.  It will take place in Los Angeles:

And Jeffrey Kirvis originally incorporated.

SOMEHOW, DESPITE Almost NONE OF ITS RRF FORMS SHOWING UP ON THE CHARITY REGISTRATION SITE (years:  1996 – 2011) and definitely no IRS on there, this organization is still business license “ACTIVE.”  Nor is there any record of scolding letters, such as for the couple (one of whom died) for a much smaller outfit (Myron Blumberg of Mammoth Lakes?). . . ..       Even Kids’ Turn (San Diego?) got a few of those, despite how well-connected they are!

Here is another organization at the same address, with an outstanding website, including moving background and icon:

First Mediation Corporation was formed in 1990 and serves as the administrator of cases for Jeffrey Krivis andMariam Zadeh, as well as a resource for clients and colleagues in the ADR field. The firm is also involved in training, consultation and advice to the legal community and is active in designing protocols for resolving disputes using both the internet and videoconferencing, particularly where companies are faced with difficult geographic challenges. We have conducted cases online and are continuing with efforts to expand the internet as a resource for online communication.

 

http://www.firstmediation.com/contact.php

Mariam Zadeh was an active trial lawyer in New York City until September 11, 2001, at which time her life was dramatically changed. She moved to Los Angeles, obtained her L.L.M. in Alternative Dispute Resolution from the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University, and became a partner with Jeffrey Krivis. Since joining First Mediation, Mariam has successfully mediated employment, class actions, commercial, premises & professional liability, catastrophic injury, mass torts, complex insurance, ERISA and other tort actions.

This STRAUS institute name & Pepperdine keeps popping up.  INcluding in the suspended, delinquent, etc. officers of corporations who one might think should keep this stuff current. . . .

Very interesting article re:  the Institutionalization of Mediation — and the acceptance of the human practice of deception.  This is one of the more honest statements about it I’ve seen.  However, in the family law venue, a party which protests when this gets to the fraud or lying part is likely to get labeled “high-conflict” by the AFCC personnel on the scene, and punished.  That type of punishing / labelling etc. can become like, “taking candy from a baby” when children’s lives are at stake and someone else is controlling their safety.  Or your own.

The Truth About Deception In Mediation

(under “Articles” at First Mediation Corporation site).

ANYHOW, per NCCSDATAWEB — the California Academy of Mediation Professionals IS making more than $100K per year, and as such should be filing.  Perhaps the RRF-s from the office of charitable trusts are backlogged about 20 years worth?  Or from however many years it began making over $100K:

Organization Details
EIN:	931177540
Name:	California Academy of Mediation Professionals — Google
Location:	16501 Ventura Blvd Ste 606 Encino, CA 91436		Report Address Change
County:	Los Angeles County
Ruling Date:	1996   (Approximate year when founded)
IRS Type:	501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations…
Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD):	15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public
NTEE:	I51 – Dispute Resolution & Mediation
Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER)	06/2010
Total Revenue	$143,529
Total Assets:	$-6,680

By the way, it looks like IRS forms have been filed, just not the RRF-s to register as a charity,  SO it didn’t show up in California’s site, although it’s a California corporation…

Form Name	Date Year
	Form 990	2010	Download
	Form 990	2009	Download
	Form 990	2008	Download
	Form 990	2007	Download
	Form 990	2006	Download
	Form 990	2005	Download
	Form 990	2004	Download
	Form 990	2003	Download
	Form 990	2002	Download

A sample 990 here (from “2002” link above) shows that unlike many other organizations, it is not living off grants – but actually producing “program service revenue”:

(in otherwords, the line 1a above is blank.  )

AND spending it (see bottom of the graphic here):

One FT employee was paid $51K, making me think this is administrative:

She is listed as Program Director, receiving this amount, Jeff (the only other listed director on this particular return) receives nothing for his work.  In short, Cynthia runs the program, which generates around $300K income, tax-exempt.

STAFF at FIRST MEDIATION (note topic change, I just wanted to point this out):

Sylvia Chen received her bachelor degree from California State University, Northridge in 2005 with a degree in biology.   During her senior year of high school, she was a volunteer for First Mediation and California Academy of Mediation Professionals. Sylvia has worked for both companies since 1999 and over time grew into her position of Office Manager, in addition to handling all the firm’s case and billing administration.  

Aside from her interests in law and government, Sylvia has also donated countless hours to New Horizons, Inc. helping mentally disabled students.

More, to the point, about JAMS:

OXNARD, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–April 2, 1999–JAMS/ENDISPUTE, the pre-eminent dispute resolution firm, has announced that the company will open a new office in the city of Oxnard to provide Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Services to the Ventura/Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo region. . . .

JAMS/ENDISPUTE has more than 28 offices nationwide and resolves approximately 15,000 cases annually. The company is exclusively served by more than 360 neutrals, including former judges, experienced attorneys and other professional mediators and arbitrators.

With more than 20 years of experience, JAMS/ENDISPUTE offers mediation, arbitration, private jury trials and other programs focused on particular areas of law and special dispute-resolution needs, such as employment-related disputes

Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/labor-employment-law-alternative-dispute-resolution/6900728-1.html#ixzz1Vo3NEb8B

About the Foundation

Funding Opportunities

• Foundation Grants: The Foundation may provide financial support of up to $50,000 for ADR-related initiatives with national scope or impact that are related to one or more of the Foundation’s current areas of interest, subject to available funding.
• Opportunity Grants: The Foundation may provide grants of up to $10,000 for local or regional ADR-related projects that present unique opportunities or innovative approaches to providing dispute resolution education, training, or services.
• Weinstein International Fellowships: The Foundation will provide funding of up to $25,000 each for qualified individuals from outside the U.S. to come to the U.S. to learn more about dispute resolution services, programs and practices in order to expand the use of ADR in their home countries.
• Major Dispute Resolution Initiatives: The Foundation will, on occasion, initiate and fund major projects in selected areas of dispute resolution education, training, or services.
• Special ADR Needs: The Foundation will consider financial support and volunteer resources for ADR-related assistance in extraordinary situations such as those experienced in New York following the attacks of September 11, 2001 and in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

The Mission of the JAMS Foundation

JAMS, the nation’s premier provider of private dispute resolution services, established the non-profit JAMS Foundation to offer financial assistance for conflict resolution initiatives with national or international impact and to share its dispute resolution experience and expertise for the benefit of the public interest. Funded entirely by contributions from JAMS, JAMS neutrals, and employee associates, the Foundation’s mission is to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), support education at all levels about collaborative processes for resolving differences, promote innovation in conflict resolution, and advance the settlement of conflict worldwide.

AMONG SOME OF THEIR (CURRENT) GRANTS IN PROCESS, NOTE:

(see link for the scope — practically all areas of endeavor, JAMS wants us to mediate.  No conflict.  Should go tell that to the Libyan Rebels in Tripoli that President Obama just commended; they FOUGHT, and a Tyrant is just about deposed.  However the rest of us must not fight, but mediate.

Obama:  Gadaffi’s regime is at an end

“Tonight, the momentum against the Gaddafi regime has reached a tipping point. Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant,” Obama said in a statement issued as he took a vacation on the resort of Martha’s Vineyard.

“Moamer Gaddafi and his regime need to recognize that their rule has come to an end,” the presidnet said. “The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.”

They showed by fighting back.

(By Agence France-Presse
Monday, August 22nd, 2011 — 8:11 am, posted in “TheRawStory”)

AFCC, of course

“JAMS” also has JUDGES — lots of them !:

JAMS FEDERAL JUDGES  (that’s a 5 page, color list of judges)

JAMS is proud to have many of the most respected retired United States federal judges on its panel. These former and retired federal judges are exclusively associated with JAMS for the professional practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution. They are all experts or experienced in federal law issues, such as securities, intellectual property and employment, and in some cases have expertise or experience in such fields as bankruptcy, admiralty and environmental law.

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF MEDIATORS 990, AGAIN:

And these comprise the $118K of ‘OTHER” earnings, including 3 computers, and $91K on trainings:

and the 3 computers, plus depreciation:

THERE was revenue generation, definitely:

SOME of which was government fees or contracts, the other, straight mediation — under this nonprofit’s name:

(“Fees and contracts from government agencies” — $153,066.  In other words, a little over half was from government, and just under half “mediation services” — but not taxable).

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF MEDIATION PROFESSIONALS

Nice website for the nonprofit, too (name:  “campmediation.org” — cute…)

Established in 1995, CAMP receives funding from the Los Angeles County Dispute Resolution Program Act. The County’s program offers the broadest spectrum of dispute resolution services focusing on court referred cases such as landlord/tenant, personal injury, and limited jurisdiction-small claims.

CAMP was founded by Jeffrey Krivis as a means of providing accessible mediation services to his students and the community at large.  Mr. Krivis currently serves as an advisor and resource to CAMP.

NOTICE it does NOT do family law, meaning it is not interfering with AFCC territory.

Services are provided to parties in any civil case filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Services are not provided under this program to family, probate, traffic, criminal, appellate, mental health, unlawful detainer/eviction or juvenile court cases.

The services include: mediation, conciliation, facilitation, and is provided through private non-profit and public entities. Any fees charged are based on a sliding scale and no fees are charged for the indigent.

But still I have to ask — what’s with the not filing with the RRF, given that it’s a charity?

Now, I didn’t know about that act.  However, here’s a statement that XYZ organizations are under contract to provide services.  Please note that it is under the “Department of Consumer Affairs,” not the justice department.  It is under “business and professions code.” Nevertheless, we are seeing the same behavior — failure to file as a charity when one is a charity (as I understand this…..)

California Dispute Resolution Programs Act – Statutes

The Dispute Resolution Programs Act of 1986 (Stats 1986, ch. 1313, SB 2064-Garamendi and Stats 1987, ch. 28, SB 123-Garamendi) provides for the local establishment and funding of informal dispute resolution programs. The goal of the Act is the creation of a state-wide system of locally-funded programs which will provide dispute resolution services (primarily conciliation and mediation) to county residents. These services assist in resolving problems informally and function as alternatives to more formal court proceedings.

Counties which choose to offer these services to their residents are authorized to allocate up to up to $8 from filing fees in superior, municipal, and justice court actions to generate new revenues for these local programs.

The Act provides the framework for the statewide system. In addition, it specified that a limited-term Dispute Resolution Advisory Council adopt temporary guidelines and propose regulations which would supplement the provisions of the Act. The Council completed its responsibilities and terminated, as required, on January 1, 1989. Its proposed regulations were subsequently approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, effective October 1, 1989. The Regulations supersede the “Temporary Funding and Operating Guidelines” which were adopted by the Council in 1988.

The state oversight agency designated by the Act is the California Department of Consumer Affairs. The department’s responsibilities include reviewing and modifying the rules and regulations, providing technical assistance to counties and programs, monitoring local government and program compliance with the Act and the Regulations, and evaluating the services of the programs and their impact on the state justice system.

The Act’s statutory provisions (codified at California Business and Professions Code ” 465-471.5), and its Regulations (contained at California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Chapter 36) now operate in tandem to govern the implementation activities by counties and the services provided by local dispute resolution programs.

Inquiries about the Act and its implementation should be directed to:

Dispute Resolution Office
Department of Consumer Affairs
1625 North Market Blvd., Suite S 309
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 574-8220

NOW, this part of the act is very interesting – towards the end it refers to the time that the STATE (not counties, presumably?) shall take charge of the funding of the TRIAL COURTS, there is a hope to have more ADR going on.

Article 1. Legislative Purpose

465. Legislative finding and declaration

The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

1. (a) The resolution of many disputes can be unnecessarily costly, time-consuming, and complex when achieved through formal court proceedings where the parties are adversaries and are subjected to formalized procedures.
2. (b) To achieve more effective and efficient dispute resolution in a complex society, greater use of alternatives to the courts, such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration should be encouraged. Community dispute resolution programs and increased use of other alternatives to the formal judicial system may offer less threatening and more flexible forums for persons of all ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds. These alternatives, among other things, can assist in the resolution of disputes between neighbors, some domestic disputes, consumer-merchant disputes, and other kinds of disputes in which the parties have continuing relationships. A noncoercive dispute resolution forum in the community may also provide a valuable prevention and early intervention problem-solving resource to the community.
3. (c) Local resources, including volunteers reflective of the diversity of the community and available public buildings should be utilized to achieve more accessible, cost-effective resolutions of disputes. Additional financial resources are needed to expand, stabilize, and improve existing programs and entities which sponsor alternative dispute resolution.
4. (d) Courts, prosecuting authorities, law enforcement agencies, and administrative agencies should encourage greater use of alternative dispute resolution techniques whenever the administration of justice will be improved.
5. (e) Counties should consider increasing the use of alternative dispute resolution in their operations as plans for court reform are developed and implemented.
6. (f) The Judicial Council should consider, in redrafting or updating any of the official pleading forms used in the trial courts of this state, the inclusion of information on options for alternative dispute resolution.

465.5. Legislative intent

It is the intent of the Legislature to permit counties to accomplish all of the following:

1. (a) Encouragement and support of the development and use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.
2. (b) Encouragement and support of community participation in the development, administration, and oversight of local programs designed to facilitate the informal resolution of disputes among members of the community.
3. (c) Development of structures for dispute resolution that may serve as models for resolution programs in other communities.
4. (d) Education of communities with regard to the availability and benefits of alternative dispute resolution techniques.
5. (e) Encouragement of courts, prosecuting authorities, public defenders, law enforcement agencies, and administrative agencies to work in cooperation with, and to make referrals to, dispute resolution programs.

At the time that the state assumes the responsibility for the funding of California trial courts, consideration shall be given to the Dispute Resolution Advisory Council’s evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution programs and the feasibility of the operation of a statewide program of grants, with the intention of funding alternative dispute resolution programs on a statewide basis.

It seems to me that the net effect of this is to enable public employees and very successful attorneys, retired judges, etc.  — to incorporate, form nonprofits, GET GRANTS TO PROMOTE THIS, sometimes fail to file, and market themselves.  LIke, everywhere.

FOUND On-LINE:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS ACT (DRPA) CONTRACTORS

The following organizations provide mediation services under contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Community & Senior Services. Services are provided to parties in any civil case filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Services are not provided under this program to family, probate, traffic, criminal, appellate, mental health, unlawful detainer/eviction or juvenile court cases.

 

Interesting that an ADR services organization is operating out of that 111 Hill STreet office in Los Angeles that Marv Bryer was so upset about in the 1990s

Alternative Dispute Resolution

THere is a paid professional in the SF Superior Court, whose business is to promote ADR.  Now, this court system (SF) is under imminent threat, per Katherine Feinstein, to close down 25 courtrooms and lay off 200 employees!  (press release)

• Presiding Judge Feinstein: State Budget Cuts Would Force the Court to Close 25 Courtrooms, Lay Off 200 Employees
• “JUSTICE WILL BE DISMANTLED”

JUNE 16, 2011:   “JUSTICE WILL BE DISMANTLED!  (restore funding, please!)

“I urge lawmakers to restore trial court funding to ensure that Californians have access to justice,” Judge Feinstein said. “We are not an emergency room that can turn away patients because we are at capacity. People want an orderly resolution to their disputes. If they can’t achieve that outcome, then we will see more disorderly resolutions. Unlike executive branch agencies, we cannot control how much work comes in. We are constitutionally unable to do that.”

Given the apparent vulnerability of California’s trial courts – as witnessed in the past 48 hours – the Court is planning to close 25 courtrooms, including Civil, Criminal, Probate, Juvenile and Family Law departments. These closures will mean that all members of our community seeking access to justice or resolution of disputes will face significant delays in getting their day in court.

“Justice as we know it today in San Francisco will be dismantled,” Judge Feinstein said.

 

JUNE 24, 2011:  “WE CORRECTED 92% of 2005-2008 AUDIT ISSUES  BEFORE PUBLICATION OF THE AUDIT

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CORRECTS 92 PERCENT OF FINDINGS BEFORE RELEASE OF AOC AUDIT

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco Superior Court Executive Officer T. Michael Yuen today assured the Judicial Council that 92 percent of the issues identified in an audit of Court operations in 2005-2008 have been addressed since the comprehensive report was completed in May 2010.

Yuen, who was appointed by the San Francisco Superior Court Bench to serve as CEO 10 months ago, thanked the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Internal Audit Services team for its thorough review of Court administration, cash controls, court revenue and expenditure and general operations. The Judicial Council voted to accept the audit during today’s meeting.

 

Great timing on that press release, and “Har, Har, Har….”   Remember the Civil Grand Jury convened on child support issues, as reported on their website?  I found a report that classified Kids Turn funds ($45K or so) as “Violence Prevention,” and a whole LOT of other shenanigans, including outright simply breaking their own standards in picking single-source vendors (versus competitive), and more.

LOOKING UP 111 HILL STREET (where some ADR activity most certainly occurs) Los Angeles reminds me again of JOHNNYPUMPHANDLE site:

Non-Profit Organizations

Many non-governmental organizations exist to reap profit from the Family Law system. Most are identified as Non-Profit and are exempt from taxation. You may have contacted some of these organizations for help, only to discover that help is not available – particularly if you are seeking justice.

Many organizations have been established by professionals in the Family Law system for conspiracy and protection of these professionals. Thus we have many Bar Associations, whose members are lawyers and judges; Psychological Associations for classifying family members syndromes, so that none will be overlooked; and other associations established merely to act as a conduit for family member’s money collected in the process.

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community”. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.

 

Now that we’ve (at least I have) been looking at some nonprofit tax returns and articles of incorporation as nonprofits, let’s look at this one fro 1997, for public benefit purpose:  “PROMOTION OF THE JUDICIAL PROFESSION:”  Please note that the registered agent is a law firm in NORTHERN California, SF to be specific:

It shows up around the web as a nonprofit:

(ALTHOUGH when I keyed in the FEIN# it wasn’t found under charities, and when I keyed in the Business Entity# (sec. of state) it didn’t come up either).

Either it’s not earning much, or they just forgot to file, ALSO:  (notice different room# in the Hill Street address).

WELL, from their 2009 return, they keep a modest profile for such high-profile personnel (judges!)

Their only income about $50K in membership dues, which seems to go to mainly entertainment.

And — this displays sideways but shows how to have a net income LOSS on MUSIC, DINNER & SPORTING EVENTS, and charge someone $1,000 tax preparation to do so.  in fact (judging by the first of the series of 990s here) this seems to be the process:  Hold Events, Pay someone to run them, and write off about $12 to $16K in the process keeping a low profile

Look for yourself

Something must have been working right, because for years, the judges got extra county-paid benefits, as Richard Fine showed.

INTERESTING HISTORY OF THIS BUILDING – and its intersection with what possibly later became AFCC:

SOURCE”  Beware AFCC:

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

1962

The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)

Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

1963

Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse.

 

 

 

(CONTINUING TEXT FROM THE AFCC history page);

Evidence: Publication of first CA Conciliation Courts Quarterly

1965 Tried to get Family Law bill passed.

1965 The CCC has other states involved

• Arizona California was dropped from their publication name.

1967 CCC became a national organization.

Treasurers in Missouri and Michigan Still no incorporation documents filed; still no Secretary of State, FTB or IRS registration • President Lauren Henderson from Phoenix,AZ • VP Hugh Page from San Luis Obispo, CA • Treasurer William Shields (where from?) CCC expanded to include • Alameda County • San Luis Obispo County

1968 CCC became international.

Still no formal incorporation status, despite being an international group with a money flow. Treasurer: from San Luis Obispo In the seminar business, began giving Family Law Symposiums in Los Angeles Combined with Bar Association (marriage between attorneys and court) Have a legislative committee CCC expanded to include • San Luis Obispo • Phoenix,AZ • Chicago, ILL • Detroit, MICH • Missouri • AUSTRALIA Evidence: CC Quarterly

Money began flowing in from everywhere, despite no incorporation status, no registration with FTB o

• Income of $2716.64. Into this unincorporated entity, which did not pay taxes, flowed dollars from membership dues and conference registration fees. • Expenses of $208.64. Out flowed dollars for stamps, a rubber stamp, check imprinting, Holiday Inn meeting rooms, a refund to Conner Cole for conference registration, Hills Stationery Ledger Papers, and a mysterious entry: reimbursement to the County of San Luis Obispo for stationery. NOTE: the treasurer is from San Luis Obispo Evidence: CCC Financial Report (through May 21, 1968)

After May 21, 1968, the CCC, an unincorporated entity paying no taxes, anticipated they would have:

• Income of $700 from Registration, and $300 from County of S.L.O NOTE: the treasurer is from San Luis Obispo • Expenses of $2433.64 for banquet, luncheon, breakfast and cocktail party • Expenses to Drs. Stembr, Suares, Steller, Muhrich,Transcription costs, flowers, music and Expenses to President Meyer Elkin for publications. Evidence: CCC Anticipated Income and Expense Report (after May 21, 1968)

1969

The national CCC finally filed to incorporate as a domestic nonprofit CA corporation with Secretary of State. Michael Aaronson, attorney from San Carlos, filed these papers.

AS YOU SEE HERE:

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS		Charity	Not Registered	CHICAGO	IL	Charity Registration	Charity
1

HOW ABOUT IN ILLINOIS?

Well, there’s a Collaborative Law Institute there…. (Smile):  The address is a Virtual Business Office, too (one can rent meeting rooms, etc.)  This one’s been around since 2002….

And that International COllaborative I was looking for was indeed registered in Arizona:

THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS
Reg. Number:	01050362
EIN:	943323285
Address:	11811 N TAUM BLVD PHOENIX, AZ 85028

and I guess they are doing OK financially, too:

YEP I will have to do a segment on Collaborative Lawyering, and how Hofstra University (AFCC home away from home, helps publish family court review, etc) is preparing already to deal with the domestic violence liability in situations where judges might not even be involved!  And how COllaborative/Cooperative law played out in Florida, as promoted by a group of AFCC personnel including a judge, an attorney and a professional educator (you always need one of those to keep promoting the concepts…..)

and they have one listing under the booming field of “co-parenting” (which was involuntarily dissolved…. after apparently 5 years from incorporation).  Get with it, Illinois!  You’re far behind, say, texas in this field!  (Then again, Illinois has Jeffrey Leving, etc. . . .. . .)

AND, here we are:

CORPORATION/LLC SEARCH RESULTS

Search Criteria: CONCILIATION

Entity Type File Number Corporation/LLC Name CORP OLD 50708497 ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS * * * CORP MST 50708497 ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS CORP MST 58270601 CHILDREN’S COUNCIL OF CONCILIATION

NOTICE DATE OF INCORPORATION, 1975:

The corporation doesn’t HAVE to profit — everyone associated with it will, and often at taxpayers and parents’ expense, too!

There is an Illinois Charitable Registry also, after one has read the disclaimer, which reads in part:

 The Illinois Attorney General does maintain a record of every charitable organization ever registered with this Office pursuant to the Charitable Trust Act (760 ILCS 55/1 et seq.) and the Solicitation For Charity Act (225 ILCS 460/1 et seq.), including past and current charitable registration statements and annual financial reports.

• Filed seven years after establishing the original bank account at SPNB. • The address of this corporation was Room 241, Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012, which is the LA County public courthouse address. • Stated on the form filed with Secretary of State that CCC is not incorporated, is now being incorporated, and is not an outgrowth of another unincorporated predecessor (despite the fact that they have maintained a bank account for seven years under that name) • Stated on the form filed with Secretary of State that that they have not applied for an exemption with the federal government, nor filed federal tax returns (despite money flowing in and out of their account). • Defines the specific purpose: “To improve marriage counseling procedures so as to provide greater assistance to parties having marital difficulties. To attempt to improve the professional and ethical standards of professional family counseling so as to help preserve family relationships.” • Defines major activities: Conduct meetings and seminars with the various judges, handling domestic, relations and with marriage counselors and court commissioners for the purpose of disseminating knowledge and information that will be direct benefit to marriage counselors and thus benefit the families which are counseled by them. • Sources of income: dues and contributions • Purpose use of funds:“Cost of meeting halls and speakers, costs of reference books, telephone and clerical and stenographic services.” Evidence: documents filed with Secretary of State

Now found at the 3100 South Central Avenue, “Chicago” 60650:

(Address is in cicero, not Chicago (I’ve noticed this sometimes on business address filings — what seems like a “wrong” address),  Basic google search.

Seguin Services, Inc.	3100 S. Central Avenue Cicero, IL  60650

Seems right up the alley, relatively speaking, with their focus on children:

 Adoption and care for severely disabled children, licensed by Illinois DCYS

 

 

 

NOTHING EVER ON FILE WITH IRS FTB contacted them because they had left off part of their articles:

Judge Victor J Baum of Michigan Edward Staniec of Michigan Franklin Bailey of Los Angeles Mailing Address: James E. Frick, 3100 S Central Ave, Chicago, Ill 60650 (Cook County) Corporation # CO376876 Evidence: Secretary of State Status Inquiry

 

James E. Frick is a common name, and these are some interesting search results, though:

”

DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

James E. Frick, Inc. (the Company) is a consulting company specializing in reducing costs for client companies. Their core product, unemployment compensation cost control, is complimented with unemployment tax planning services, multistate tax audits and related services, software consulting solutions, and other employer business services. The Company’s customers range in size from the very large (serving approximately one-third of the Fortune 500 Companies) to small employers with less than 200 employees. The customer base is dispersed throughout the United States and includes a broad cross section of industries.

The Company is 100% owned by The Frick Company Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the ESOP).

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

(a) USE OF ESTIMATES

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could vary from the estimates that were used.”

 

Whether or not this is James E. Frick, this is an interesting case:  EQUIFAX (of GEORGIA) acquired TALX  and Frick (then of Missouri). Some of the industry overlaps with what would affect the child support industry for sure — employment and human resource issues.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

In the Matter of

TALX CORPORATION, a corporation.  

Docket No. C-4228

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”), having reason to believe that respondent TALX Corporation (“TALX), now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax”), has violated and is violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that TALX has violated and is violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

I. Nature of the Case

1. This complaint concerns the acquisitions consummated by TALX of James E. Frick Inc., Unemployment Compensation Business Services Division of Gates, McDonald & Company, Johnson & Associates, L.L.C., substantially all of the assets of the Unemployment Compensation Management (“UCM”) and small employment verification businesses of Sheakley-Uniservice, Inc., UI Advantage, Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., and the unemployment tax management business of Employers Unity, Inc. This series of acquisitions occurred between March 2002 and December 2005.

VIII. Anticompetitive Effects

22. The acquisitions by TALX of James E. Frick, Inc. and the UCM business of Gates McDonald & Company eliminated direct and actual competition between Frick and Gates

-4­McDonald for the provision of outsourced UCM services. The acquisitions by TALX of Johnson Associates, LLC, the UCM assets of Sheakley-Uniservice, Inc., UI Advantage, Inc, Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., and Employers Unity, Inc., eliminated direct and actual competition between TALX and each of the enumerated acquired firms or businesses in the provision of outsourced UCM services.

23. The acquisitions by TALX of the employment verification businesses of James E. Frick, Inc., Sheakley-Uniservice, Inc, Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., and Employers Unity, Inc., eliminated direct and actual competition in the provision of employer verification services.

24. The acquisitions by TALX of its competitors have enhanced its ability to increase prices unilaterally and enhanced its ability to decrease the quality of services provided in each of the relevant lines of commerce.

IX. Violations Charged

25. The Acquisitions described in Paragraphs 5 through 10 constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18.

 

(Sorry to get off on the James E. Frick tangent, there).

WELL, AGAIN, when the concept of ADR promotion at public expense to nonprofits (such as we’ve seen last few posts), including one whose address seems to be 111 Hill Street, and here is the 1999 Insight Magazine Link detailing the concerns:   Some financial records were subpoenaed, and ALL KINDS of checks were going into that fund.

THIS SEGMENT is (in)Famous among many parents facing a custody battle (male or female), and I’ve also posted part of it in my Shady Shaky Foundations of Family Law page — a “READ ME FIRST” page for this blog.

Now, almost 3 years later, and a LOT of eyestrain later, and with a bit better understanding of how businesses, charities, etc. have to actually register — and of course of the grants systems (some of them) around the courts — I find it fascinating that as the courts are going broke (budget) and we DON”T HAVE AN ACCOUNTING for so many public funds, we DO KNOW that lots of organizations are often out of compliance with the tax codes themselves (CAVEAT:  I’ve been looking at these public sites, not originals of the 990s, and there is a possibility that registrations exist that the Attorney General’s office simply didn’t get up on-line) – – –

it seems to me that with wonderful foresight, a.k.a. “COLLABORATIVE LAW” — certain professionals have been preparing for a VERY long time to take the OUT-flux of parents that actually need some business done — in the form of private judging among friends:  “keep it all in the family” if the courthouses do indeed get shut down.  I suggest that parents do a general boycott and accept that no matter HOW bad your ex was, they can’t generally speaking be this large-scale systemic corrupt (unless you are married to one of these) as to think it’s OK to continually form nonprofits, and then watch people whose lives your work ahs helped waste, be pushed back towards welfare, when there isn’t going to be any!  Thanks in part to the taxes your groups didn’t pay, for some “public benefit” or, as case may have it, a “mutual benefit.”

There was one (collaborative) group whose only purpose was to collect dues for the international one.  I believe that was in San Bernadino, CA (but could be wrong)

http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm

Update 4/11/99

Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 16 — May 3, 1999 . . . .
http://www.insightmag.com

Insight Magazine

Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

An alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association is at the heart of a scandal involving possible income-tax evasion and gifts that may affect judges’ rulings.

Child-custody cases always are heart-wrenching, but a three-month probe by Insight has unearthed an added twist for parents with cases before the Superior Court in Los Angeles. Emotionally distraught litigants are questioning whether a cozy financial connection between judges, attorneys and some court-appointed professionals in the City of Angels is affecting the outcome of their cases. Friends of the court are concerned that, at the very least, there is a strong appearance of impropriety.
. . . . Private bank accounts that benefit judges are at the heart of this brewing scandal — one that state and local agencies resolutely have failed to investigate, adding further suspicion. Bank accounts funded in part by fees from local lawyers and others involved in the family-court system are troubling litigants. Many feel it is impossible to know whether they’re facing a judge who has benefited financially from an attorney appearing before the court.
. . . . Former presiding judge Robert Parkin tells Insight that an account critics dub a slush fund is nothing more than “coffee-and-flowers” cash for the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, or LASCJA.

. . . . Dozens of checks, obtained by Insight, deposited in the LASCJA account were made out to several other institutions, including the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the Judges Trust Fund, the Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services. These organizations are not registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, and if the Bank of America has accounts for any of them, the checks were not deposited in those accounts.
. . . . Not only were attorneys who argue cases before the family court making payments to the judges’ fund, but so were the court monitors — appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations. These monitors qualify for their jobs by paying to take a training and certification course from the judges, with the check going to the fund, whereupon they are placed on the exclusive list the judges use when assigning monitors.
. . . . The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s contributions to the fund were payments to the judges run through a joint partnership with the court on MCLE classes. They split the proceeds from legal and professional seminars.
. . . . So, in addition to the ethical issues involved in how the bank account has been maintained, its funding also raises numerous legal issues, according to attorney Richard I. Fine, a taxpayers’ advocate. “If a private group [the LASCJA] is using a public building and everything associated with that private group is being paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, then it is clearly fraudulent,” Fine contends. He adds that “unless the public entity has passed an ordinance specifically allowing the private group to exist and specifically stating that the public will bear the costs — separate phones, leasing office space, furniture, computers, etc. — then it should be paid for by the private organization.”
. . . . According to Fine, “If the judges have provided false information on official financial statements submitted to government agencies or financial institutions [the Bank of America account], then they have defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and the county and the people of Los Angeles by receiving tax-free status under fraudulent means. … This would be the same as if a person lied on their tax return. It is incredulous to me that something like this could have happened and the IRS, state attorney general, county district attorney and auditor have not acted over all these years.”

 

HEre’s Bryer’s Tort Claim of 1998, and a rant.  The images on the links clicked to are almost illegible, but one does show 1969 as the date Conference of Conciliation Courts received (State) tax exemption — if you peer at it closely.   What I’m noticing how is a DIFFERENT EIN# for this judges’ fund than he mentions:

What do you think?

Filed Sep 11, 1998
September 10 1998

TORT CLAIM – AGAINST THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ACCUSED: Tyler McCauley – Assistant Auditor – County of Los Angeles
Frederick Bennett – County Counsel of Los Angeles  (….and associated with this nonprofit I showed, LASCJ)
Amy L. K. Shek – County Counsel of Los Angeles
Henry Stewart – County Sheriff of Los Angeles
Clarence Markham – County Sheriff of Los Angeles

TIME OF ACCUSATION:
Now – Ongoing

DAMAGES: Amount to be assessed by trial by jury

DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.

The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!

 

Here’s how it looks now that 95600027 — I searched the Charity Registration:

For COMPARISON, the Secretary of State (which lists the city correctly, and another address of the registered agent)y

(* * *which is a manufactured or mobile home community in L.A. County…)

Currently this looks like an Animal Control Office in “City of Industry”

Los Angeles County Animal Control &/or Sheriff’s Dept.

150 North Hudson Ave, City of Industry, CA 90242-400

ALSO, as with the Conference of Conciliation Courts registration, they piped in the wrong city — as here.  Guasti, CA has a different zip code.  150 N. Hudson is in City of Industry.  Deliberate?

RE:  95-6000927  (database NCCS search produced results = no IRS filings either?

JUST to Further confuse the innocent, or engage the obsessively curious: I searched (googled) that #, and here’s an 11 page document about plan A, B, or C “deferred compensation” with blank form dating to 2005 (and from the US Treasury) which has this as part of a form.  Anyone who deciphers it welcome to submit a comment; it may relate:

The deferred compensation issues is a hot topic, and was the subject of front-line news recently, when top Alameda County Officials got a particularly sweet deal, including the district attorney, Nancy O’Malley, Supervisor Nate Miley, and Sheriff

I’ll provide the links