Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for February 2012

For Further Info — and Reflection

with 3 comments

See also (next-gen blog, at least for me)

The Family Court Franchise System

Blog author in need of redecoration, has set up shop elsewhere.  This doesn’t mean NO more posts over here, but perhaps better organization over there.  I tangled one too many times with the gigantic “quotes” function & disappearing paragraphs here; I like the more flexible fonts available on the other platform.  You probably will too.

Besides which, anyone who hasn’t figured out yet that the family court system IS a franchise system, I feel sincerely sorry for them.  Last attempt to convince you of this? (just a sample)


For sale, on the site:


For more information click on product page          

The Psychotherapist As Parent Coordinator in High- Conflict Divorce: Strategies and Techniques

Develop a parenting coordination program and minimize high stress for children of divorce! With this guide, you will be able to effectively help co-parents develop a collaborative relationship and child-focused parenting plans during or after their divorce through parenting coordination.

Parenting Coordination: 

Creating a Window of Hope

 Marketing Power Point 

This power point presentation has been created in 30 and 60 minute versions as a way to educate the legal and mental health professionals regarding the process of parenting coordination.  This is an ideal way to educate and market parenting coordination to your community.    

To learn more and order click here  $34.95 To learn more and order click here  $75

 Parenting Coordination Assessment  Forms

Each assessment includes eighteen pages that include the following:

  • Intake Form
  • Self Assessment
  • Co-Parent Assessment
  • Conflict Assessment
  • Relationship Assessment
  • Child Assessment.     

 Forms are sold in sets of twenty.

Parenting Coordination Forms: DISK A

  • Sample Order Appointing a Parent Coordinator
  • Agreement Expectation Contract
  •  Standards of Care
  •  Step by step checklist for parenting coordinators.

    Electronic files (in Word or WordPerfect) of the parenting coordination basic parenting coordination forms. These forms may be duplicated and modified for individual use. Disk A includes: 

To learn more and order

click here.   $75  

To learn more and order

click  here  $50

Parenting Coordination Supplimental Forms: DISK B

Disk B includes electronic files in word and word perfect formats include supplemental forms for the parent coordinator.  These forms include

  • step-parent assessment
  • abuse assessment
  • child forms
  • marketing forms
  • standards vs licensing code
  • agreement forms
  • feedback forms
  • communication agreement
  • impasse assessment
  • court contracts, and much more. 
  •  For more detailed information click here.

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective Co-Parenting  


 An easy-to-read parent workbook that provides vital information and gives real-life examples and worksheets so parent may practice new skills that shield their child from parental conflict.

Available also in Spainish text see below

To view the table of contents click here 

To learn more and order

click here.   $75 To learn more and order

click here.   $19.95 


Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Kit

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce is a 8-week, 16 – 20 hour program that is part video and part group discussion recommended for groups of 10-16 parents. The group kit consists of video/DVD, leader’s guide, parent guide and marketing disk.  It is designed for use by therapists, parent educators, churches and schools.

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce GroupCertificates $6.00 per 15
ooperative Parenting and Divorce LeaderTransparencies 
 Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Quizzes  $29.95

Leader’s Guide replacement $49.99

DVD replacement $99.00


To learn more and order

click here.   $349.00To learn more and order click here

Collaborative Law Assessments

These comprehensive assessments help the professionals determine the appropriateness of each family for the collaborative process and which members of the team will be neces-sary for success.  They are also invaluable for use with divorce coaches and child specialists.

  • Self Assessment
  • Co-Parent Assessment
  • Conflict Assessment
  • Communication Assessment
  • Child Assessment

Sold in sets of 20

Show and Tell Cards for Play Therapists

This simple flip book provides 29 pages of activity sheets that may be reproduced by play therapists working with young children ages 3-10 years. In addition each section provides information regarding different ways in which each sheet may be used with young children

Temporarily Out of Stock

 To learn more and to order click here.   $75To learn more and to order click here.   $15

 Crossroads of Parenting & Divorce 5 Steps to Prevent Divorce Abuse
 Crossroads of Parenting & Divorce 5 Steps to Prevent Divorce Abuse
Divorce Seminar Kit

Sold as part of a four hour video based divorce seminar or sold as a stand alone.  Parents are often surprised to learn that some of the actions they take inadvertently harm their children.  This parent guide provides parents with five steps to prevent unnecessary damage to their child.

“It is not the divorce that will harm your child but rather the decisions and the actions you take.”

64 page text 

$9.95 (Bulk rates available)

To learn more or to purchase click here.

This four hour divorce seminar is intended for use as part of the mandated divorce seminar requirements.  It may also be provided separately or done as a six hour seminar for divorcing or divorced parents.   

Kit includes Leader’s Guide, One Parent’s Guide, 25 minute DVD, Marketing Materials, handouts and more.

To learn more or to purchase click here



Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Kit

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce is a 8-week, 16 – 20 hour program that is part video and part group discussion recommended for groups of 10-16 parents. The group kit consists of video/DVD, leader’s guide, parent guide and marketing disk.  It is designed for use by therapists, parent educators, churches and schools.



Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective Co-Parenting  


 An easy-to-read parent workbook that provides vital information and gives real-life examples and worksheets so parent may practice new skills that shield their child from parental  


$349  To order click here$19.95  To order click here

Here’s a brief trying to push the hybrid model, more:

In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass- roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute, 5 Journal of Child Custody 88 (2008)

Ms. Termini (of Pennsylvania) coordinates the GAL program at Lackawanna County, and Mr. Joe Pilchesky, as part of his public service, this WAS a public service; more people should do it!) posted her receipts to the Scranton Political Times on or about Oct. 3, 2011 as follows (a few months before he was himself thrown off the site by Joanne, who apparently got tired of certain behaviors, including cheating on him, dissing her (with a few threats implied) on the forum, and continuing to operate out of  a home she owned, literally.   No child victims for the local courts in that situation, but they are going to duke it out anyhow).   BUT — here it is, Ms. Termini’s SS# redacted….


The hotel stay image, here, 8/22/09 — coincides with a presentation Termini, Harhut & Ross were doing at the National Association of Counsel for Children (“NACC”), only $215.43 for one night.   It’s Danielle Ross (not Termini) who is the NACC member (per their lists, at least).  

And some more:



and some more, for 2011:

For the year 2011



(I sure hope those links continue to function….)

And he summarizes what he did, which doesn’t sound to me like rocket science.  Posted 10/3/2011. Maybe it was rocket science, but somehow, I don’t think so:

All these were, and as of today (2/24/2012) are at Scranton Political Times under the co-parenting thread, which is under the topic “Doherty Deceit”


 I sent a right-to-know letter to Lackawanna County asking for documents regarding Family Court’s Co-Parenting Coordinator, Ann Marie Termini.  I received a response a few days ago, so I’m able to share some information with you.  The RTK letter and the response thereto are posted below.

* I asked for copies of contracts between Termini and the County.  Response: None exist. That’s question 6 in the RTK letter.

* I asked for documents to support what the scope of her duties are as a contractor. Response: None exist.  That’s question 2.

* I asked for documents to support that a lease agreement exists relating to the space she occupies on county property.  Response: None exist.  That’s question 3

* I asked for agreements relating to Termini using utilities, office equipment and furnishings. Response: None exist. That’s question 5

* I asked for copies of any complaints about Termini. Response: None exist. That’s question 8.

* I asked for copies of any court orders directing that Termini is appointed as the Co-Parenting Coordinator.  Response: None exist.  That’s question 9

* I asked for any documents to support the creation of the Co-Parenting Program. Response: None exist. That’s question 10.

* I asked for a copy of any advertising relating to seeking persons to fill the position of Co-Parenting Coordinator. Response: None exist.  That’s question 12

NACC seems like another networking opp for the same sorts of AFCC personnel, only focused around child support and abuse:

32nd National Juvenile and Family Law Conference – Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge, NY


When: August 19-22, 2009
Where: Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge
333 Adams Street
Brooklyn, New York  11201
United States
Contact: Daniel Trujillo (trujillo.daniel@tchden.org)

>>>Title of Conference is typically modest of these professionals, modeled after the parent organization, AFCC:


This was the “32nd National Juvenile and Family Law Conference of the National Association of Counsel for Children”

These organizations (at least one who is an affiliate of NACC) sponsored:


  • Barry University School of Law

  • Ciccolella Family Law, P.C.

  • Colorado Office of the Child’s Representative

  • Georgia Association of Counsel for Children  (NONprofit group started 8/26/2003, admin. dissolved involuntarily 5/2008 for ‘failure to file,” paid up and reinstated about a year later (4/2009) and now is back and running, though a little late on their 2011 filing also, it says)….would be nice to find an EIN# but the search site re-routes users to a licensure site instead.  Hmm.

  • Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice

  • Legal Aid Society, New York City

  • NACC Megan Louise Furth Youth Empowerment Fund

  • Northern California Association of Counsel for Children

(this Co-sponsor of NACC  conference 2009, and NACC affiliate, is actually run out of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), i.e., from the California Judicial Counsel.  Site shows:

CALIFORNIA *Northern California Association of Counsel for Children (NCACC)

Christopher Wu Phone: 415/865-7721 AOC/ Center for Children, Families and the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Christopher.Wu@jud.ca.gov (this links shows you the OTHER members on that blue-ribbon commission)

Mr. Christopher Wu

Executive Director
California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care

 Mr. Wu is ALSO “Supervising Attorney” for the CFCC (which to my understanding helps distribute the access/visitation funding that comes to the Judicial Council).  Is this a conflict of interest?
(This CFCC itself is part of a larger partnership — see bottom of page**)

One member (notice affiliations) incl.

Staff Counsel, California Dept. of Social Services, 1975-1977
Deputy Attorney General, State of California, Health, Education, and Welfare Div. 1977-1988
Training Director, Advokids, 2005-present

These “cooperated”:

  • ABA Center on Children and the Law

  • ABA Section of Litigation, Children’s Rights Litigation Committee

  • Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

  • Connecticut Commission on Child Protection

  • First Star

  • National Center for State Courts

  • National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

  • National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

  • National Institute for Trial Advocacy

  • Judicial Council of California Center for Families, Children, and the Courts 


California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership (Mr. Wu of CFCC and of the Northern California Association of Counsel for Children, which is an affiliate of NACC, and of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (and who knows what else, probably ALL run out of the same address) also is linked to here:


The California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership . . 

is a collaborative group of state agencies, foundations and other nonprofit organizations whose purpose is improving the lives of children and families who are in or are at risk of entering the state’s child welfare system.   Founded in 2006. . . .
“Our public-private
partnership includes
eight partners that
collectively invest
more than $2 billion
in the state’s child
welfare system.”
Partner organizations and representatives include:

Advisory CommitteeThe Partnership’s Advisory Committee is made up of nearly 40 diverse organizations that inform and advise the Partnership about its work and priorities.

sometimes I wonder where they are getting all these abused children FROM — and if the money were put into supporting the parents, PERIOD, there wouldn’t be such a need for CPS, welfare, and foster care to start with.  in other words, MOST parents, just ordinary people, are paying these organizations to craft policies that drive their lives, and MOST ordinary wage-earners are NOT forming nonprofits to avoid paying excess taxes — because they can’t, or don’t know how to.
This is how wealth is centralized, and this is who is driving our government.  I suppose I should give the run-of-the-mill crooks a break, after all, they are just following the examples of the wealthy philanthropic elites of the country, which they hope to (obviously) join the ranks of — or possibly have, by now.   (by comparison AFCC is starting to look like Kid Stuff, not that I forgive them their agenda (I’m female….)  . . . .
All they want to do get their piece of the coming utopia, which will likely eliminate the “useless eaters” once their purposes have been served.
Do NOT kid yourself this agenda has changed, whether or not the rank-and-file have picked up on it yet.   Another use of the term occurs HERE:  The question is, what are you going to do about it?

The Drug Story By Morris A. Bealle

“To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that Nature didn’t know what she was doing when she made the human body. But statistics issued by the Children’s Bureau of the Federal Security Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children. Children are now given ‘shots’ for this and ‘shots’ for that, when the only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.“

This book was written in the late 1940s and is valuable reading in these perilous times. Read about this important book at http://educate-yourself.org/drugstory.html.

I take the drugging issue up a little more in the blog mentioned at the top.  When a woman protecting her child from home invasion is handled with swat team and HELIcopters, over the issue of adverse responses to vaccinations + refusal to continue “Risperdal” after its dangers to her child became obvious (and an M.D. apparently verified), then we are simply in the situation of sitting ducks.
UNFREEZE – CHANGE — REFREEZE” has already happened.  now, we need to apply the same theory and change things — not back — but to a different setup than this ‘partners in change” that see abused children deserving of foster care where they do NOT exist, and fail to see them where they DO exist.  Perhaps if they weren’t spending half their time preparing for conferences, presenting at them, poring over each other’s research (and billing hotel costs to their local counties), this information might have surfaced earlier.  Who knows….
ANYHOW, apparently Ms. Termini DID show up (per brochure) in 2009, Brooklyn — with cohorts a judge and a GAL — and you can search the name in the brochure.

Got Intransigence? Bring on the AFCC Experts…. They’ll Knock it Loose…

with 4 comments

I started reviewing the definitions of “intransigence” and decided I’m happy with mine.  I’m looking at the language of the  AFCC crowd — and have come to understand how true, how true, that Ph.D. is — in SOME fields — simply  “Piled Higher and Deeper.”

These words are admirable, in SOME circumstances.  However, AFCC seeks to characterize them as always BAD (and not to be applied to themselves):


Synonyms: adamantadamantinebullheadeddogged,hardhardenedhardheaded,



self-opinionatedself-willedstiff-neckedstubbornunbendinguncompromising,unrelentingunyieldingwillful (or wilful)

I went looking for yesterday’s reference to an AFCC conference describing people like myself*

(I’m intrinsically intransigent in believing that criminal matters shouldn’t be handled in family court cases, that domestic violence should be handled as misdemeanor or felony ONLY and not in civil courts, and that there’s absolutely no excuse for the present state of affairs from top to bottom in the US government.  Also I feel that of all the slave/master relationships it’s possible to inflict on an entire nation, the ones involving judges — while perhaps not the largest — are among the worst. Because usually, it takes a judge to send a person away (or refuse to when evidence says, do it!).

And I just recently found that in 2003 a women was incarcerated nearly six months for attempting, respectfully, to speak at a public hearing on judicial confirmations, even when it became clear there was no intention to take comments from her exercising her constitutional rights in public.  And then I learned that her MOTHER, an attorney, had gotten disbarred for protesting the SALE of judgeships between the Republican and Democrat party (bosses) in New York State.  (See recent posts).  In fact, here she is in 2007 protesting the NY Senate’s Reappointment of Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

In fact, here’s a segment of it explaining the sale of judge-ships, from this utterly intransigent person, Doris L. Sassower.  I have to meet her some day, I like her attitude.  (For a more readable version, click on the link.)


I am testifying here today in an individual capacity in opposition to Senate confirmation of Governor Spitzer’s reappointment of New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye on behalf of myself and other innocent victims of her official misconduct- both in her judicial capacityas Chief Judge of our state’s highest court and in her administrative capacity as headof the Unified Court System.

Chief JudgeKaye’s on-the-jobperformance,which, after all, is the “acid test” of her mettle, is one of demonstrable corruption, as evidenced by what she did to me professionally and personally in a case that came before her at the Court of Appeals six separate times as I attempted to obtain appellate review of a completely lawless,retaliatory, politically-motivated “interim” suspension of my law license by the Brooklyn-based Appellate Division, Second Department.

. . .In September 1990 I became pro bono council to the Ninth Judicial Committee, predecessor of the Centerfor Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), foundedand chairedby Eli Vigliano, Esq. to challenge a 1989 written judicial cross-endorsementdseal between the Republicanand Democraticparty leadersof the Ninth Judicial District which guaranteedthe judicial electionof sevencross-endorsed nomineesoverathree-yearperiod,thecross-endorsed nomineefor WestchesterCountySurrogateamongthem. Thetermsandconditionsof thedeal included contracted-forearly judicial resignations to createjudicial vacanciesand a pledge by thejudicial nomineesto splitjudicial patronage.In 1989andthenagainin 1990,thedealwas implementedat illegally-conductedjudicial nominatingconventions,with perjuriouscertificates of nominationfalselyattestingto compliancewith ElectionLaw requirements.In 1990,aspro bono counsel, I filed a lawsuit under the Election Law, entitled Castracan and Bonelli v. Colavita, et al, challenging the deal as illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical, also contesting that year’s implementing judicial nominating conventions. The transcendingissue was the constitutionallyof judicial cross-endorsements which I contended disenfranchised the voters, with the politically-controlled judicial nominating conventionsfurther violating the sanctity of the franchise.

The record of the lawsuit shows that it was “thrown” by a fraudulent judicial decision in Supreme Court/Albany County and that such was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Departmentin Albany. The judges at both levels were themselvesthe product of undisclosed multiple cross-endorsementsand/or endeavoring to benefit from cross-endorsementin future judicial elections.

It was less than a week after I announced in a New York Times Letter to the Editor that I was taking Castracan to the New York Court of Appeals that the Appellate Division, Second Department issued its June14,I99l order suspending my law license immediately, indefinitely, and unconditionally. The order gave no reason,made no frndings, was not preceded by any notice of petition and petition, setting forth charges. Nor was it preceded by any hearing or provide for any post-suspension hearing. Likewise, it failed to provide for any right of appeal.

As a result, I had to close up my law practice literally overnight, as I was informed that I was required to do so “within 24 hours” and to notifii all my clients that I could no longer represent them. This, of course, meant that I could not continue to represent the petitioners in the Castracan case. 

I run across the work of Judith Kaye from time to time investigating custody-related issues which transcend state boundaries.    FamilyCourtReform Yahoo group understands (like I noticed) she is basically carrying out an AFCC agenda.  They detail the involvement of Hofstra, Arnold T. Shienvold in particular (now in Pennsylvania, possibly then also) in mandating parent education programs upon UNwilling parents — just like other states had:

Re: Digest Number 1777 Kaye exposed! AFCC:  (Oct. 2003)

.So many Mother’s rights activists are impressed with Chief Judge Judith
kaye. But Don’t be…She marched up to the New York State Legislature to protest
the laws….But the facts are the facts..As the Chief Judge of the entire
State- she can authorize an investigation into the law guardians…court
experts and she can demand an investigation into all the contracts that the
Office of Court Administration that she controls……In fact it is the Office
of Court Administration that governs the rules and regulations of the
appointments of law guardians…...October 22 page B7 of the Metro section
Judge Judith Kaye office announces that In New York, judges in divorce cases
will soon be told to direct couples with children to attend parent education
programs.……And guess who is helping to push this along? “Our parents and
children would be better served if we had some money behing this,” said Andrew I
. Schepard, a law professor at Hofstra University on Long Island and a
founder of Peace, one of the largest and oldest parent education programs….Mr.
Schepard said that in other states, legislatures had required and financed the
programs,but that since the New York Legislature had not acted, the courts were
doing what they could. He added that studies showed that most parents
attended the programs unwillingly but then emerged believing they had learned
something valuable”.

Some Spring 2007 AFCC/Judith Kaye activity, typical of an activist AFCC Judge. Collaborate, Consolidate, and help some cronies get in charge of the consolidated structure.

New York Chief Judge Announces First Collaborative Family Law Center

New York Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye announced plans to establish the nation’s first court-based Collaborative Family Law Center in downtown Manhattan this year. {{WHY not think BIG???}}   Chief Judge Kaye made the announcement in her annual address on the judiciary, where she explained the current system involves, “too much money, too much delay, too much agony.”

AFCC member Hon. Jacqueline W. Silbermann, deputy chief administrative judge for matrimonial matters, said that the state’s embrace of the process would mean, “we will have court oversight of the collaborative law center, and very importantly, we will be providing lawyers for people who can’t afford lawyers to represent them.”

The center will offer training for attorneys, provide space for participants and connect families with professional services such as child development specialists, financial services, mental health services and substance abuse treatment. The project is intended to make divorce faster and less clostly for couples who want amicable settlements.

Chief Judge Kaye’s announcement was made following the submission of a report by the New York Matrimonial Commission, chaired by AFCC member Hon. Sondra Miller. The Commission was established in January 2004 to examine every facet of the divorce process in New York and recommend reforms to correct existing problems.

Judge Kaye’s complete 2007 State of the Judiciary report can be found at www.nycourts.gov/admin/stateofjudi- ciary/soj2007.pdf. More information on the Matrimonial Commission, including the commission’s report to Chief Judge Kaye, can be found on the New York State Unified Court System’s Web site at www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/matri- monial-commission/

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, March 2005 article, cited by Wiley.

(one can only see one page here — but it shows The Hon Kaye’s theme of “reinventing the family court in the new millennium,” and “detailed information on a model of parent education and FORENSIC EVALUATION (my caps) in cases of moveaway….  She is addressing the NCJFCJ — 

AND I QUOTE (see link, or if it displays, image below):   ”

The problem-solving model of adjudication for family courts that Chief Judge Kaye describes is the perfect paradigm of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and its members this new millennium.


This model is no “paradigm of AFCC” — it IS AFCC’s paradigm, a top-down change forced on the public WITHOUT its legitimate, considered input in an open forum — and (must be coincidence) it just so happens to bring a nice business stream to AFCC membership.  This is not exactly new material for AFCC, it’s simply developed over time, and it takes time to position one’s judges at the top decision-making level of state-level courts, and then in nationwide conferences, point to success of forcing the model in ONE state to why ALL states should do this.  After all, we are only helping the families and children, right?

GRRRrrr!!!   This type of forcible transformative change is why we have a Constitution & Bill of Rights — to keep deeply held religious views (including views about “family”) from becoming the national standard.    We can see from Doris Sassower’s 1990 example how such a Judge is likely to view her role in suppressing dissent (i.e. “conflict”) among professionals, not just helpless to resist families and their kids!


Once in place, an activist AFCC judge is going to bring on, honor, promote and help publicize an AFCC crony.  This is from 2002 and shows The Hon. Judith Kaye doing this to Jo Ann Pedro-Carroll:

Psychologist Honored for Outstanding Work in Public Service

Please carefully read the career-curve of (now Dr.) Joann Pedro-Carroll — first, she starts testing theories on elementary school kids (that’s FYI, probably what a good deal of elementary schools are for, to start with — captive audience for doctoral students to test theory on, and help them get their Ph.D.’s after which theory becomes practice….).  I’m posting it all — and notice who was involved in expanding from ELEMENTARY SCHOOL to DIVORCING PARENTS and finally, she gets the knighthood from the Chief Judge.  (In all this time, has she divorced and/or raised children herself??)

Please pay attention — this is basically the model.  May vary from state to state, and this doesn’t cover federal funding.  But this is your basic practice.  I’m not going to look up every organization (probably most of them nonprofits, or resources within the Univ.), but will underline them.

JoAnne Pedro-Carroll, associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Rochester and director of programs for Families in Transition at the Children’s Institute, will be honored by the American Psychological Association with its 2001 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service. She will receive the award Aug. 25 at the group’s convention in San Francisco.

For more than 20 years, Pedro-Carroll has helped children deal with the strains of their parents’ separation and divorce.

Where are the hordes of children giving testimonial to this, now adult, and saying what a difference it made in their lives? How they were missing this service and are so glad someone was omniscient enough to read their minds and provide it?

“Children need a safe, supportive forum in which they can share their feelings and experiences,” says Pedro-Carroll. “They need to clarify misconceptions, and learn effective skills for dealing with the challenges of changing family relationships.” Many times, though, that comforting environment is missing.

That is true.  That these programs are such a place, hasn’t been proved.

While working on her doctoral dissertation at the University in the 1980s, Pedro-Carroll developed the Children of Divorce Intervention Program, then implemented and evaluated it initially in five suburban schools. She joined the faculty in 1984, and began refining the program and produced six models, which more specifically meet the needs of children of different ages and from different cultural backgrounds. ***The program has since served thousands of children throughout the United States and worldwide.

**This essentially means, she got a basic model, and tinkered with it slightly (not as to its foundation, or assumptions), probably to meet cultural or ethnic categories matching grant availability.  But it’s ONE concept — the children need US to help them overcome divorce, and We (or, our model) is actually neutral.

In fact, few group-therapy or group ANYTHING (including classrooms) are neutral, let alone safe, places.  See “Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation” (1998, Eagle Forum.  Not that I’m normally a fan of the Eagle Forum, but the point is right:)  Interjection to explain:

 The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle – the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to “oneness of mind” (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, “oneness of mind” will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible,” while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. 

THIS IS IMPORTANT:   It’s a technique used in cults, probably common to some shared religious experiences and without doubt that the AFCC conference also seem to use — as one can see by the astonishing LACK of variety of ideas coming out of them, along with next to no citizen participation.

This is in part why there is a need to transform the court system into collective-based group therapy with the related professionals as “change agents.”  In paticular I find it suspicious how many people want to get their hands on other people’s children in :psycho-educational classes.  (I don’t know that Ms. Sassower would agree with me in this, particularly as she has been a family attorney and might have been an AFCC member, for all I know.  However, I speak from the point of view of subject matter of these philosophies.  I do not espouse the use of human beings as subject matter for ANYTHING…..!)

In recent years, Pedro-Carroll has taken her preventive strategies to the place where adults end their marriages-court. {{Surprise surprise…}} She has teamed up with Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Frazee and family therapists, social workers, judges, lawyers and mediators {{i.e., AFCC membership categories}} to create A.C.T. – For the Children, a preventive program to teach separating parents how to reduce the stress of family changes on children and themselves. “The goal of the program is to protect children from becoming unwitting casualties of a divorce war,” she says. “We make the sessions proactive, preventive, and educational, because studies show that there are many ways that parents can help to put their children on pathways toward healthy adjustment.”

HERE’s where her friend or associated Chief Justice Judith Kaye comes in, I knew of this a while ago:

Pedro-Carroll, who has testified on behalf of children and families at congressional briefings and at the White House, was appointed by Chief Justice Judith Kaye to the New York State Parent Education Advisory Board earlier this year. She has been a fellow of the APA since 1993, and is a past recipient of local, state, and national awards. She was recently honored by AFCC, an international association of family, court and community professionals, with the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Researcher Award for innovative research with children and families.

AFCC judges (or elementary schools, etc.) provide the children and families, and AFCC or related professionals write up the research.  Such a deal!

Pedro-Carroll SHOULD be honored by AFCC — after all, she’s definitely working on their behalf, inbetween testifying at the White House that she’s really acting on behalf of families and children who, somehow, lost their voice and can’t speak. (or, weren’t informed of the hearings, or couldn’t get to them, etc.)  I wonder whose idea the Parent Education Advisory Board was to start with.  let me guess …..


How to keep a broken marriage
from breaking the kids

by JoAnne Pedro-Carroll, Ed ’73, Med ’74, nationally renowned child psychologist

How children respond to separation and divorce depends upon how well parents negotiate
the end of their relationship and create a solid foundation in the reorganized family. Here are some guidelines:
Contain conflicts. Ongoing conflict has a toxic effect on children. What children want most in the world
is to have the two people they love get along. Even when parents don’t stay together, children hope that
the fighting will end.

Strive for business-like co-parenting. Focus on the child’s best interest. In our business lives, we’ve all had to work with someone we didn’t like, but we had to figure out a way to work productively together. So we develop basic rules, such as being business-like, communicating in specifics and not leaving nasty messages on voice mail. The same model can be used effectively with co-parenting.

One word of caution:*** A cooperative model won’t work if one parent is violent, abusive or really mentally unstable. Safety needs to be the first concern.***

JoAnne Pedro-Carroll is associate professor of psychology and psychiatry, University of Rochester, N.Y.; director of programs, Families in Transition, the Children’s Institute; recipient of the American Psychological Association’s 2001 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service; creator of a school-based intervention program used around the country; and an expert who has testified at congressional briefings and at the White House.


Dr. JoAnne Pedro-Carroll Web site

LinkedIn shows the career curve

ONE WORD OF CAUTION:  if there is anything that such membership (child psychologists, psychiatrists/court-affiliated educators/custody evaluators, mediators, etc. — AFCC sorts) does NOT believe, whatever they may post on websites, it’s that either parent being:

  • violent
  • abusive
  • really mentally instable
  • (or for that matter, even seriously dangerous, potentially lethal)

Should in any way exempt any families from being run through their programs, whether it be parent education, or mandatory mediation.  And the reason has nothing to do with what’s good for the families — simply put, this is their life’s work, and a good source of endless customers it is, indeed!  The more violent, abusive, mentally unstable, or other abusive behaviors either parent is showing, the more such services are mandated, until when the conflict escalates enough, if either parent actually cracks (which is likely to be the person trying to separate from such relationship, which is possibly WHY they divorced to start with) — they are even MORE likely to be punished by removal of their children and witnessing them given to the unstable parent.

That could not happen had not the family courts been started, and further restructured, in order to accommodate the endless indoctrination process.

here’s yet a little more (simply searched for the HHS link)  Pedro-Carroll & Cowan (the Cowans — probably this one –are out of Berkeley, California area, and like others, just love to study people, lots of people at all stages of life, and get published for declaring what people are, how they act, why they do it, and recommend policy, etc.  Hey, it’s a living, right?  (Did I mention they are very fatherhood-program friendly also:  See Council on Contemporary Families):

The Children of Divorce Intervention Program

Pedro-Carroll and Cowen (1985) evaluated the Children of Divorce Intervention Program, an intervention for elementary school age children that addressed 10 positive youth development constructs, including social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral competencies, bonding, self-efficacy, resiliency, prosocial norms, opportunities for prosocial involvement, and recognition for positive behavior.

Ever notice how often the talk is about CONFLICT – like conflict is always bad; “Association for Conflict Resolution” and “High-Conflict Marriages” etc.   Because of the alleged constant conflict the bad parents are having, which is bad for their children, some big-bosses need to come in and stop the DISRUPTIONS.

(PAUSE to note how Elena Sassower’s attempt to participate in an Open Senate? Public Confirmation Hearing on some Bush-appointed judges, meaning that rubber-stamping process was noted, and protested — she was jailed for “DISRUPTING CONGRESS.”   Similarly, it seems that Elena’s mother, Doris L., in reporting and ACTING (as pro bono on a civil suit) to actually protest the sale of judgeships between Republican and Democrat parties in her state — which constituted freezing out the regular population — she IMMEDIATELY lost her license to practice law.  (The Board Giveth and the Judge Taketh Away  . .  ) WHY?  Because her exercise of legal rights DISRUPTED business as usual.

I have been very disturbed for a very long time here to consider how the United States has been divvied up into Federal HHS regions, and how state-wide practices are agreed upon in locations most people can’t get to, and in conferences they didn’t know took place, sometimes by organizations whose influence they aren’t aware of either — to determine a STATEWIDE policy set by major corporations and foundations.   There is no more doubt about this — that’s what the “membership association” when the membership is public employees — DOES.  Period  There are many of them.

Am I the only person concerned that an INTER-national organization (which AFCC is) is setting US agenda in the courts, yet our country has a fairly unique constitution which intentionally set itself apart from other countries, and its unique Bill of Rights? ???

That’s no accident.  The phrase “institutionalization of conflict” obviously comes to mind.  This conflict is from things that tend towards human freedom of choice and liberty, and those that lead away from it towards treating more and more individuals as only members of a family unit, or community, or other collective.  In this world INDIVIDUALS have no exercisable rights — they simply cannot withstand the collective force of corporations and foundations and government (with “the long arm of the law” to back it up).

So here’s a reference:  NORMAN DODD TESTIMONY ON REGIONALISM (Illinois, 1978):

In 1978 the legislature of Illinois created a committee to study Regionalism in Illinois. The Committee held three hearings – the first in Springfield, Illinois, April 11, 1978; the second in Chicago, July 10, 1978; and the third and final hearing in Edwardsville, on September 26, 1978. The following is a transcript – from the September 26th hearing – of the testimony of Mr. Norman Dodd, beginning on page 51 and ending on page 61. Mr. Dodd was chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman, B. Carroll Reece, whose committee (referred to as the Reece Committee) investigated tax-exempt foundations.

       The investigation was eventually narrowed down to about 10 foundations, chiefly among them being Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations, their sub- foundations, and the Rhodes Scholarship Fund. Mr. Rene Wormser, Council for the Reece Committee subsequently wrote a book – titled “Foundations – Their Power and Influence“, which relates information uncovered during the hearings, as well as the difficulties and roadblocks encountered throughout. Congressman Cox had begun this process in the previous Congressional Session and died suddenly, bringing the hearings to a halt. Reece braved it out and the results are staggering to the mind of an American who once believed in a “free” America, under the Constitution.       In his book Wormser listed, among the major instruments of these foundations, the CFR, United Nations Association, Foreign Policy Association and Institute of Pacific Relations. From pg 200-201 of “Foundations…”: (remember, this was 1953)

It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization of any substance which has not favored the United Nations or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colonial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments over the globe… The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached far into government, policymaking circles of Congress and State Department“.

Including, obviously, the courts.  Things are simply organized differently than they used to be.  More . . . .

Regionalism is a plan which emanates from the United Nations, is taking place on a world scale, and its ultimate aim is to organize populations into groups small enough that no people can challenge a World Government. The 50 Sovereign States united in America have been unconstitutionally divided into ten federal Regions with populations a little over 20 million in each – comparable to the Regional population divisions in all other countries


This may be a repeat post, or segments of it may be repeat.  But he’s going to talk about Ford Foundation and Carnegie, specifically.  This is Norman Dodd testifying, experience he feels relevant to the  concept of regional government.

One of them… and these experiences are traceable to a position that I, at one time, held as the Executive Director of a Congressional Committee that was called upon to investigate the relationship of the economy, really, and wealth in this country to the purpose represented by the Constitution of the United States. As a result of that investigation, experiences began to accrue, and one of them stemmed from the entity – or the head of the entity – responsible for the proposition which you all now face called regional government.

OK, good question:   what relationship DOES the economy — and wealth — bear to the purpose represented by the Constitution of the United States?

(read on)

This individual was the head of the Ford Foundation, and this experience took place back in 1953. It took the form of an invitation from the President of the Ford Foundation to me to visit the Foundation’s offices, all of which I did, and on arrival, was greeted by the President of the Ford Foundation with this statement:

“Mr. Dodd, we have invited you to come to New York and stop in and see us in the hope that, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress of the United States should be interested in an operation such as ours”.

Before I could think of just exactly how I would reply, Mr. Gaither volunteered the following information, and these are practically in his exact words:

“Mr. Dodd, we operate here under directives which emanate from the White House. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”  (I said, “Indeed, I would, Mr. Gaither”. Whereupon he then said the following:)

“We, here, operate and control our grant-making policies in harmony with the directives, the substance of which is as follows: We shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union“.

This is a shocking, almost unbelievable attitude that you can run across. Nevertheless, this is what clarified the nature of the grants of this Foundation, which incidentally, of course, was the largest aggregation of privately-directed wealth in the United States.

JUST A LITTLE MORE….  He delivers the punch line towards the end — and recall, this was in 1978:

Now, the second experience that I would like to share with you… oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation’s grants which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government, and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and accept and agree to a totally new Constitution which has already been drawn up,*** as was mentioned just a few minutes ago. [previous testimony]

***see “change agents / Delphi technique,” etc.  First, get a consensus that an idea is a good one.  Beforehand, have a plan.  This is EXACTLY what the AFCC has done with the family courts, parent coordination, model custody evaluations, and so forth.  It’s HOW this is done!  Thanks to the internet, we can see it in historical progression, at least in recent years …

The next experience ran this way. This followed an invitation from the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. [HOVER CURSOR] Also, it entailed visiting their offices, all of which I did.   [LINK to This ENDOWMENT’s DIVISION OF THE WORLD INTO ITS REGIONS — WITH A MAPThe invitation itself came because of a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment, asking them certain questions which would clarify the reasons for many of the grants which they had made over a period of time. On arrival at the office of the President, I was greeted with this statement:

“Mr. Dodd, we have received your letter. We can answer all the questions, but it will be great deal of trouble. The reason it will be a great deal of trouble is because, with the ratification by the Senate of the United States of the United Nations Treaty, our job was finished, so we bundled all our records up, spanning, roughly speaking, fifty years, and put them in the warehouse. But we have a counter-suggestion, and that counter-suggestion is that if you will send a member of your staff to New York, we will give them a room in our library and the minuted books of this organization since its inception in 1908″.

My first reaction to that suggestion was that these officers had more or less lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea, by that time, of what those minute books might well have shown. The executives who made this proposal to me were relatively recent, in terms of their position, and I was satisfied that none of them had ever read the minutes.

To make a long story short – as short as possible – a member of my staff was sent to New York and spent two weeks there,** and did what they call “spot reading” of the minutes of this organization.

In a transcript, Mr. Dodd said that the (woman) attorney he sent over was so seriously disturbed by what she read that she couldn’t practice law again.  Apparently it really messed with her mind.

Now, we are back [[as to reading the MINUTES of this group] in the period of 1908, and these minutes reported the following: The Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment bring up a single question; namely, if it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war to gain that end? And they discuss this question at a very high academic and scholarly level for a year, and they come up with an answer– there are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.

So, in case you were wondering what war was about, there’s the answer.

That leads, then, to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war?

This was in 1909. I doubt if there was any question more removed, or any idea more removed from the minds of us, as a people, at that time than war. There were certain of what we call “intermittent shows” in the Balkans, and I also doubt if very many of us knew, really, where the Balkans was, or their relation or possible effect on us.

We jump, then, to the time when we are in a war, and these Trustees. . . oh, before that, the Trustees then answered the question of how to involve us in a war by saying, “We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States”; and then that brings up the question of how to secure that control, and the answer is we must control the State Department.

Questions that, fair to say?, most  US citizens aren’t thinking about, with a view to strategy, and serious plans to enact it, on a regular basis.  But the Trustees of this Endowment most certainly were.  Which is why, such types of foundations and endowments, really should NOT be allowed to direct public policy — as they have been, including when the US does and does not engage in WAR!

However, as it says, Mr. Cox died suddenly in the middle of investigations . . . . . .

Now, at that point, research discloses a relationship between the effort to control the State Department and an entity which the Carnegie Endowment set up – namely, the Council of Learned Societies. **And through that entity are cleared all of the appointments – high appointments in the State Department, and they have continued to be cleared that way since then.

**”Jesus!” (i just linked to ACLS — the American Council of Learned Societies.  Read its history.  The guy is telling the truth!)  Same process this council of learned societies went through to control the U.S. Department of State, on a different level, AFCC uses to control the ENTIRE system and makeup of family courts (interlocking with juvenile, prison, and the US. Dept of HHS).    For example, they organized the Social Science Research Council:

Exploring New Methods and Subjects of Humanities Research

In addition to convening scholars for the purpose of peer review, ACLS has often organized committees of researchers to identify promising fields of study. The development of area studies in this country owes much to the impetus provided by ACLS. The original concept of organizing scholarly expertise around an area or cultural region grew out of the Council’s early work in Far Eastern and Slavic studies and language training, and the Council’s ability to bring a wide variety of humanists and social scientists together in interdisciplinary work made it possible to launch area studies and sustain them over an extended period. After World War II, when the practical need for such competence was evident, ACLS and the Social Science Research Council** joined to organize and develop African, Asian, Latin American, Near and Middle Eastern, Slavic, and East and West European studies.

The SSRC, from its site:


The Social Science Research Council is an independent, nonprofit international organization founded in 1923. It nurtures new generations of social scientists, fosters innovative research, and mobilizes necessary knowledge on important public issues

[Necessary to Whom?]

The SSRC’s records are stored in the Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, New York.

SSRC: 80 Years of Impact

Early History

1923: Led by American Political Science Association** Charles E. Merriam, the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) holds its inaugural meeting.

1924: The SSRC begins planning its first committees to study such topics as Interracial Relations, Scientific Aspects of Human Migration, and the Eighteenth Amendment.

1928: The Advisory Committee on Business Research, whose members include New York State Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, is founded, signaling the Council’s commitment to research on business practices, ethics, and industry relations.

1935: The SSRC establishes the Washington, D.C.-based Committee on Social Security. Its research is critical to the creation of the U.S. Social Security system.

(**This could go on and on, but here’s the APSA):

The American Political Science Association - Networking a World of Scholars

BACK to Norman Dodd transcript, from a 1978 Illinois hearing on “regionalism”

Now, finally [in the reading of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace minutes], we are in a war. Eventually, the war is over, and the Trustees turn their attention, then, to seeing to it that life does not revert in this country to what it was prior to 1914; and they hit upon the idea that in order to prevent that reversion, they must control education in this country. They realized that that is a perfectly tremendous, really stupendous and complex task – much too great for them alone. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation, with the suggestion that the task be divided between the two of them.

These trustees are truly thinking like monarchs — nay, like Popes, emperors — in planning the destiny of a country which DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM. (Yet…. — eventually……).

The Carnegie Endowment takes on that aspect of education which is a domestic in its relationship. These two run along in tandem that way, disciplined by a decision – namely, that the answer lies entirely in the changing of the teaching of the history of the United States. They then approached the… five of the then most prominent historians in this country with the proposition that they alter the manner of the teaching of the subject, and they get turned down flatly; [[HISTORIANS know the importance of their role]] so they realized then they must build their own stable of historians, so to speak.

They approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in Fellowships, and suggest to them that when they locate a relatively young potential historian, will the Guggenheim Foundation give that person a Fellowship, merely on their say-so… and the answer is, they will.

Ultimately, a group of twenty are so assembled, and that becomes the nuclei of the policies which emanate to the American Historical Association. Subsequently, around 1928, the Carnegie Endowment granted to the American Historical Association $400,000 in order to make a study of what the future of this country will probably turn out to be and should be. They came up with a seven-volume set of books, the last volume being a summary and digest of the other six. In the last volume, the answer is as follows:

“The future belongs to the United States….. the future in the United States belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency”.

And here is that AHA — which was established in 1884, incorporated by Congress….

About Us

AHA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The American Historical Association (AHA) is a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1884 and incorporated by Congress in 1889 for the promotion of historical studies.

The AHA provides leadership for the profession, protects academic freedom, develops professional standards, aids in the pursuit and publication of scholarship, and supplies various services to sustain and enhance the work of its members.

The association’s principal functions fall within four realms:publicationteachingadvocacy, and networking. As the largest historical society in the United States, the AHA serves historians representing every historical period and geographical area.

The nearly 14,000 members include academics at universities, two- and four-year colleges, museums, historical organizations, libraries and archives, but also independent historians, students, K–12 teachers, government and business professionals, and countless people who, whatever their profession, possess an abiding interest in history.

Whether or not these guys started this association — it’s clear that they began to pay it off, early in the game.


The Beginning of the Public Education System (this account seems something between a chronology and folklore…)

Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. {{SEE THIS MILENNIUM.  HA, HA, HA….}} As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools. Their decision was supported by the 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead.

. . .Eventually, every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum

. . . By the middle of the 20th century, most states took a more active regulatory role than in the past. States consolidated school districts into larger units with common procedures. In 1940 there were over 117,000 school districts in the United States, but by 1990 the number had decreased to just over 15,000. The states also became much more responsible for financing education. In 1940 local property taxes financed 68 percent of public school expenses, while the states contributed 30 percent. In 1990 local districts and states each contributed 47 percent to public school revenues. The federal government provided most of the remaining funds.

increasing centralization and control.  Sound familiar?  Happening in the states also — and in the child support departments within states.  Increasing federal control until we can’t remember when things were NOT under federal control.  Except that most of us dont realize to what extent.

It is easier to control things you have got on your payroll.  Just threaten to withdraw it, after having got people hooked on the service, be it education or something else.    Well, Education is a real hot (and political) topic, one I’m familiar with (the war over), so  — – for now – – – – back to DODD transcript:


And that becomes the policy which is finally picked up and manifests itself in the expression of collectivism all along the line, of which the dividing of this country into regions, using all of the logic which supports the ultimate idea that in order that regional government, in turn, be effective, there must be a new Constitution of the United States.

THE GOAL BEING — “WE NEED TO WRITE A NEW U.S. CONSTITUTION.”  (and guess who just might have one already drafted?)

That is the background, gentlemen, of this very serious question with which you all are now wrestling. I felt that, possibly, that might tend to help a little bit as you take on this high responsibility, which is tremendous. You must have been thoroughly impressed with the complexities which arrive and confront you if you do not go at this problem in terms of the origin of the idea and the real purpose behind that idea; and skipping all the way over to try to distill a system, or a working plan, whereby our society can cope with these complexities, such as they exist today. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be with you. I wanted to make these points as brief as possible.

This man — who surely has a pretty interesting scope of the development of history, having read the minutes (or had staff who did) of the Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, and personally spoken with their leaders — decalres that if we do NOT go at the problem in terms of the ORIGIN OF THE IDEA and THE REAL PURPOSE BEHIND THAT IDEA — it’s going to be seriously complex and difficult.

I have been saying the same thing about the family court aspects, since I learned the origins and purpose of the idea behind family court.  As someone destroyed by it, across the board — I was definitely motivated to find out whose (bad) idea it was.  Surprise, surprise — the answers ARE in writing, but no one seems to want to read them, and think about the consequences.  There is a CONSTANT CONFLICT between the ideas behind family court — which trend towards institutionalizing permanent, state-legislated, indoctrination sessions (‘called “education” including but not limited to “parental education”).  This concept is so utterly in conflict with the US Constitution (which most of us hope, think, wish, or somewhere within ourselves like to think, is still in operation somewhere — when for the most part it isn’t)  that there is going to be conflict and chaos THROUGHOUT society.

Think that’s coincidence?  Hence, when I looked UPwards at many of these organizations, I continually came up against centers and institutes within the universities, and associated “child development centers” so that the new theorists — who are typically not experienced parents, or even people who’ve been involved in the normal business of life, such as figuring out how to balance relationships, work, housing, and raising kids with personal values.  Rather, being in psychology or the social sciences, they have been groomed, right out of the gate, how to think about problems they encounter, how to frame them, and how to produce nice demonstration projects for their masters — which are the corporations, foundations, and government grants that fund their institutions (plus of course alumni contributions).

I did not go at education this way.  I actually had something I loved doing which adults ALSO do, and have since, probably forever (i’m in the arts) — and my livelihood is not dependent upon a constant stream of UNwilling subject matter to talk about behind their backs in jargon peculiar to my trade.  Social science is, however, a specific direction taken and pushed by these endowments and foundations — and its purpose is MANAGEMENT OF REGIONS OF POPULATION ACCORDING TO A MASTER PLAN.

This is no joke – it’s a plan!  and use of the word “intransigent” and language transformation is just part of it.  So are the federalized public schools, and characterizing people who want out of them as some kind of nutcases, perverts, or otherwise suspect individual.  Maybe they are eccentric (and as it turns out, many are also exceptional — as in exceptionally professionally successful) because its not the mainstream choice.

Alternate way of doing education means alternate way of working.  I can see why it would be threatening.   Here’s some John Taylor Gatto stuff (been a while since I read it), secondhand source:

Note: John Gatto is the former New York State Teacher of the Year who renounced the government school system in his landmark book DUMBING US DOWN. He is constantly in demand as a public speaker.

As a bit of background, the industrial titans of the 1890’s began to think that not only could the production line be engineered, but people’s lives could be engineered as well, in order to work like homogeneous robots with the machines. Rockefeller and Carnegie gave huge sums to prominent academics to see if this could be realized through the educational system. They found that to a considerable extent it could, and it is still being done today as evidenced in the Congressional Record during the Clinton administration. This is the story that John Gatto has to tell.-DB)

And here’s the link to the Congressional Record (anyone can double check through another source):


On Sept. 25, 1998, Rep. Bob Schaffer placed in the Congressional Record an 18-page letter that has become famous as Marc Tucker’s “Dear Hillary” letter. It lays out the master plan of the Clinton Administration to take over the entire U.S. educational system so that it can serve national economic planning of the workforce.

The PDF of this letter as entered in the Congressional Record (starts in the lower right-hand corner of page): 1234567.

The “Dear Hillary” letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Tucker’s ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1994: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These laws establish the following mechanisms to restructure the public schools:

  1. Bypass all elected officials on school boards and in state legislatures by making federal funds flow to the Governor and his appointees on workforce development boards. ***
  2. Use a computer database, a.k.a. “a labor market information system,” into which school personnel would scan all information about every schoolchild and his family, identified by the child’s social security number: academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral, and interrogations by counselors. The computerized data would be available to the school, the government, and future employers.
  3. Use “national standards” and “national testing” to cement national control of tests, assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), which is designed to replace the high school diploma.

Designed on the German system, the Tucker plan is to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of to educate them so they can make their own life choices.


***I will testify — and if you want more proof, comment/contact me — that the HHS has figured out also how to bypass the legislature on Health and Human Services matters targeting the Governor’s Office.  People are hurting from this (See Kansas, Ohio, etc.) it happens so fast, people are simply shocked.  Another vehicle for fast-mobilized-centralization (with the goal of SATURATING a state with an ideology someone paid for) — is the office of faith-based and community initiatives.  (OFBCI) — which began as we know with GWBUSH.

A Bush in the office of President — or Bush appointee in the state-level HHS —  is worth an army in the hand.  Remember, the two ways to permanently alter life in the US included (a) WAR and (b) taking over education.

HHS right now is in largely the business of taking over education and management of people’s lives (womb to tomb) with the help of various gatekeepers. There are so many mechanisms to make an “end-run” around legislation (anything resembling taxation WITH representation), I doubt they can be caught up with or curtailed.  I believe individuals have to simply figure out where they fit in the mix — I can’t sit here year after year and simply sound the alarm.  I’m only one pair of lungs…

ALSO — FYI, it’s no coincidence that the attempt to sideline and silence women who have gotten past child-bearing age is no coincidence either.  Most of us CAN see through a lot of this, based on our experience raising children and dealing with their temperaments, plus our spouses (if any), plus jobs, plus institutions, etc.  It’s in our nature to be able to handle competing demands — yet somehow it seems to be in the nature of males to forbid us from doing so in ways that work for us as mothers.

So, when I sit here making fun of language use and language change — it’s for a reason.  So were the changes.

(Back to the post dealing with INTRANSIGENCE, and hope some of this was useful to others).

And the constant conferencing on how to expand and increase the “problem-solving courts” fails to address the truth that, over time, it’s the problem-solving courts posing as courts of justice (i.e., law, and what is supposed to go with it, truth, facts, etc.) that ARE the larger problem.

Obviously if “access” [context:  custody of children] can be “instransigent” — that’s giving an situation characteristics of something that contains a soul.  How can “access” be opinionated?    But this is exactly how the talespinners work, making up vocabulary as they go, until all around, entranced by their talk (combined with power) start to quote and believe made-up terms, like:


Parent Education

Parental Alienation

Parenting Coordination

Seems to me if the word “parent” (root word is from the word “obey,”) has become a separate verb, than it’s on its way out of existence, which it basically is.

Anyhow, AFCC apparently has been working the word “intransigent” into its literature and talk longer than I realized, playing it like a new, shiny gold coin they’ve just discovered, which might actually bring on some of the gold.  Well, paper currency, or transfer of assets, etc. . . . .  if it’s tossed around properly.

Here’s a retrospective of uses, from simply a google search:  Did you know all these things could be so obdurate, bull-headed and opinionated? (and let’s not forget, if it’s a parent, also it can be flawed, or high-conflict, etc.)



Advanced Issues in Child Custody: Evaluation, Litigation and – AFCC


File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Advance priority registration for AAML and AFCC members through June 30, 2011 ….. cess for professionals in child custody and access disputes. Distinctions 

(this came up in search, but doesn’t have the word.  However it’s a recent conference, and definitely worth a look….)

Found at ACRFamily (teleseminars)

April 6, 2011

Confronting Values and the Value of Confrontation: Conflict Resolution between Parties with Strong Religious Beliefs and Convictions – Donal O’Reardon

In this seminar I will challenge the commonly held view that conflicts grounded in religious beliefs are intransigent and so immune to resolution.** I will explore how it is possible to separate a particular religious belief from its practical interpretation and offer strategies for dealing with parties who see their values and beliefs as a barrier to a resolution.
Donal O’Reardon, originally from Ireland, holds graduate degrees in philosophy and theology and has worked in education both at secondary and university level in Ireland, the UK, the US and Canada. Based in the Toronto area, he teaches and trains students and professionals in conflict resolution skills. Donal is also an analyst at the Workplace Fairness Institute and at St. Stephen’s Community Mediation Service in Toronto. He writes regularly on the relationship between ideas, values and conflict resolution and is currently completing a book on conflict resolution and philosophy. Donal can be reached at donal@oreardonconsulting.com.
  • [PDF] 

    Building Multidisciplinary Professional Partnerships with the  – AFCC


    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    by JR Johnston – Cited by 58 – Related articles
    vulnerable persons get from others during the process.16 In particular, family …… The more intransigent conflict-ridden families are likely to be more troubled by 

  • [PDF] 

    AFCC Newsletter Sp2004 Pages


    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    Anniversary. AFCC’s Sixth Congress on Parent Education and AccessPro- ….. ner or spouse of one of the participants who is intransigent in work- ing with any 

  • [PDF] 



    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    access to a non-custodial parent who is not paying child  AFCC’s1990 annual meeting will be held in Winnipeg ….. lawyer ethics,intransigent cases, pre-mar- 

  • [PDF] 

    AzAFCC 100 Years and Counting.indd


    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
    continuing education for psychologists. AFCC maintains responsibility for this program and its content. …. B2: Parent Access and the Reluctant Child. B3: Parenting  high conflict divorces is helping resolveintransigent access issues when a 

  • Annual AFCC General Conference – October 21, 2011 « The Smart 


    Jun 17, 2011 – Entry filed under: AFCC information, For Divorce Professionals. Tags: . How you can forgive your ex-spouse Estranged or Abandoned by a 

  • 2007 AFCC and NCJFCJ Regional Training Conference

    http://www.docstoc.com/…/2007-AFCC-and-NCJFCJ-Regional-Training- …

    Mar 13, 2011 – Saturday Working with Domestic Violence AccessingPrograms for High ….. Part one will focus on how intransigent couples both researchers 

  • [PDF] 

    Texas AFCC Quarterly Newsletter


    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    working on AFCC projects and getting to know  Once you get over the slightly odd mental image of a group …. intransigent pathology to a Coordinator with a 

  • [PDF] 

    AFCC Columbus 2007-3


    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    2007 – Cited by 1 – Related articles
    Three days of parenting coordination programs based on the AFCCParenting Coordination Guidelines …. NCJFCJ seeks access to fair, effective, and timely justice for every child and every  Part one will focus on how intransigent  couples 



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
by PG Jaffe – 2008 – Cited by 77 – Related articles
family violence and supervised access or monitored exchange) to relatively …… in some cases the complexity and intransigence of the conflict may be beyond 

The art of word-dropping, like spreading seed, sows ideas . . . . .  gives an aura of respectability and authority.  this wouldn’t matter were not judges involved, and custody evaluators and attorneys who then go back, write it up, talk it up, and take your life away.. . . . .

(Instransigence is only bad when applied to the wrong thing.  And that’s a value call.  For example, every US President has to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.   They are supposed to be “instransigent” in that regard — but as we are finding out, rarely are.)

I love the acknowledgement that Religions Beliefs are Intransigent and so Immune from Resolution; don’t we have a Republican Candidate for US President who is utterly intransigent on to what extent ALL female reproductive process should come under the control of his particular religious views — or if not, that’s incringing on this freedom to practice said religion, which includes scapegoating women, forbidding them from holding priesthoods, controlling access to contraception, coverup of child sexual abuse by priests as routine, causing generational difficulties, and insistence on retaining tax-exempt status even when actual allegiance is to a foreign power (the Vatican), specifically?  I’m not talking about the rank and file membership, I’m talking about the LEADERSHIP of this.

Part and parcel of this religious belief is that women do not REALLY have the right to stand up to serious abuse — they should try harder to preserve the marriage, while calling people “Father” who are not their fathers, submitting to them for the most part, and teaching their children to, although even Jesus said (per Bible), “call no man Father.”

My favorite one from the list above is the 2005 AFCC (Texas) usage, in which it’s parental pathology that’s really intransigent:

Parenting Coordination in Texas also isn’t several things. Unlike Kansas, Coordinators do not become case managers, able to make recommendations and create their own temporary orders for changes in custody.  [[what a shame, eh?]] 8 Judges are required to maintain oversight of the PC process and retain “management and control” of the litigation process. PC is also not a “magic bullet” for high conflict cases. Just as a court can not force litigants to co-parent appropriately, Parenting Coordinators cannot force parents to change if they do not want to reduce their conflict.

[[What this fails to recognize is that there are two parents, and one of them doesn’t really have the ability to force the other — without more court proceedings, contempts and judges who give a crap about violations of court order, or law for that matter — to obey them.  This is a SERIOUS issue — this talk displaces authority.  It’s not my responsibility to persuade my ex to fly straight (or vice versa), just as it’s not my responsibility to stop crime, although I can try and deter some of it personally.  SO long as anyone can hold me PERSONALLy responsible for regulating the behavior of someone I separated from, don’t live with, and don’t control, I am never free, the courts and law enforcement have just dumped THEIR responsibilities on me as a citizen, yet they are paid for this, and I am not.   It’s “insane” logic — but that’s what the language communicates.  Two adults separated are not two children engaged in a squabble.  EVERYONE has issues (something the professionals rarely admit), but in the court, if the issue is not about a clear understanding of RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES based in law — not AFCC made-up psychobabble as practiced in family courts throughout the land — then it’s a NON-issue, or should be.]]

[[What if the parents have an intransigent conflict with their civil rights and legal rights being consistently violated, and time wasted, by the endless evaluations and court proceedings trying to get them to “submit or else”???]]

[[Do you hear the exasperated parent tone in there?  I sure do.   PROBLEM:  It takes two to tango — but this discussion, as ever, is in plural:  “parents.”  No mention is made of whether or not one parent might actually be RIGHT for resisting (this or that)>]]

Courts can implement sanctions for inappropriate behavior, and much like an intervention with an alcoholic they can “raise the bottom” for hostile parents – the court has the ability to make it more painful for the litigants to maintain their current behavior rather than investing the time and energy needed to make true and lasting changes.

Certainly each case referred to PC is going to need an individual approach. I would hope judges hesitate to send a case with parents evidencing Personality Disorders or other intransigent pathology to a Coordinator with a transformative approach. ***At the same time, I also hope that judges refrain from going overboard seeking enforcement/accountability when parents simply have unaddressed grief over the breakup impairing their co- parenting ability. There must be clarity from the court regarding the role of the Coordinator and the goals in sending the parents for PC services. There also must be clarity from the Coordinaror about their philosophy and the interventions they are willing to implement. Once there is clarity regarding which parts of the elephant we are dealing with we can improve our common language and better “see” what Parenting Coordination can be.

(I notice this site is also quoting Boyan & Termini — if the shoe fits wear it).

**It’s the incessant intention to transform other people (and the courts) which is so entirely annoying, and inappropriate.  Besides, what’s an “intransigent pathology” and how many of the practitioners know squat about it?   Even cancer has remission — and this is simply certain people, usually psychologists, wishing to sound more grown-up than their talk merits by using 12-letter words, which it is:

“I N T R A N S I G E N T”

(“joshanddeborah.blogspot.com,” image to the right)

So one INTRANSIGENT part of AFCC is the concept that anyone who disagrees with the belief that it’s proper to continue to have to negotiate and bargain with a criminal — just because this person also sired (or gave birth to) one’s offspring — should be forced to undergo this AND also submit to expert advice on how to, plus psychological profiles, paid supervised visits (and etc.).   Now THAT’s Intransigent.

Just a little exercise — here’s a paragraph analyzing a couple that the writer probably doesn’t know very well.  Note the phrasing, and then guess who are the couple:


Unfortunately, this relationship suffers from many implicitly intransigent challenges and as a result this relationship will suffer many ups and downs. There is much evidence that points to a relationship of natural enmity. For what a number of witnesses have reported and the circumstances leading to their first breakup as a couple, there are a number of red flags that both _ _ _ _  and  _ _ _ _ should heed very carefully, since the vast majority of relationships in history have failed due to Imin enmity.

(say, What???)

Look — the world is full of armchair relationship experts.  But it takes a certain pathology to actually expect the local county, state, and federal funds to pay for one’s expertise, to be used on a captive audience.  Reminds me of the Nazi’s. ….  It’s not the quality of the expertise that’s the main point (though I question its neutrality — or even the need for it)  — it’s the POSITIONING that scares me — because I’m a parent, and actually care about my kid’s (not that they are still kids!) futures.  I’m concerned that they even remember what personal privacy, and choice, IS, and hope they can seek some from time to time, in fact, the harder decisions there are in life, the more important a place of centered peace (ability to listen to one’s gut instincts) becomes.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 15, 2012 at 3:27 pm

The Hazards of Owning or Patronizing Businesses (salons) that Cater to Women….

leave a comment »

Happy Valentine’s Day.

Sorry but this was also on the news, and it seems reported a little evasively, with an emphasis on collateral damage and that it was a shootout, which apparently it was.  On the other hand, if someone near the initial target had not been armed, it might have been instead another massacre.  And this time, no one died, although it was a horrible incident:

Vallejo is north of San Francisco, and has a bit of a reputation for crime, though nothing like two other cities in the same general area, Richmond and Oakland.  So here, is the morning news:

  • Shootout At Vallejo Nail Salon Sends 5 To Hospital

    VALLEJO (CBS SF) — Five people, including a child, were hurt in a shooting at a nail salon in Vallejo on Monday night, police said.

    The shooting occurred around 7:15 p.m…

    Police said a gunman walked into the door and shot a woman, and then shot at the mother of the salon’s owner, hitting her in both arms.

    The owner’s two-year-old daughter was also shot twice in the abdomen and once in the leg and was listed in critical condition, according to authorities.

KTVU com VALLEJO, Calif. — posted 10:07pm Monday 2/13/2012

Two women, a toddler, and two other people were struck by gunfire during a shootout at a Vallejo nail salon Monday evening, according to Vallejo police.  . . .

Two other people arrived at Bay Area hospitals with gunshot wounds and officers were able to connect them to the nail salon shooting, police said.

[Presumably men?]

Two-year old shot at nail salon in Vallejo

(abclocal.go.com, by Amy Hollyfield) (updated 7:38am today)

VALLEJO, Calif. (KGO) — Vallejo police are looking for more suspects in a shooting rampage at a nail salon last night. Five people were shot, including a two-year-old girl who is in critical but stable condition. The little girl is the niece of the nail salon owner. The child was shot twice, once in the leg and once in the buttocks.

Around 7:15 p.m. police received a call that shots were fired at Tina’s Nails on Springs Road. Police say it appears that a man walked into the nail salon and began shooting at a female customer. Someone inside the salon, possibly a male friend of the customer, began returning fire and even ran outside the salon and continued to shoot.

The nail salon owner said she has no idea why this happened. The woman who appears to be the target is a loyal customer.

The two women and two menwho were shot are expected to be OK.

Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call Vallejo police Detective Fabio Rodriguez at (800) 488-9383 or the anonymous Solano Crime Stoppers tip line at (707) 644-STOP.  (Copyright ©2012 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

Three people shot at Vallejo nail salon

(same source, by Alan Wang, 2/13/2012)

VALLEJO, Calif. (KGO) — Three people are shot inside a Vallejo nail salon, including a 2-year-old girl. The violence then spilled into the parking lot where gunshots tore through the neighborhood. Gunmen targeted the initial victim and it appears a friend of hers fired back.

It all started inside Tina’s Nail Salon in the middle of a shopping district on Springs Road. It seems to have been one serious gun battle.

Springs Road at Maple Avenue was shut down late Monday night as police investigated the shooting. Three people were shot, including the 2-year-old granddaughter of the shop’s owner.

The owner’s son told ABC7 two armed men walked into the salon around 7:30 p.m. and opened fire on a female customer. They ran off, but apparently came back to finish the job. That’s when the victim’s male friend was ready with his gun and that’s when the majority of the bullets began to fly.

OK, that’s not cool to go run after the guy after the man realized it wasn’t going to be easy target practice inside the salon . . . . .  But imagine if NO ONE owning a gun had been in the place?  Would it have been another Seal Beach?   Let’s see who he was aiming at, because the articles sure are not mentioning any relationship between the shooter and the FIRST person he shot in the place, a woman.
One more account has some names:

Two people, toddler, injured at Vallejo Nail salon

11:49 AM, Feb 14, 2012, News10abc

. . . .Two suspects entered Tina’s Nail Salon on 1833 Spring Road and opened fire on a female customer, son of the nail salon owner Huey Tran said.

A male friend of the victim then returned fire. Tran said during the fire fight the nail salon owner Rose Tran was shot in the arm and her 2-year-old granddaughter Hannah was shot in the leg.

Vallejo police said the 2-year-old was lifeflighted to a hospital in Oakland.

The target of the shooting was shot three times, but her condition is unclear.

What’s most disturbing about this is that the men knew where to find their target, and apparently her male friend being armed, shot back — whereas, what men walking into nail — or beauty  — salons, expect to find resistance?   Mostly they are inhabited by women.   This is now the third major incident in California, and the only one that did NOT result in deaths, although it terrorized people involved, tore up the shop (as did another one) and what a horrible way to begin life for a little girl.
Usually the news indicates if there’d been some romantic relationship between the two — which it doesn’t here, although in another case in the same general area, it clearly does (murder/suicide, no prior domestic violence, ex-boyfriend (36) shoots woman (3), then himself, in car, it say — he dies later).  This article objectifies “murder/suicide” claiming the life of a couple.   The AP version says it happened in a home, and she was a woman “whom he had once dated.”  This appears to have been around the same time (one hour earlier) as the Vallejo incident.   The Oakland Tribune (Robert Salonga and Christ Benedetti) adds, in “Alameda Couple killed in Apparent Murder/Suicide”

While the man and woman had previously dated each other, it remains unclear what may have motivated the man to shoot her before taking his own life, Lynch said   The extent of the relationship is still being sorted out,” he said.

The couple did not have any children together, according to police. There were also no reports of domestic violence involving the couple, Lynch said.

“There was nothing to indicate that something like this was about to occur,” he said.

She apparently struggled outside and was found there, while he was still inside.  She died at the scene, being only 30 years old:

Pre-Valentine’s Day Murder-Suicide Claims Two Lives In Alameda

A couple who had previously dated are dead in what investigators are calling a murder-suicide that happened just after 6:30 p.m. last night in Alameda. A 30-year-old woman was found dead outside her home on the 2100 block of Alameda Avenue after there were reports of shots fired. A 36-year-old man, suffering from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, was found still alive inside the home.

He later died in the hospital.

Police are still looking in to the circumstances surrounding the incident. But come on. It was the night before Valentine’s Day and she had probably broken up with him…

That was from a blog, “sfist.com,” spinning off the Salonga article.    Is it always necessary to objectify the cause of death?  She was dead, but he was “suffering” — and it was the murder-suicide that claimed two lives — not “A man murdered a woman” (probably who rejected him).  Like a language tic, somehow the headlines never attribute cause, but how sad for both of them.

Run this by again — why is it sad for a selfish, entitled, murderer just because he offed himself, too? (not willing to stick around and to time for the crime….)..

Wanna place any bets on ethnicity?

No, what a sick society we have, in which it’s now acceptable commonplace for men to just “off” women who reject them.  …   Where is Ellen Pence’s & Domestic Abuse Intervention Program’s “CCR”collective community response” theory now?

Neighbors heard gunshots, they called the police, looks like this woman wasn’t armed, or possibly mis-read the situation and the man, or felt she could reason her way out of something.   We don’t know . . .. whose house?  (articles say, he was from Oakland).

Regarding the Vallejo Incident — should women attending or running stores that cater to women, who sit down in the store for service (hair, nails, etc.) — hire security and up the prices?    Should ALL women, who feel they may have offended or slighted some man, whether an ex, a former dating partner, or someone they have children with — simply abandon their children and leave the neighborhood just in case (because it’s REAL clear if they attempt to leave with the children, how the courts are likely to respond) — and of course don’t seek child support, or you’re in for a real battle?  Also don’t go on welfare, because then the county will seek child support (unless a very good cause not to exists), in which case the battle is still on — whether or not the guy even wants it, or to see his children.  You both just put a nice target on your lives by entering a system.
The woman who was a loyal customer of this nail salon (it’s nice to patronize stores where one likes the service, or the people there, or if proprietor is a friend, right) — should women who think that ANYONE may have a cause against them, and might be violent, begin to live like fugitives, lest there is another incident?
Should ALL people who are in any way involved with or know someone who has an irate ex (or other problems) simply withdraw all moral and social support immediately, lest one’s granddaughter get in the crossfire (or be targeted?). . . . . Let ’em die, don’t pay for all the DV trainings, and fewer mouths to feed??  Is that a rational answer?
It’s Valentine’s Day.  Here’s another one from Chicagoland (actually, near Peoria, Illinois).  An elderly couple (73 yr old man, 83 yr old wife); he shot her once, then himself.  He was “citizen of the year” 3 years earlier, too, it says.   Here’s one from Florida (man and woman were in their 40s, not sure yet if it was “domestic-related”….”The initial investigation revealed this may be a domestic related murder-suicide. The exact cause of the shooting is still under investigation, police said.”…
Here’s one where a Restraining Order, Didn’t — she’s 31 and he hasn’t died yet:

Police: Tucson woman is fatally shot at home  …

Tucson police received a 911 call about 9 a.m. Monday about a woman whose ex-boyfriend showed up at her home despite having a restraining order against him.  Officers arrived at the home in the 6800 block of South Kolb Road nine minutes later and found signs of forced entry.  They found the woman inside the home dead from a gunshot wound and a man with a life-threatening gunshot wound that appeared to be self-inflicted.  (this is an AP article).

This wasn’t his fault — it was “Domestic Dispute”‘s fault — the headline says:   Domestic dispute may have led to double shooting.  She was merely dead, but he was dramatically “fighting for his life.”  Arizona Daily Independent doesn’t note WHEN she got that R.O., but “Co-workers say that the system failed Claudia Pascual.”    The woman possibly called her friend, who then called 911 (?):

The caller said that a female friend had just called saying her ex-boyfriend arrived at her home. The caller indicated that the friend possibly had a court order prohibiting the ex-boyfriend from contacting her.

 Maybe both called.  The man was in his 40s.
Finally, we learn this woman had children (by him?), was being stalked, and her friends now speak out, including one from a Hair Salon:

Friend of domestic violence victim: “She was afraid of him and he killed her

Friends tell 9OYS the system failed to protect their friend

Reporter: Corinne Hautala

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) – A 31-year-old mother of two was found dead inside her home in the 3800 block of South Kolb Road.

Tucson Police said it responded to a caller, who told the 911 dispatcher his friend called him and said her ex-boyfriend had just arrived at her home.

When police arrived, officers said they found Claudia Pascual dead and a male suffering from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

“Today we lost a loved one. Today we lost one of our stylists to domestic violence,” said Claudia’s friend and boss, Sheila Dodge-Harrison the owner of Transitions Hair Studio.

Pascual’s co-workers said that Pascual had a restraining order against the gunman. They said after a domestic violence incident she broke up his him and that’s when he started to stalk her.

He was stalking her, followed her everywhere,” said Dodge-Harrison. “She couldn’t get away from him. She reported it. Nothing could be done. {{AZ has no anti-stalking laws?  But if they did, who would enforce them?}} She was afraid of him and he killed her.”

Her friends believe the system failed to protect her.

“She got lost in the system. The system did not work for her,” said Dodge-Harrison.

 Now the gloves are off, so the reporter has to get the other point of view, and asks an attorney (they don’t say what kind of attorney — prosecutor?)

9OYS sat down with attorney Mike Piccarreta to ask him, how effective are protection orders?

Well it’s a piece of paper and if somebody doesn’t want to follow the law and is bent on harming you a piece of paper isn’t going to stop them,” he said.  The details in the restraining order will also determine how much police can do.

When a news source wants a serious answer, they go to the experts.  Here’s (probably) this Mike Piccarreta.  notice his area of focus — DEFENDING criminals:

Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Toledo (1971, 1974).

Mr. Piccarreta’s practice is limited to the criminal defense of corporations and individuals. Mr. Piccarreta has extensive experience in representing corporations and corporate officers for alleged improprieties such as securities violations, fraud, environmental matters and other complicated white collar crimes. Mr. Piccarreta has extensive experience in representing those accused of murder, fraud, narcotics and marijuana violations, money laundering, vehicular homicide and other serious matters. . . .

Mr. Piccarreta has been involved in many highly publicized cases and as a result has appeared on 60 Minutes, The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Daily Rundown, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, National Public Radio, Inside Edition and has been quoted in most major American newspapers.

Mr. Piccarreta served as president of the State Bar of Arizona. He is a past president and a founding member of the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. He served on and chaired various committees for the State Bar of Arizona including the Criminal Rules Committee and Criminal Justice Section.

Mr. Piccarreta has been well recognized by his peers. He was selected by peer review to be listed in The Best Lawyers in America for the past 20 years and was selected as one of the leading individuals for white collar crime litigation in the state of Arizona by Chambers USA. He was selected as one of the Southwest Super Lawyers and named as one of Tucson’s leading lawyers by Tucson Lifestyle Magazine.

I decided to look this case up — because of its location (Pima County, AZ).  Note — a strong disclaimer on the site says this is NOT the official record.  How true it may be — however, this is what a plebian, a simple member of the public, is able to look up.  Like they say – -that may or may not reflect was what official record.  (See Joseph Zernik of L.A. area for more on that topic);  HER restraining order was ONLY last November:
Case Number:
File Date:
 Party Information

Party Full Name Party Role Name Type
JAMES B LEONARD Defendant True
 Case/Document Information

Document Type Document SubType Document Caption File Date Image
Affidavit Affidavit Of Service AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE – JAMES B LEONARD 11/22/2011 Available at Courthouse
Receipt All Money Receipts All Money Receipts #1630010 11/21/2011 Available at Courthouse
Order Order Of Protection/Restraining Order Order Of Protection/Restraining Order 11/18/2011 Available at Courthouse
Open Petition For Order Of Protection Petition For Order Of Protection 11/18/2011 Available at Courthouse
It’s a very simple declaration — first is just a form (showing), 11/18/2011defendant did not show.  About a year earlier, the minutes show Claudia is an “Other” (?) when the man gets an ex parte DV order on someone else, Geraldine Ortiz, meaning there’s some relationship between James B & Grealdine.
Case Number:
File Date:
 Party Information

Party Full Name Party Role Name Type
 Case/Document Information

Document Type Document SubType Document Caption File Date Image
Mail Return Mail RETURN MAIL – UNABLE TO FORWARD – JAMES LEONARD 9/20/2010 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Of Service DECLARATION OF SERVICE 9/20/2010 Available at Courthouse
Order Hearing Order HEARING ORDER 9/15/2010 Available at Courthouse
Misc Request For Hearing/Continuance REQUEST HEARING 9/15/2010 Available at Courthouse
Order Transfer Order & Notice Of Hearing TRANSFER ORDER 9/15/2010 Available at Courthouse
Acceptance Acceptance Of Service ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE 9/13/2010 Available at Courthouse
Receipt All Money Receipts All Money Receipts #1430318 9/10/2010 Available at Courthouse
Order Order Of Protection/Restraining Order Order Of Protection/Restraining Order 9/9/2010 Available at Courthouse
Open Petition For Order Of Protection Petition For Order Of Protection 9/9/2010 Available at Courthouse
ME Petitions PETITION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION 9/9/2010 Available
I do not know if these are all the same person:
Party Name Case Number Case Caption Filing Date
JAMES B LEONARD C298863   2/2/1994
JAMES BENJAMIN LEONARD L120747   4/23/1999
JAMES BENJAMIN LEONARD L5820750   4/23/1999
* * * This is the Divorce case, and note:  5 days later, the wife seeks a restraining order.  The typical very active docket, which I imagine would be very stressful for both parties, and we see children were involved.  And of course they both must take parenting classes.  We can see by the murder/suicide event how very helpful parenting classes are, and how effective (assuming same person….)
One can see the impact of Access/Visitation funding (parenting classes), of consolidation of protective order with dissolution (typical) and the mediation (which is insane, when there is DV, but that’s the practice).  Also see dates — as of July 2011, this other woman Claudia G. Pascual (d. 2/13/2012….) was apparently overlapping with his divorce, and perhaps child support payments . . . . . Were those his biological children left behind with Teresa?

/Document Information

Document Type Document SubType Document Caption File Date Image
Mail Outgoing/Incoming Mail/E-Mail LETTER REQUESTING EMPLOYER FULL NAME AND ADDRESS 7/7/2011 Available at Courthouse
Notice Notice-Change Of Employment/Address NOTICE-CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT- RESPONDENT 7/7/2011 Available at Courthouse
CourtNotice Notice Re: Reassignment Notice Re: Reassignment 2/14/2011 Available
Notice Notice-Change Of Employment/Address NOTICE-CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT/ADDRESS 5/11/2010 Available at Courthouse
Notice Notice & Acknowledgment Of Receipt NOTICE & ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT 3/25/2010 Available at Courthouse
Notice Notice-Change Of Employment/Address NOTICE-CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT/ADDRESS 3/12/2010 Available at Courthouse
Receipt All Money Receipts All Money Receipts #1186758 4/9/2009 Available at Courthouse
CourtNotice Notice Re: Reassignment Notice Re: Reassignment 2/2/2009 Available
Order Child Support Order CHILD SUPPORT ORDER 5/29/2008 Available at Courthouse
Worksht Parents Worksheet PARENTS WORKSHEET FOR CHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT 5/28/2008 Available at Courthouse
Decree Decree Of Dissolution SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE & DECREE OF DISSOLUTION 5/20/2008 Available at Courthouse
Order Settlement Conference SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER 5/6/2008 Available at Courthouse
CourtNotice Pretrial Compliance PRETRIAL COMPLIANCE 4/29/2008 Available
Ptstate Pretrial Statement PRETRIAL STATEMENT/RESPONDENT 4/18/2008 Available at Courthouse
Misc Inventory Of Property INVENTORY OF PROPERTY & DEBTS/HUSBAND 4/18/2008 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Child Support Financial Affidavit CHILD SUPPORT FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 4/18/2008 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Of Financial Information AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF JAMES LEONARD 4/18/2008 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Of Financial Information AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF JAMES LEONARD 4/18/2008 Available at Courthouse
Ptstate Pretrial Statement PRETRIAL STATEMENT 3/19/2008 Available at Courthouse
Misc Inventory Of Property INVENTORY OF PROPERTY – PETITIONER 3/19/2008 Available at Courthouse
Notice Trial Notice FAMILY LAW TRIAL NOTICE 3/14/2008 Available at Courthouse
Motion Motion To Set MOTION TO SET & CERTIFICATE OF READINESS 1/30/2008 Available at Courthouse
Misc Conciliation Court Status CONCILIATION COURT STATUS – NO AGREEMENT 1/17/2008 Available at Courthouse
Order Order To Appear ORDER TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION 1/4/2008 Available at Courthouse
Notice Notice Of Program Completion Parent Ed Course NOTICE OF PROGRAM COMPLETION PARENT ED COURSE 12/31/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Of Service AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL 12/14/2007 Available at Courthouse
Notice Notice Of Program Completion Parent Ed Course NOTICE OF PROGRAM COMPLETION PARENT ED COURSE/T. LEONARD 12/12/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order Order To Consolidate ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 11/2/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order In Chambers Re: IN CHAMBERS 11/1/2007 Available at Courthouse
ME Re Hearing HEARING RE: ORDER OF PROTECTION 10/31/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Of Service AFFIDAVIT AND RETURN OF SERVICE / TERESA D LEONARD 10/30/2007 Available at Courthouse
Receipt All Money Receipts All Money Receipts #967695 10/29/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Re: Minor Children AFFIDAVIT RE: MINOR CHILDREN 10/29/2007 Available at Courthouse
Application Application For Deferral Or Waiver Of Court Costs/Fees/Service APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OF COURT FEES AND/OR COSTS 10/29/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order Order For/Of Deferral Or Waiver ORDER RE: DEFERRAL OF COURT FEES AND/OR COSTS AND CONSENT TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 10/29/2007 Available at Courthouse
Answer Answer/Response To Petition RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE 10/29/2007 Available at Courthouse
Misc Request For Hearing/Continuance REQUEST FOR HEARING 10/25/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order Hearing Order HEARING ORDER RE: ORDER OF PROTECTION 10/25/2007 Available at Courthouse
Motion Motion To Consolidate MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 10/24/2007 Available at Courthouse
ME Petitions EX PARTE PETITION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION 10/23/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Of Service AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL UPON JAMES B. LEONARD 10/22/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order Order For/Of Deferral Or Waiver ORDER FOR/OF DEFERRAL OR WAIVER OF COURT FEES / COSTS 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit In Support AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR WAIVER OF SERVICE 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Application Application For Deferral Or Waiver Of Court Costs/Fees/Service APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR WAIVER OF COURT COST/ FEES/SERVICE 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order Order To Complete Course In Domestic Relations Education ORDER TO COMPLETE COURSE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS EDUCATION 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Re: Minor Children AFFIDAVIT RE: MINOR CHILDREN 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Prelim Preliminary Injunction PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Open Dissolution With Children DISSOLUTION WITH CHILDREN 10/18/2007 Available at Courthouse
Receipt All Money Receipts All Money Receipts #963470 10/17/2007 Available at Courthouse
Open Dissolution With Children Dissolution With Children 10/17/2007 Available at Courthouse
Prelim Preliminary Injunction Preliminary Injunction 10/17/2007 Available at Courthouse
Affidavit Affidavit Re: Minor Children Affidavit Re: Minor Children 10/17/2007 Available at Courthouse
Order Order To Complete Course In Domestic Relations Education Order To Complete Course In Domestic Relations Education 10/17/2007 Available at Courthous

and etc.  For DV,Pima County Resources for Domestic ViolencePima County Superior Court, 110 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701

General Information (520) 740-4200 TDD: (520) 740-8887

Clerk of the Court (520) 740-3200

Conciliation Court (520) 740-5590

Let’s take a look at “Conciliation Court” (that’s if a couple has children in common right?  Or if were married, co-habiting, and here comes domestic violence.  Divorce is worse for society than dangerous domestic violence, hence we have Conciliation Causes throughout the land):

The Family Center of the Conciliation Court Provides Family Law Court Services Free of Charge to Residents of Pima County.

group_edit.png Mediation
user_green.png Conciliation Counseling
script_edit.png Custody/Access Evaluation
report_user.png Parent Education Program
student.png Community Education
book.png Educational Material
page_white_acrobat.png Forms
house.png Family Law
help.png Frequently Asked Questions

Grace Hawkins, LCSW
Conciliation Court
32 N. Stone Ave.
Suite 1704
Tucson, Arizona
click for map
Office Hours:
8:00am – Noon
1:00pm – 5:00pm
Monday – Friday
(except Holidays)
Phone: (520) 740-5590
FAX: (520) 624-4034
E-mail: fccc@sc.pima.gov

Please note that “Conciliation Court” and “Family Law” are two different links.  Under Parent Education:

In an action for divorce, annulment, legal separation, paternity and in some post decree actions involving a minor child common to both parties, parents are required to attend a parent education course. Unless otherwise ordered by the Judge, parties must attend the class within 45 days of filing or being served by a petition.

You must register for and complete the course whether or not you are responding to a petition. Failure to attend the course will not delay your divorce, but may result in the court denying you any future requests for relief such as modifications in custody, parenting time and/or child support.**

The course is mandated by the Arizona Legislature (ARS § 25-351) to help educate parents about the impact separation, divorce, family reorganization, conflict and family litigation can have on children and parents. The class will provide you with information that can help minimize the stress and harmful effects upon you and your children in what can be a very difficult time in your lives.

page_white_edit.png Register Online

Q. Class Fee
That is not the real reason such legislation passed.  The real reason such legislation passed is to accommodate those in power who are also closely affiliated with those (or simply ARE those) who will be running the classes, and because diversions from Title IV-D (child support enforcement) enable them to possibly fund some of this from more than one angle. And, quite honestly, simply because they can.    I don’t know what the classes are in Arizona, but I do know that the ones being marketed through Kentucky and based in the FBI-raided Pennsylvania (a certain county’s) court consist of a nonprofit which is also marketing some of the material from authors (including Philip Stahl) formerly or currently California.   Kentucky also markets classes from a publishing company in Georgia, by which we see what is really meant when the words “FAMILY Court” are meant.  It’s the family of professionals bemoaning how hard it is to deal with “imperfect” parents, and what to do with them (read on)….
Pretty much, Arizona is a very “AFCC” state (it has a chapter there) and one can see them pushing Parenting Coordination right from the superior court site.  The language of “conflict” and “Access” is all over the text.  Here is the list of “parent coordinators,” including a “Picaretta” which makes me wonder if it’s any relation to the criminal defense attorney Michael J. Picaretta, above….  interviewed in the aftermath of Ms. Pascual’s murder.  Maybe not — she is all “conflict resolution” and has been appointed parent coordinator, mediator, and served as a pro-tem judge, nice revolving door to inhabit if one is going to handle where children live.  Thank GOD no kids were killed in the Valentine’s Day – minus- one situation involving a mother of two boys.
Piccarreta, Marie, J. D.
Divorce Mediator
881-2021 145 South 6th Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
Looks like Arizona’s AFCC just had its conference, highlighting, as usual, how to insert more Parent Coordinators and the problem of “imperfect parents” (something none of the presenters, presumably, have experienced enough to understand how common this ground is to humanity), with Philip & Leslie Stahl (P. Stahl is a professional Parental Alienation/Forcible Reunification Theorist, from what I can tell of the background).:

Workshops: 8:30 – 10:00

A1: Using Parenting Coordinators Strategically A2: Theory Meets Practice: The Child’s Attorney A3: Collaboration of Different Professions for the Benefit of Children  (OH, is that what it’s for???)

Break: 10:00 – 10:15 Workshops: 10:15 – 11:45

B1: Families Enmeshed in Immigration Issues B2: Parent Access and the Reluctant Child

B3: Parenting Communication Resources for the High Conflict Family

Here’s Dr. Stahl’s workshop.  Notice it helps to have a Judge in there to lend it credibility:

B2: Parent Access and the Reluctant Child Moderator: Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic)

Speakers: Honorable Elaine Fridlund-Hore, Joel Glassman, Ph.D.

Among the most difficult challenges when working with high conflict divorces is helping resolve intransigent ** access issues when a child refuses to see a parent. These children and their parents are frequently sent to a Reunification Therapist to try and help re-build the relationship in a healthy way. However, this process can be expensive and is often unproductive, even after months or even years. This interactive workshop will explore alternatives for these families, ranging from judicial orders (including a change of custody), psycho- educational interventions, summer camp, and helping parents learn to “withdraw for now” in a psychologically healthy way.

**the word “intransigent” (I linked to a definition) has a NEGATIVE value, expressing refusal to compromise on “Extreme” (also a value-laden label) position.  The fact is, when there has been abuse — one parent, OR child, is RIGHT to take a so-called “EXTREME” position (and often didn’t get there overnight either) — called, keep your damn hands (etc.) off my kid; or, when you last threatened to (xyz), we know you weren’t kidding.
However “extreme” is only in respect to a point of view.  The point of view of AFCC is to ALWAYS force conciliation – until children are removed from a noncooperative protecting parent, particularly (see parent coordination) a female.  Forcing concilition when conciliation just shouldn’t happen is great for business, and one gets to hold conferences talking like martyrs about the difficulties of dealing with such “families.”
The real conflict is of value systems.  Anyhow, here are synonyms for “instransigent” — a very revealing word choice:
OBVIOUSLY those are words intent to describe an animate person, or perhaps animal — and not an INanimate or generalized situation.  My point — in using big words (which this crowd loves to do), someone used them wrong.  If they can’t speak straight, how can they think straight?  And if they can’t think straight in private conference, what kind of policies can we expect from the same folks?  If I’d been there, I’d have raised my hand and said “excuse me — but access issues relate to real issues, and they aren’t alive — the people involved are).
That’s the problem with trying to pose as so ‘detached’ as well; it may give an aura of objectivity, but it’s simply sometimes, just surreal.  The reality says one thing — loudly so (“She was afraid of him — he kept stalking — he killed her”) and this crowd holds a conference at a nice location somewhere, and sugarcoats it with psychological terms.  The fact is (see synonyms for “intransigent,” above) that’s what AFCC and spinoff groups are.  They have an AGENDA, a language to perpetrate the agenda on the public at it’s expense, and — bottom line — they are pigheaded, self-opinionated, hardheaded (and hard HEARTED — people are dying for their theories!) and adamant.  
Some kids are “adamant.”  Alanna Krause was; some mothers are, and even go to jail for their kids rather than force contact.   But notice what Dr. Stahl (moderator) sessions suggests for “intransigent access issues.”   Here’s a better translation of the “alternatives” for intransigent access issues (what’s really meant is, basically, the mother):
This interactive workshop will explore alternatives for these families, ranging from judicial orders (including a change of custody), psycho- educational interventions, summer camp, and helping parents learn to “withdraw for now” in a psychologically healthy way
Rough translation:
Several of our compatriots have solid products for this situation we have created, and perhaps you would like to buy into this franchise, or develop a slight variation, for your local use.  For example, there’s Dick Warshak’s Family Bridges reunification class, or Matt Sullivan, Robin Deutsch’s & Pegge Ward’s “overcoming barriers” summer camp, and then possibly one of our judges might order the recalcitrant parent to undergo some more psychiatric evaluation (intervention/indoctrination) until they start to see it our way, and forget about their own perceptions or parental protection instincts.  For beginners, you can take this advanced parenting coordination training and read our sample report on how to trash (attribute all negative characteristics to) the Mother.  We have to be a little careful, because that “Rachel Foundation,” did — after all — precipitate a lawsuit:
I feel this lawsuit (or at least a representation from it at that link) is worth citing — because it hasn’t changed the “obdurate” intent of AFCC one whit since — just tactics.   While they are in some situations QUITE willing to force reunification, I have talked to parent after parent with no criminal record, no allegations of abuse, and eventually getting bankrupted and destroyed– not just economically, but personally and psychologically — after his or her children were removed WITHOUT allegations of violence or abuse, overnight, and almost permanently.  And sometimes having to pay to see them an hour or two per week.  Basically, some parents are being treated like breeding stock for court-connected programs, and crooks/perverts.  These sound like a few — the kids had to spend a MONTH in forced reunification.  I only include the “Factual background” stated there.  Apparently the mother got them back.  I don’t know the case personally, but most of us (moms) have heard of this “Rachel Foundation” in Texas.

9. Plaintiff and her ex-husband, Alan Carr (“Mr. Carr”), were divorced on March 8, 2005 in New Jersey. Plaintiff and Mr. Carr are the parents of two minor children (the “Children”).

10. The Carr family was ordered to undergo therapy with Dr. Barry Bricklin and Dr. Gail Elliot. In October of 2004, at the behest of Dr. Bricklin and Dr. Elliot, the Court ordered Mr. Carr and the Children to participate in a family “reunification” program at the Rachel Foundation in Harper, Gillespie County, Texas.

11. To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, the Rachel Foundation is not a licensed medical facility or child care facility and the Rachel Foundation does not appear to fall under the regulatory umbrella of any Texas agency.

12. Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch and Robert Hoch are the directors and employees of the Rachel Foundation. To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, neither Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch nor Robert Hoch is a licensed health care provider in the State of Texas.

13. The Children resided at the Rachel Foundation from approximately November 17, 2004 through December 17, 2004. During this month-long stay, the Rachel Foundation enlisted the services of Dr. Jack Ferrell to propagate the Children’s “reunification” with Mr. Carr.

14. Dr. Jack Ferrell is a licensed psychologist in the State of Texas. Between August 19, 2003 and April 21, 2004, Dr. Jack Ferrell was cited for two criminal DWIs and was involved in a third alcohol related incident (See Exhibits A-C). Currently, Dr. Jack Ferrell’s methodologies and ethical practices, and the status of his license, are under review and investigation by the State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.

15. During their stay at the Rachel Foundation, the Children were mentally and emotionally abused by Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell.

16 The Children were also threatened on more than one occasion. (See Exhibits D-F). Specifically, the Children were told that they would not be able to leave Texas nor would they be able to see their mother unless they cooperated with the Rachel Foundation’s “reunification” program.

17. While at the Rachel Foundation, one of the Children was attacked and bitten by Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch’s and Robert Hoch’s dog. It appears that the dog has subsequently died or been destroyed.

18. The Rachel Foundation, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell applied numerous circumspect methodologies in their evaluation and “treatment” of the Children and have used their influence to purposefully harm Plaintiff, acting outside the scope of any implicit or explicit permission granted Defendants by Plaintiff or any court or other agency.

19. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered considerable emotional distress

http://www.drjackgferrell.com/the-rachel-foundation.html  The term “The Rachel Foundation” is taken from the Bible, and (here, mis-applied)

Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”
 For those who are interested.  Also see its use (quoting Jeremiah) in Matthew 2:13-18 regarding how Herod slew all the children of a city in an attempt to get at the child Jesus, who fled into Egypt WITH his family (Joseph, Mary), til Herod was dead.   The other mothers in the case were not so lucky.
In a 2006 Arizona AFCC meeting, there is (reluctant?) acknowledgement of domestic violence issues, and “stalking” (in quotes) issues.  As this actually does happen, it’s important for the family court powers that be strategize how to approach it (in nice places far away from parental input….):

Arizona Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 2006 Annual Conference

February 3-5, 2006 Hilton Sedona Resort and Spa

Pre-Conference Institute – Friday, February 3

“Child Abuse, What You Need To Know” – Leslie Drozd, Ph.D.

Plenary Speakers: “Long-Term Consequences of Divorce for Children” – Paul R. Amato, Ph.D.

“Domestic Violence and Parenting Evaluations” – William Austin, Ph.D.

Stalking Behavior” – Mindy Mechanic, Ph.D. & Maureen O’Connor, Ph.D.

Claudia G. declared she was stalked.  But somehow not enough domestic violence to seriously restrain the ex, who we now know was already being pressured (most likely) from a prior relationship.  It’s a shame women take up with such men, too….  But they are looking for someone else, often someone else with children may be in need of some help (either babysitting or rent, or a man around).  From what I can tell, there has to be a better way.

Here’s yet ANOTHER, 2012, Valentines-Day Timed murder.  This Time the Dad got his wife’s 19 year old niece too.  Now an 8 and 12-year old (relatives?) also got to hear the gunshots at home.  You’d THINk sometime, sooner or later, the AFCC collective might figure this out — but they just do not seem to care.  All divorces need to have co-parenting and parental access, bar none.  Unless of course, one parent has been recalitrant or there is an intransigent situation, in which case that parent can be punished somehow (like, by allowing their children to be controlled by an abuser, sitting through indoctrination classes, or simply being cut off from the kids, period).      THIS ONE was from Texas:

Husband arrested in fatal shooting of wife and niece

By Dale Lezon and Cindy George Updated 12:46 p.m., Tuesday, February 14, 2012

A 30-year-old man has been arrested in the shooting deaths of his estranged wife and her niece at a home in northwest Harris County early Monday morning.

Ricardo Jose Prado Jr, 30, is charged with capital murder in the deaths of Rachel Prado, 29, and 19-year-old Jasmine Nicole Rhodes at their home in the 7800 block of Mosewood near Vernwood about 1:20 a.m. Monday, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

. . .Investigators said they believe Prado ambushed the two women when they backed their car into the garage when they returned to the home from a dinner. He shot them both inside the garage and then left after the shooting. Deputies said Prado has history of domestic violence against his wife.

This might have explained her “estrangement” — but what explains him still being on the loose?  (rhetorical question)

Rachel Prado’s mother and two small children, ages 8 and 12, who also live in the house were at home at the time of the shooting. They were not harmed. The woman told investigators she was asleep when gunshots woke her. She looked out the window and saw Prado running from the scene. Then she found the two women shot to death in the garage.

. . .[9 gunshots were heard]   Clifford Schoffield, who is Rachel Prado’s uncle, said the family is in shock. He said Rachel Prado had been trying to get out of the marriage because it was no longer working.

“It’s a love triangle – ‘If I can’t have her, nobody will’ – that’s basically what it is,” Schoffield said.

He may not have hated his niece. She maybe just happened to be a witness..

It appears those were the children, too:

Rachael Prado’s family told News 92 FM that her husband was upset because she wanted to divorce him and end their marriage after 11 years together. The couple has two children.

Interesting — the woman thought that they’d be safer if they were together.  Instead, a 29 year old and a 19 year old were BOTH shot to death (and in the back, the coward!) The alleged shooter being a “respectable man” in his 30s:

Both Prado and Rhodes arrived home together “for safety reasons,” Schoffield said, adding that the older woman was trying to get out of a marriage that wasn’t working.

“He wasn’t a bad person, up until now,” the uncle said. “They had their ups and downs and he was probably doing some things I wasn’t aware of, but he was part of the family.”

Schoffield said the alleged shooter is in his 30s, has been “very respectable and very mannerable” and was in between jobs.

Funny how the public (or at least our representatives & congressmen, and clergy, and many others) will believe almost anything they are sold about poor people and the cause of poverty and abuse, and about the fatherlessness crisis — but they simply will not believe that this thing has gone well overboard, and that some men should not be fathers — if they can’t cool it on the wife-assaults.   In this case — what family court would’ve cut off visitation from such a father (and I’ll bet, did not in this case, either).  She has to live somehow — she moved in with her mother, and the grandchildren — and paid with her life for not taking greater precautions.  Should I look up that case history too, or had no one filed yet?

Harris County Record:

Print Summary
Print Summary
Case (Cause) Summary
File Date 2/6/2002
Case (Cause) Status Complete
Last Instrument Filed Misdemeanor Information
Case Disposition DISP-021302
Case Completion Date 2/13/2002
Defendant Status DISPOSED
Bond Amount $1,500.00
Next/Last Setting Date 2/13/2002
Defendant Details
DOB 4/26/1981
Height/Weight 5’10 / 240 LBS
In Custody (Locate)
Address 8206 TIGER LANE HOUSTON TX77040
Markings TAT L ARM
Court Details
Current Court 12th
Address 1201 Franklin (Floor: 10)
Houston, TX 77002
JudgeName Robin Brown
Court Type Criminal

NOTE:  I am not sure this is the exact same person.   It seems to match, period.  The “in custody” would make sense in light of recent events.


There’s NO WAY that every time there’s a major, family-oriented holiday (which most major holidays, or minor ones, tend to be sold as) — that all responding police to 911 calls could get there in time.    There’s no way all piece-of-paper protective orders actually protect (not they say “protectIVE”).  So the only way I can see is either:

  • Continue to allow women, and associates, and sometimes the kids, to be shot to death, and places of businesses serving women also get shot up, in which case a lot of money can be saved by not doing any more domestic violence decades-long studies and comparisons.  PERHAPS some of that money could then be used to allow women and children to completely relocate (assuming no one’s going to jail, which is likely).
  • That of course doesn’t handle any remaining-behind-relatives which might be at risk as hostages if a person is REAL determined.
  • OR . . . .. . 
  • There could be mandatory — not MEDIATION — but self-defense AND weapons-training for victims of domestic violence.  They will then, from this point forward, start protecting themselves (in many more cases) which would send a collective message that it ain’t going to be so easy for the NEXT guy — and it might just be you, not me-then-you in any exchange of gunfire.  in other words, deterrence

However, to be completely consistent on this one, the family court system would have to be utterly dismantled, because it sure as hell isn’t going to voluntarily dissolve its “problem-solving courts.”    Then again, this WOULD save the country a bundle — think about it — not only all the obvious (salaries, several court-houses and family law facilitators, etc. etc.) — but also the slush funds, and all that money disappearing down the black hole of ero accountability (or something close to it) in the child support system, too.

Of course several religions will have nothing to do with this — therefore a related solution would be to remove their tax-exempt status on the grounds that it’s been used as an accomplice to some of these disasters, and besides, worshipping anything (including one’s status as the head of a household, or “family” or “fertility, etc.”) is per se “idolatry” which is the FIRST commandment, but which the apostle Paul compared the 10th with i.e., “covetousness, which is idolatry.”  (covetousness meaning greed).

Unless you’re Catholic, and the 2nd Commandment has been eliminated (no graven images, nor bow down to and serve them), and the 10th, “Thou shalt not covet” decimated and explicated — kind of like domestic violence — to limit only TWO things one shouldn’t covet.      I forget which two they are, because it seems to me the original is better.

There are all kinds of potentialities to human relationships if certain groups would get that the basic unit of our COUNTRY (in the US, and legally speaking) should be the individually — and not the family.  Society can have its variety then — families, and non-families not that I’m anti-family.  I just think it’s been over-rated, and regret that I set such a high value on it myself, parallel to my own work life, which was doing just fine about the time I married.  SO much for THAT concept …..

BUT BACK TO THE 2006 AFCC CONFERENCE EXPERTS ON “STALKING” (notice, above, it’s in quotes, as though “alleged” and not real).

Dr. Mindy shows up as a domestic violence resource, and in fact in 2011 (report date) even published with others a nice study about the dangers of Intimate Partner Abuse, mandatory mediation, or (whatever . . . . . . ).  Of note — it was DOJ grant-funded, and the family court system was heavily involved in it.  As AFCC & the Family Court System are pretty similar in practice and purpose, the study is pretty much of a moot point.  Nevertheless, here it is:

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title:  

Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation: Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-cultural Study


Connie J. A. Beck, Ph.D., Michele E. Walsh, Ph.D., Mindy B. Mechanic, Ph.D., Aurelio Jose Figueredo, Ph.D., Mei-Kuang Chen, M.A., M.S.

Document No.:     Date Received:    Award Number:

236868      December 2011     2007-WG-BX-0028

SO very many people worked hard to make this possible. [*]…

([*] Notice “Leora Rosen,” at bottom of next text — well-known in the domestic violence field.  I also know (Thank you, Leora) that she and some of her compatriots fought pretty hard to discourage mandatory mediation in cases involving violence.  They lost, obviously.   I heard (elsewhere, years earlier) that this was fought tooth and nail, and as history shows, for the most part defeated — or possibly out-spent.  The world is not ready to accept independent single mothers or accept how common wife-battering is, or simply killing after separation, when it’s possible to get even MORE grants from the theme that what the world needs now is less divorce and more Dads involved in raising their kids.  Or else.

Anyhow, just scan the acknowledgements, and thank GOD — No, the friends and sons of Claudia G. Pascual thank you — for all this hard work in actually studying The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-moon Marigolds   The Effect of Requiring Divorce Mediation With a  Seriously Dangerous Domestic Violence Perpetrator Intimate Partner Abuse {{by flawed parents within a High-Conflict Family undergoing reorganization}}.  

Her life / death / murder, and those of the other women around THIS Valentine’s Day across the country, bear testament to the “wisdom” of trying to blend domestic violence awareness with family theory run by The Reunification Party. . . . 

The study was a massive undertaking spanning nearly a decade. There are many people who were indispensible in making the study possible. We would first like to thank Pima County Superior Court Judges Karen Adam and Jan Kearney for recognizing the importance of this study for family law in Pima County, Arizona, providing access to the databases and for their support and guidance throughout the project. Without their support the project could never have been completed.

“No problem,” I can imagine the reply.  However, now this samey family law court gets to say, it cooperated with people concerned about violence against women, and yes, we understand domestic violence (although I’d say it seems they don’t…..)

We would next like to thank the current (Grace Hawkins) and former (Fred Mitchell) directors of the Pima County Family Center of the Conciliation Court. Grace Hawkins was instrumental in assisting the study by providing research office space, record storage space, access to computers and court databases and for allowing the research team to spend years collecting data at their offices. Fred Mitchell continued the work of former director Linda Kerr in identifying the need for adequate screening for intimate partner abuse at the study site. Dr. Mitchell instituted a policy requiring use of a written questionnaire screening measure, which became an integral part of the data. Paul LaFrance, former office manager, identified variables within the mediation case files and consulted on many aspects of the initial design of the study. Without this long-term support the project would not have been possible. Thank you to the many mediators and office staff at the Conciliation Court for answering our questions and providing assistance to us as we collected the data. It is a rare public agency that welcomes this type of in-depth research and analysis of their work.

We would also like to thank Sergeant William Briamonte of the Tucson Police Department and Mr. Frank Gonzalez of the Pima County Sheriff’s office for working closely with the research team and designing methods for data collection from area law enforcement databases. Our colleague and friend Dr. Edward Anderson of the University of Texas at Austin provided vital statistical consulting and conducted the latent class analyses in this study.

There are few studies which can be conducted without the extensive support of students. We thank the many undergraduate students (Jessica Jorgensen Willis, Fairlee Fabrett, Merredith Levenson, Stacey Brady, Whitney Kearney, Melissa Rubin, Ryan Davidson; Karey O’Hara Brewster), Devon Harris and graduate students (Caitilin Taylor, Marieh Tanha and Melissa Tehee) who contributed to collecting data, abstracting information from court records, coding and entering data and conducting reliability checks. In particular, a heartfelt thanks to Karey O’Hara Brewster and Ryan Davidson. Karey served mid-study as lead research keeping the project organized and training other students in data collection. Ryan served as the lead research assistant and liaison to the law enforcement agencies and kept the project going in its final stages.

Thanks are also due to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) for the financial support of this project. Funding for mediation research is so difficult to secure yet so important for the lives of divorcing parents and children, particularly those with intimate partner violence. We thank the NIJ staff members who have worked with us over the years. Leora Rosen was instrumental in stewarding us through the grant application and review process

Here’s another one that came up when I searched “Leora Rosen mandatory mediation” which shows that someone knows, it’s dangerous:

Mandatory Custody Mediation: Empirical Evidence of Increased Risk for Domestic Violence Victims and Their Children 

 by  Dennis P. Saccuzzo ; Nancy E. Johnson ; Wendy J. Koen

DATE RECEIVED April 2003, GRANT AWARD # 1999-WT-VX-0015

And this is what it said:  Note, date received is eight years EARLIER than the 2011 above — but practice still continues unabated…(some words may not copy too well– see original).  This is from the intro:

Nearly all states utilize mediation for child custody disputes.’ Individual states vary widely, however, from optional mediation at the parties’ expense2to mandatory mediation with no exclusion for domestic ~iolence.~

It is in cases of domestic violence where the use of mediation has drawn the most c r i t i c i sm.  Although proponents argue that it is possible to mediate child custody disputes even where there is domestic violence, critics have noted the potential harm to both the battered woman and the child viclims of domestic vioIence.* Nevertheless e,ven the most optimistic proponents agree that in order for such mediation to be successful, the mediator must acknowledge the violence and balance the power. **

**the voice of experience here — this is how the compromise principle can manipulate a case completely of protection.  As I was not privvy to the discussions between experts determining that, well, if they couldn’t keep such violent situations OUT of forced mediation, at least they’d try to train the mediator — or hope the mediator — would “acknowledge the violence and balance the power.”  Which is a crock, given who is paying for court-appointed mediation (fatherhood federal funds, since 1996, for the most part; local counties) and what the purpose of mediation under stuch funding IS (increased NONcustodial parenting time.  By definition, if a DV order creates a noncustodial parent (and child support order to go with it, esp.), then to increase the NONcustodial parenting time is to increase the time a batterer has with his children, and they have without the victim to protect, buffer, or defer his abuse.  And, it also increases the victim’s time with the batterer, too through more frequent exchanges, etc., etc.  Altogether, not a wise idea IF child’s best interests is a serious interest.

6 Because mediation is a confidential process, the empirical literature has had relatively little to say about whether mediators acknowledge the violence, much less balance the power.

Empirical evaluations of the effects of mandatory custody mediation in domestic violence as well as non-domestic violence cases are exceedingly rare. Thus far, evaluations of mandatory custody mediation have focused almost exclusively on retrospective self-reported satisfaction, with little regard for evaluations of equitable outcome^.^ The primary goal of the California courts in custody decisions, for example, is not parental satisfaction, but rather the health, safety and welfare of the children. Self-reported satisfaction may have little relationship to the critical outcome:of safety for the victim and child. There is empirical evidence that when mandated to mediation, even the most extremely violent couples agree to terms of joint custody with the mother as possessory parent,but standard visitation-an arrangement that is ill-advised for the mother and child(ren).’

Just another paragraph about what appears to be unique to California.  Mediation is Confidential.  Well, no it isn’t — if it’s child custody mediation.”

The iaws governing mandatory mediation in California nave resulted in a unique opportunityto study mandatory mediation in child custody disputes for families that do not reach agreement. Most mediation in California is confidential, because the legislature recognizes the valueofalternativedisputeresolutioningeneralandmediationinparticular. California’scivil code provides for confidentialityin all mediation, with the exception of child custody mediation. The confidentiality statute for child custody mediation is different:

FamilyCodeQ3177. Confidentialityofprioceedings Mediation proceedings pursuant to this chapter shall be held in private and shall be confidential. {{{BUT — only the word ‘BUT’ doesn’t show up here to inform the casual reader}}} All communications, verbal or written, from the parties to the mediator made in the proceeding are official information within the meaning of Section 1040 of the Evidence Code.

The first sentence of the statute is similar to the one in the civil code. The second sentence, however, makes confidentiality an illusion in certain circumstances that depend, in part, on geography. Each jurisdiction is allowed to decide whether custody mediation will retain strict confidentiality. Counties may decide to allow their child custody mediators to make formal custody recommendations to the court following unsuccessful mediation.

IN CASE you were wondering how “increased noncustodial parent time” was obtained — this is where mediators can come in.  That’s how I became a noncustodial parent overnight also (well it took a few short days — weeks — for a mediator to rubberstamp the criminal violation of a physical custody order according to California Penal Code.  while most of us would tend to think that the criminal violation should pre-empt a family law violation, in fact– at least in my wonderful state — these entities work quite well at bouncing cases between criminal and family, or OUT of criminal INTO family, where it’s decriminalized because it’s a family experiencing conflict — not a person who stole children, or knocked a parent upside the face during a high-conflict moment, or lots of them.

Well, that’s enough from the 2003 National Institute of Justice funded STUDY, and back to the 2011 (report rec’d) NIJ funded STUDY:

Despite three decades of scholarly research on numerous aspects of divorce mediation, there is no comprehensive understanding of the short- and long-term outcomes for couples legally ordered to mediation to resolve custody and parenting time disputes orfor those using free (or low cost) conciliation court mediation services to do so. Even less is known about the use or effectiveness of court-mandated mediation services among couples alleging intimate partner abuse (IPA)

Pre-Conference Institute – Friday, February 3

“Child Abuse, What You Need To Know” – Leslie Drozd, Ph.D.

Plenary Speakers: “Long-Term Consequences of Divorce for Children” – Paul R. Amato, Ph.D.

(Dr. Amato is from Penn State.  I would like to hear his commentary on the Sandusky/Paterno situation.   Be that as it may, here is some of his funding, and notice the national council on family relations.  SO long as family relations continue this strained, people like this will never run out of work:

Several research awards including Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; Reuben Hill Award from the National Council on Family Relations

Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations

His site also links to a 2009 USA Today article, “Federally Funded ad campaign holds up value of marriage,” in which we learn another role Dr. Amato plays, when HHS gets involved:

Faced with such numbers, the federal government is funding a $5 million national media campaign that launches this month, extolling the virtues of marriage for those ages 18 to 30.

“We’re not telling people ‘Get married’ but ‘Don’t underestimate the benefits of marriage,’ ” says Paul Amato, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist and adviser to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, which is spearheading the campaign.  {{which is itself a joint HHS/Public Strategies Inc. type WEBSITE}}

The resource center, a federally funded virtual clearinghouse, works under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families.

Where else one can find Dr. Amato, of PENN STATE UNIV… — helping spearhead the OMI, which as I’ve shown, started by taking $10 million (check site for exact##) of “contingency TANF funds,” quickly bypassing the legislature, and starting to promote marriage for (almost) everybody in Oklahoma, a pattern that has been followed from state to state.  By now (if you read my blog) you should recognize several of these names, esp. the 2nd and 7th.  Plus Markman and Stanley of Denver, who are probably very happy that their business PREP, Inc. was chosen as the vehicle….

OMI Research Advisory Group Members:

Paul Amato, PhD – Pennsylvania State University
Bill Coffin, MA – National Association for Relationship and Marriage Education
Ronald B. Cox, Jr., PhD, CFLE – Oklahoma State University
Kathryn Edin, PhD – Harvard University
David Fournier, PhD – Oklahoma State University, Emeritus
Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD – Bowling Green State University
Ron Haskins, PhD – Brookings Institution
Alan J. Hawkins, PhD – Brigham Young University
Christine Johnson, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Pamela Jordan, PhD, RN – University of Washington
Howard Markman, PhD – University of Denver
Theodora Ooms, MSW – Marriage and Family Policy Expert
Galena K. Rhoades, PhD – University of Denver
Scott Stanley, PhD – University of Denver

YEP — Longitudinal and Sociological Studies of “Marriage” and “Divorce” have been very good to certain types of professionals.  Just remember the “previously published as None Dare Call It Conspiracy,” and how the move to collectivism included taking over American Education and moving it to the collective model, featuring social sciences, and AWAY from the individual, rights-based model, which is problemmatic for future distatorships.

This is an Amato article published in The Future of Children (Princeton), which you can look up who’s funding THAT.  Here’s a Diagram of Well-being indicators:  “Life-Span Adjustment of Children to their Parents’ Divorce”  Be sure not to mis “Figure 1” which is a dramatic pictorial of the index of well-being based on whether a family is divorced, or “intact.”   This appears to be from April 2008, and shows him as associate professor of sociology at Univ of Nebraska/Lincoln.  As expected of the about 87 footnotes, not including the ones that are to his own work, others are to well-known AFCC people (wallerstein/kelly/janet r. johnston) and others to those also on the fatherhood foundation-funded publishing circuit, such as Sara McLanahan. And it goes on, and on, and of course . . . . ON….

here’s a random source (from apparently a religious site) and this is among the footnotes.  Here we see Amato AND Markman AND Stanley all together in one cite — not bad, eh?  Notice (guess that’s just part of sociology), the concern with labeling things according to ethnicity and trying to calculate whether this, along with the marriage factor, has some influence (that could be manipulated pro or con?) on adolescent sexuality.

Don’t you sometimes wish all the experts would publish less and  _ u _ k  more?  And give the rest of us a break?  Perhaps then they could study their own anatomy and relationships for a change; it’d be about as equally valid as collectively studying others in theory!

DeMaris, A., Rao, K. V. 1992. Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment. Journal of Marriage and the Family 54: 178-190.
Kamp Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., & Amato, P. R. 2003. The relationship between cohabitation
and marital quality and stability: Changes across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539-549.
Phillips, J. A. and M. M. Sweeney. 2005. Premarital Cohabitation and the Risk of Marital Disruption among White, Black, and Mexican American WomenJournal of Marriage and Family 67:296-314.
J. Teachman.  2003.  Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women. Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 444-455.
Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. 2006. Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random, household survey. Journal of Family Psychology 20: 117-126.
Paik, A. 2011. Adolescent Sexuality and the Risk of Marital Dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family 73: 472DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00819.x.

(from the AzAFCC in 2006 conference, again):

“Domestic Violence and Parenting Evaluations” – William Austin, Ph.D. “Stalking Behavior” – Mindy Mechanic, Ph.D. & Maureen O’Connor, Ph.D.

(Probably this William Austin….)

William G. Austin, Ph.D. ACCS dba

Austin Child Custody Services dba

(303) 670-6767 voice   (303) 217-8990 fax
Office: 710 Kipling, Ste. 306, Lakewood, CO 80215

Dr. Austin and Austin Child Custody Services provide a broad range of forensic services to attorneys and courts within Colorado and in other states. He is licensed in Colorado and North Carolina. He provides services in other states only if permitted by state law. Almost all states allow out-of-state licensed psychologists to provide services on a temporary basis. Dr. Austin specializes child custody cases when there are issues concerning relocation and domestic violence/intimate partner violence.

Forensic evaluation services: Dr. Austin provides Child Custody Evaluations. In Colorado, custodial evaluations include Parental Responsibility Evaluation and Child & Family Investigator. All evaluations are neutral, impartial evaluations conducted with an appropriate court order. Parties involved in the litigation must sign a Statement of Understanding that describes issues involved in the evaluation, procedures, and fees.

Attorney Consultation: Dr. Austin provides several forensic consultation services. . . .

He often provides testimony on the relocation risk assessment model and research on the effects of relocation on children of divorce. His forensic models on partner violence include how to assess the credibility of allegations of partner violence and violence risk assessment in custody cases. He is currently developing with colleagues an integrated theoretical framework for considering partner violence in custody cases that revises the new typology of partner violence and emphasizes behavioral dimensions and research-based risk factors in developing parenting plans. Instructional or educational testimony may be combined with testimony as a Reviewer.

Dr. Austin has published numerous professional articles and book chapters on forensic approaches to conducting child custody issues. The publications are available in pdf form from this website.

He is a recognized national expert on relocation and domestic/intimate partner violence as issues that arise in custody cases, and on child custody methodology. Dr. Austin has given over 50 professional workshops and lectures on child custody evaluation for mental health and legal professionals, and law schools.

Dr. Austin was the co-chair of the task force that developed the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation that is published by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).

Yeah, well, he is a social psychologist from North Carolina & Wisconsin, and no attorney.  His website is GOING to have a “gatekeeping and alienation” part — but it’s not up yet (probably too busy on task forces and with professional associations, including the National Council on Family Relations(getting nice marriage/fatherhood grants these days, and very conservative).   He is going to protest relocation for the most part, and of course no way is a parent going to actually be able to leave a very abusive situation WITH children and actually protect them (or herself) without some behavioral dimension assessment, if he has something to do with it.


The next time you run across some social science prognostications, please remember how many, how diverse, and likely how AVOIDABLE many of these deaths were.    Some occurred in front of children.  Some occurred surrounding a child support hearing (after protective order).  SOME (though not most) were a woman (wife, or girlfriend) offing an ex.  Most egregious, on the side, was a case where families were suing for damages — someone should’ve listened when others warned about a dangerous COP, who ended up killing 3 women (and himself) off-duty.  Here’s that info:

Families of women killed by off-duty Clackamas deputy file $8 million lawsuit

Published: Thursday, February 09, 2012, 4:45 PM     Updated: Friday, February 10, 2012, 6:05 AM

here’s about how that went:

The families of two women murdered by an off-duty Clackamas County sheriff’s sergeant filed an $8 million lawsuit Thursday, alleging that the county, Sheriff Craig Roberts and two of his top aides knew the man was dangerously unstable but failed to intervene.

Roberts and other defendants knew Sgt. Jeffrey A. Grahn presented a threat to his wife, Charlotte, and that he was emotionally unsteady, angry, depressed and had substance-abuse problems, according to the wrongful-death lawsuit filed in Multnomah County.

On Feb. 12, 2010, Grahn confronted Charlotte Grahn and two of her friends, Victoria Schulmerich and Kathleen Hoffmeister, at the M&M Restaurant & Lounge. 

{{please note the time of year, though it was 2010}}:

Grahn, who was legally drunk, entered the Gresham bar, argued with his wife and threw a drink in Schulmerich’s face. He then grabbed Charlotte Grahn by her hair, pulled her outside and shot her in the head with a Glock .40-caliber pistol. He returned to the bar with his gun drawn and killed Schulmerich and Hoffmeister with shots to the head.

Grahn again went outside and, standing next to his wife’s body, committed suicide.  . . . . . .

A year before the killings, the Sheriff’s Office received reports that Grahn was abusive and potentially explosive and asked the Portland Police Bureau to investigate. 

“The Sheriff’s Office knew that Grahn was violent, abusive, and out of control. They were specifically warned that he was likely to kill his wife, his family, and himself. Nonetheless, the Sheriff’s Office intervened to prevent the Portland Police from sending their investigation of Grahn to the Clackamas County District Attorney. Now, four people are dead,” said Greg Kafoury of Kafoury & McDougal law firm, which represents the Hoffmeister estate.

If the case goes to trial, it will shed light on how the Sheriff’s Office and other law enforcement agencies handle domestic violence issues involving their employees.

In case there are ANY remaining questions to just HOW dangerous this was, and how it was NOT responded to properly, here’s a bit more of the article:

According to police reports obtained by The Oregonian, Charlotte Grahn allegedly told one of her husband’s co-workers, a deputy, that she was the victim of domestic violence but the deputy did not report the incident.

The reports also show that a couple — both law enforcement officers and long-time friends of the Grahns — told the Sheriff’s Office they had serious concerns about Jeffrey Grahn’s behavior. The friends and Charlotte Grahn’s sister “fear .. that they will receive a phone call one day that Jeffrey has killed everybody in his family then himself,” according to a report written by Undersheriff Dave Kirby in April 2009, 10 months before the shootings. One of the friends said Grahn had “gone off the deep end” and drinks “like there’s no tomorrow,” Kirby noted.

Charlotte Grahn {{that’s the WIFE!}} told an investigator that Jeffrey Grahn exhibited signs of depression and suicidal behavior and was worried that if it became known he had obtained a prescription for anti-depressants, it could affect his employment. 

Portland police investigators said Grahn was depressed, angry, drinking heavily and occasionally suicidal.

Just in case the significance of this has not yet sunk in — sheriffs and police are often to whom women may turn when they feel in danger, even still these days.  Mentally we associate them with “law enforcement” and believe, naturally, that this is what they are for, which is why they have extraordinary powers compared to the average citizens, including weapons training, tactical training and sometimes weapons.   Plus the ability to arrest (apart from any citizen’s arrest, which how many people ever know about, or use?  Or, are backed up if the do attempt to use?)

Certainly, and obviously, it is very stressful to be a police officer.  On the other hand, it’s also stressful to contemplate how restraining orders are just a piece of paper, some cops brush off warning signs, former batterers stay loose and sometimes then, being more irate, escalate. . . .   Many things in life can be stressful.  BUT — when you next hear AFCC in conference, just remember that Valentine’s Day along with almost any other holiday, can be a very tough and frightening time for some.

I personally think we ought to “cool it” on exalting and promoting marriage.  It ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, and some seem to take disappointment better than others.   Whether it is or isn’t, the last thing ANYONE needs is his and her own government pushing the institution for its own reasons, most of which do not have to do with individuals’ welfare ,or in the best interests of children.

NOTE — there’s one below from Alabama — an incident that was reported last Friday.  Two children (ages 6 & 7) witnessed the violence, which involved

death by stabbing (it seems) of their father and his girlfriend.  Just a note — it seems he was custodial? and they were returned to the care of their mother.

Can you imagine this?  Yet here it is — and we are concerned about father ABSENCES? ???   This is a man who got his kids, got a girlfriend, and someone killed both of them (which was which is unclear) and the fathered-children “got” to witness all this blood and then — alone with the two bodies — go seek help from a neighbor.  They wanted a ride to school. . . . .

AND — FYI — the site is also advertising, or possibly promoting one solution or another — for example, I note a “Crisis in the Family Courts” post (predictable).  I believe it’s clear enough where I stand on that one . ….  As well as on all the domestic violence studies, when this level of violence is still ongoing.  Perhaps less studies and more self-defense might help, but — bottom line — it’s probably going to have something to do with more equality (gender equality, starting in the Congress), and reduction of the religious domination of women by men overall (that’d be a cold day in hell . . . . . ) — which would be something of a deterrent.   Or at least stop giving churches, mosques, synagogues, temples of ANY kind, even pretty ones, even ones that feed th homeless or sometimes shelter them —  tax perks (nonprofit status) — AND grants….!  If the product is that great, it doesn’t need a tax perk.

The St. Paul girl case, below, is particularly horrific.  The woman held captive and BEAT for 3 days was the the mother of a little girl, and their relationship had started out abusive (it says) — and when father was 17 and mother 15.   He would’ve killed her, but apparently after 3 days of beatings he decided to go to work (taking car keys, cell phone, and laptopS) — that brings back some memories — there being snow on the ground — but she escaped to neighbors, and her family (where was her family BEFORE?) took her to the hospital.

Another note to people fleeing — maybe try not to stay with your parents, it gets dangerous, as the accounts will say.

I believe in light of this record here, that we should rethink the next round of grants to give “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE’ there share of $36 million, or $16 million, or whatever it is, to stop violence against women by teaching fathers, and international global leadership (etc.) — and insist they do something at home first — and PROVE it makes a dent — before getting any more.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Chattanooga, TN:  A Chattanooga man has admitted to police that he shot and killed his wife the day before Valentines.  Police found Elizabeth Hardnett, 34, shot at least four times inside a business at 1907 Daisy Street, near the intersection of North Orchard Knob and Daisy Street.  » more at News Channel 9

Mother Says Vineland Murder Victim Was Not Engaged to Man Accused of Killing Her

Vineland, NJ:  Britton Loyden and the man accused of killing her last week had no relationship for the past 16 months, Loyden’s mother, Tracy Freese, said.  Ismael Pierce, 24, of the 900 block of South Spring Road, is scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday on a charge of murder, Cumberland County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae said.  Pierce is the father of Loyden’s 1-year-old son, and on social media sites MySpace and Twitter, the two talked about their relationship before her murder.  » more at Press of Atlantic City

Carolinas Mystery: Missing Woman, Dead Fiancée

Mount Pleasant, SC:  Dara Lee Watson left her parents’ store in downtown Boone a week ago Monday with fiancée David Hedrick, headed back to their home in the Charleston suburb of Mount Pleasant.  Watson’s boss and a friend received text messages from her phone Wednesday, but nobody could reach her by email or voice.  » more at Charlotte Observer

Police: Ex-Boyfriend Killed Tucson Woman, Then Attempted Suicide

Monday, February 13, 2012

Tucson, AZ:  Tucson Police believe the ex-boyfriend of a Tucson woman allegedly shot and killed her, then turned the gun on himself – but survived, police say.  The woman who lived in the southeast-side home where the shooting occurred was in her 30’s, and was a mother of two young children.  » more at KVOA TV

Boyfriend Charged With Murder in Neptune City Stabbing

Monday, February 13, 2012

Neptune City, NJ:   Homicide investigators have charged a local man in connection with the stabbing death of a borough woman Monday.  Jarrone J. Perry, 33, of Morris Avenue, is charged with the killing of his girlfriend, Kamealah Talmadge, 30, of the same address, according to Marc LeMieux of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office.  » more at Asbury Park Press

Husband Arrested in Fatal Shooting of Wife and Niece

Monday, February 13, 2012

Houston, TX:  A 30-year-old man has been arrested in the shooting deaths of his estranged wife and her niece at a home in northwest Harris County early Monday morning.  Ricardo Jose Prado Jr, 30, is charged with capital murder in the deaths of Rachel Prado, 29, and 19-year-old Jasmine Nicole Rhodes at their home in the 7800 block of Mosewood near Vernwood about 1:20 a.m. Monday, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.  » more at Houston Chronicle

Kingsport Man Accused of Stabbing Girlfriend to Death

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Kingsport, TN:  A Kingsport man accused of stabbing his live-in girlfriend sometime overnight Saturday was arrested Sunday morning in Johnson City.  Mark W. Breeding, 46, 1037 Bloomingdale Pike Apt. 323, Kingsport, has been charged with first-degree murder by Kingsport police in connection to the stabbing death of his girlfriend, Beverly “Birdie” Hartsock.  » more at timesnews.net

Man Dies Following Suicide at Gun Range, Linked to Wife’s Death in Tamarac

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Tamarac, FL:  A suicide at a South Florida gun range led to the discovery of a second dead body in a Tamarac home as BSO investigators discovered it wasn’t just a suicide but a murder-suicide.  According to BSO investigators, a 52-year-old man walked into the Arizona Shooting Range, located at 4317 North State Road 7 around 10:40 a.m. where he rented a gun and shot himself in the head.  » more at Miami Herald

Wife of Man Found Dead in Lower Valley Apartment Arrested on Suspicion of Murder

Saturday, February 11, 2012

El Paso, TX:  The El Paso Police Department’s Crimes Against Persons unit has arrested a woman on suspicion of murder in connection with the early morning death of her husband.  Fire Medical Services and El Paso police responded at about 5:30 a.m. Saturday to an apartment at 7840 Knights Drive in the Lower Valley where they found 34-year-old Salvador Juarez dead.  » more at El Paso Times

Spouse Held on $500K in Death

Friday, February 10, 2012

Douglas, MA:  A former International Arm Wrestling Federation arm wrestler is behind bars in connection with the death of his wife.  Police Friday night arrested Allen M. Stilkey and charged him in the death of Lisa A. Stilkey.  The 44-year-old woman fell through a second-story window of their home at 38 Gilboa St. and died of her injuries.  » more at Telegram

Ex-Boyfriend Surrenders in Fatal Drive-By

Friday, February 10, 2012

Covington, GA:  A man wanted in the drive-by slaying of his former girlfriend turned himself in to Covington police Saturday, authorities said.  Hannibal Wayne McMullen, 47, was charged with murder in the death early Friday of Ketitra Techelle Jones, who had filed for a temporary order of protection against the man.  » more at Atlanta Journal Constitution

S.F. BART Saxophonist is Fugitive Killer, Cops Say

Albuquerque, NM:  A popular BART station saxophone busker was arrested this week on suspicion of murdering his ex-wife 25 years ago, and had been on the run for decades, even while serenading commuters, authorities said Friday.  The “jazz man” often told BART riders his name was Garrick Sherrod when he played in places like San Francisco’s Embarcadero Station. But when authorities arrested him Monday, they knew him as Ronald Brewington, a man who allegedly shot and killed 37-year-old Diedre Brewington in her Albuquerque apartment in August 1987.  » more at San Francisco Chronicle

Murder Suspect Dies in SWAT Standoff

Friday, February 10, 2012

Houston, TX:  Two people were murdered Friday in northwest Houston. The suspect was on the loose until he took his own life Saturday evening.  Police said Friday that Diego Martinez shot and killed his wife, 40-year-old Martha Nava De Martinez, and a male friend who was visiting her — 31-year-old Omar Salazar.  » more at KTRK ABC 13

Man Claims He Was Asleep When Girlfriend Died; Charged With Murder

Friday, February 10, 2012

Lincolnton, NC:  A Lincolnton man has been charged with murder after police say he called 911 and said his girlfriend had died while he was sleeping on the couch.  According to Lincolnton Police, 41-year-old Jerry Alvin Black, Junior, called 911 on Friday afternoon at 1:30 p.m. and told the dispatcher that his girlfriend was dead.  » more at WBTV

Two Young Children Witness Murder-Suicide in Eight Mile

Friday, February 10, 2012

Prichard, AL:  A young boy trying to get a ride to school Friday morning led a neighbor back to his house where his father and father’s girlfriend were dead. Prichard police described the Eight Mile-area case as a murder-suicide.  The dead were Ronald Coleman Jr. and Charmeall Powe, both 39.  » more at al.com

Man Shot Stranger, Stabbed Own Family in Deadly SWAT Standoff in Deerfield Beach

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Deerfield Beach, FL:  The man who led a deadly 7-hour SWAT standoff at a Deerfield Beach RV park shot an elderly stranger before bursting into the home and stabbing his own wife, two sons and himself, authorities said Friday.  According to the Broward Sheriff’s Office, 41-year-old William De Jesus, from Port Orange, drove his red Ford Mustang into the Highland Woods RV park at 900 Northeast 48th Street around 6:20 p.m.  With De Jesus were his 37-year-old wife, Deanna, and sons Samson, 7, and Jeshiah, 9, the BSO said.  » more at NBC Miami

Victim Came Back for One Day

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Marion, OH:  A woman who had moved away out of fear was killed the day she returned.  Police found Amy Lynn Aldrich, 30, dead from a gunshot wound at her cousin’s home, 617 Bartram Ave.  “She was a beautiful person inside and out,” said Margaret Reed, Aldrich’s mother.  » more at Marion Star

Afton Teen Dies of Gunshot Wounds

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Jay, OK:  A teenager who deputies believe was shot by his estranged girlfriend has died, Delaware County Undersheriff Ron Teel said Friday.  The name of the 16-year-old Afton boy has not been released.  Deputies believe Jazmine Flynn, 18, of Bernice, shot the teen before shooting herself.  Flynn was found dead at the scene from a single gunshot wound, Teel said.   » more at Tulsa World

Autopsy Says New Bern Deaths Murder-Suicide

New Bern, NC:  Preliminary autopsy results show a deadly double shooting last week in New Bern was a murder-suicide.  Brittany Jones and Johnnie Neely were found dead inside a home on Julia Clay Street Friday afternoon.  » more at WITN TV

MATTHEW 24. . . . and because iniquity (lawlessness) shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
I hope some will forgive me for bringing all this up on a day dedicated to love, romance and marriage — but there are two sides to the coin.
Let’s do what we can to keep it in balance, OK?
Pending the eventual dissolution of the AFCC family law system (which can’t accept that these things actually happen — or simply doesn’t care, so long as they get to pronounce about it in private meetings and order parents and children around, for a fee.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 14, 2012 at 9:07 pm

“Center for Judicial Accountability” (reStrain) versus “Center for Judicial Excellence” (reTrain) Theories.

leave a comment »

NOTE:  in this post, I’m going to use [QUOTE:] and [/ENDQUOTE] rather than mess with wordpress’s fickle built-in quote function, which looks like this, and the “WYSIWYG” (what you see is what you get) doesn’t function on the input screen.


When judges round up citizens without known business before the courts — simply because they are in the courthouse that day — or send them off to jail for SPEAKING at a public hearing! — then it seems there’s a little struggle about who gets to train whom.  In an era when the Catholic Church extremists (one who MIGHT become US President, for what that’s worth) are complaining that someone is restraining their right to restrain women (i.e., about contraception) — then it’s clear too many have already been trained, like dogs, to submit to the ridiculous.

Let me talk about how I heard about the Sassower Mother/Daughter combo. . . .   and the answer is, probably by coincidence.   A friend of mine was looking for an attorney to help her file a federal case — and she’s got a GOOD one — out of state, as the state is obviously a goner when it comes to several civil rights issues.  MOST states are goners in the family law arena already, but this had some extra flavors to it.

As things go, the woman is originally from California, home of “Let’s Incarcerate Taxpayer Advocates” and “how DARE you imply that payments by the county to a judge affect the judge’s decisions when ruling on a case involving the County’ Richard Fine.   Home of a whole lot of interesting creations, including retroactive immunity for judges, the AFCC (it seems) and the concept of One-Stop-Justice-Shops, which they want to take international, and are:


How to Start a Family Justice Center  

Across the country and around the world community leaders, advocates, law- enforcement agencies, service providers, shelters, and concerned community leaders are exploring the possibility of starting a Family Justice Center in their own community. A Family Justice Center is a co-located, multi-disciplinary approach to services for victims of family violence and their children.  The goal is simple:  To provide one safe place where victims and their children can go to get all their services under one roof.***  The model seeks to wrap victims in support and services and end the frustrating journey for victims of having to go from agency to agency, telling their story over the over again in order to get the help they need.*** . . .

The first step for interested communities is to attend the International Family Justice Center Conference and buy “Dream Big: A Simple, Complicated Idea to Stop Family Violence” (Wheatmark 2010) and the Alliance’s “how to” manual entitled “How To Start A Family Justice Center in Your Community”, both authored by Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack. . . . .
…The Alliance also hosts a FJC Directors’ Leadership Training Institute for new Directors and new Directors are strongly encouraged to participate in this Institute.  For more information and a description of the services available to help you start a Family Justice Center in your community, contact the Assistant Director of Technical Assistance at (888) 511-3522 or email the Alliance at info@nfjca.org .
copyright © 2009 Family Justice Center Alliance. All rights reserved. 

got that?  The first step is to patronize our Conference (DVD of the plenary sessions only $99) and BUY!  Sponsored by NCADV, who also is real good at selling things.   THIS group is all about TRAINING — and that TRAINING is an increasingly self-referential closed set of informations that actual victims of the FAMILY courts cannot get a word in edgewise into the PR material.  Especially not with Denise Gamache of BWJP sitting on the board, or Oliver Williams (also fatherhood promoter), etc. (see below):

But, the concept is a ONE-STOP-SHOP . . . . .

**This version is much simpler.  THey only have to go ONE place to not get the help/truths that they need.

***Question.  Sometimes Police are corrupt.  How helpful is it when a teenager who’s been raped by a police officer when she reports?  What about when police simply choose not to arrest and D.A.’s choose not to prosecute — which they CERTAINLY have the right not to (not that women seeking protective orders are generally told this, or other relevant information)???


She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.”  This is a 2012 report; a 19-year-old Milwaukee mother of two …”had returned to high school as a mother of two and after graduation she had continued on to the University of Wisconsin, where she was studying criminal justice with the thought of becoming police officer or a lawyer.”  She calls 911 when a brick was thrown through the window and was sodomized and raped by the responding officer …

[QUOTE:]”Her revulsion in the aftermath was so visceral that she vomited as she ran outside. The cop’s partner had become concerned when he did not immediately see Cates and called for back-up. Other cops began arriving and saw a woman screaming incoherently about being raped.

Cates {officer} appeared and grabbed her by the waist, spinning her around. Her swinging feet may or may not have struck the partner. She was handcuffed and taken in, told at the stationhouse that she was being charged with assaulting a police officer.   She became more coherent but no less outraged and vocal as she continued cry out from a holding cell that she had been raped. She also continued to vomit. The other cops dismissed her as a liar.

After 12 hours, she was interviewed by internal affairs and taken to a hospital, where a rape kit was used to collect evidence. She was then taken to the county jail and held for four days before being released without actually being charged.    She took her story to the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office. A prosecutor subsequently wrote, “While I did find the victim’s version of events credible, I did not believe that her testimony would be strong enough to successfully prosecute Officer Cates.”

In other words, Cates was still a cop and she was still an inner-city teenage single mom. She stopped going to school as she fell into a deep depression, making two serious suicide attempts.

Article by Michael Daley in “The Daily Beast” US News — and it’s ONLY from January 29, 2012….  Though it ended with justice, the criminal justice system lost what would’ve been a good woman — she changed majors ….

Many things in this system are soul-killers . . . . .


National Advisory Board (of the Family Justice Center National Alliance)

Saran Buel Yvonne Carrasco Sue Else
Sarah Buel, J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
Director, Diane Halle Center for Family Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Yvonne Carrasco
Consultant to Foundations & the Non-Profit Sector
Sue Else 
National Network to End Domestic Violence
Denise Gamache Dean M. Hawley, MD Michael Mason
Denise Gamache
Battered Women’s Justice Project
Dean M. Hawley, MD
Indiana University School of Medicine
Clarian Pathology Laboratory
Michael Mason
Chief Security Officer
Verizon Communications
Nancy E. O'Malley Kim Wells Oliver J. Williams
Nancy E. O’Malley
District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney Alameda County * * *
Kim Wells
Executive Director
Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence
Oliver J. Williams, Ph.D.,
Executive Director
Institute on DV in the African American Community
Professor, School of Social Work
University of Minnesota
Others have different opinions on both this initiative // alliance, and on District Attorney Nancy E. O’Malley, as I’ve seen before.  Commenter “Steve White” (“boatbrain” user name) tells his story from 2006-2007 – -and he seems to be quite the investigator.  hover cursor — I pasted all the comments into link in case the link becomes extinct…”    I note he was arrested and talked about “spurious harrassments.”  This “justice center” is a jobs perk for those in the circle, a retirement plan for Casey Gwinn, and an attempt is being made to standardize the model in California just now.  It’s the LAST thing citizens actually need who are seeking justice!  — combo.  I’m also thinking of starting a boycott Verizon move, knowing how it’s sharing the reputation for helping victims by funding stuff like this.  From the Steve White link, comments date to 2007, and relate to this same topic:
The hiring of Nadia Lockyer seems to violate state law. Under California Government Code Section 87100, an elected official is not allowed to “influence” a decision which will benefit a member of his immediate family financially. 

Under the California Constitution, Tom Orloff is subordinate to Bill Lockyer. How can any subordinate not be “influenced” by the fact that one applicant is his boss’ wife? 

Also, the Family Justice Center Nadia Lockyer was hired to receives Federal grant money. It appears the rules for spending that money may also have been violated. The applicable rule is one which requires any decision made by a state official which will effect him or his immediate family financially shall be “an arm’s length transaction” where he does not have any direct influence over it.

But again, Bill Lockyer is Tom Orloff’s boss, so how can Tom Orloff be at “arm’s length” from Lockyer? 

Anyone wishing to contact me for updates should email boatbrain@aol.com

THAT was all an aside.  After some years looking at these groups (and knowing that none have provided any significant help to women challenged AFTER filing for their protection, from losing their children improperly later, anyhow) –it’s a sorry situation.

/ / / / / / / / / /

ANYHOW, in the process of simply networking locally (that’s called paying attention to people that cross my path in the course of daily life, and sometimes hearing their stories….) . . . . . we were looking for a certain attorney who was defending yet ANOTHER individual improperly arrested during an unrelated trial — when the apparent issue was complaining about police brutality, then complaining about the destruction of his complaint about police brutality, and so forth.

That information can be found at The Badger Flats Gazette which appears to be this man’s on-line blogging of police brutality and coverup, starting approximately like this:


I am Gene Forte, publisher of the Badger Flats Gazette, that has been exposing public official corruption in Merced and Monterey County.

Since July 2009, I have provided evidence  to the Fresno FBI Office that Merced County law enforcement are covering-up that they falsely arrested and assaulted me at the Los Banos Courthouse and the Merced Courthouse.

They did it to intimidate me.  I was not a criminal defendant going to the courthouses for an arraignment, or to start trouble.

I was arrested at the Merced Courthouse when attending a Case Management Conference as the plaintiff  in the lawsuit I had against Merced County DA Larry Morse.

When I was arrested at the Los Banos Courthouse, I was about to attend a traffic hearing with my minor son.

During the past two years, I have provided the Fresno FBI with approximately 65 pages of evidence of:

1.  Information and audio recordings proving that I was falsely arrested and assaulted by the deputies.

2.  Grand Jury Tampering by Merced County Counsel James Fincher of the investigation of my arrest.

3.  Proof that the Merced County Sheriff’s Department Citizen Complaint about the  false arrest had not been investigated and disappeared.

4.  Confirming that the FBI Was Ordered Not to Investigate Color of Law Abuses by Merced County 

Fresno FBI Agent Robinson,  referred to the above as  a ” stack of information.”

There is no voluminous stack as you can see from the fax cover indicating the number of pages.

Agent Robinson was saying that just to be insulting and demeaning.

I am currently scheduled to go to trial in March to defend against the charges of my arrest.

 – – –

Merced County DA Morse told me that no charges would be filed against me provided I didn’t file litigation against them for police brutality.

I told him in polite terms to go to hell.


While I pick up the tone of the blog (it’s full of graphics and illustrations), this is not my case, except that it’s clear that a real habit of rounding up whistleblowers and doing things to silence them and just “lose” their complaints is becoming just too routine.
So here’s another one — which is how I learned about “Sassowers” and the Center for Judicial Accountability
HERE is a November 17, 2004 letter from a Southern California Attorney on behalf of “Elena Sassower” who apparently was incarcerated for speaking these 23 words in a Public Hearing.   The letter describes the situation, as the attorney writes “President Bush” and “Sen. Orrin Hatch” about the situation and asks them to release her before Thanksgiving.  The letter also summarize his previous, 11/8/2004 letter.
It is self-explanatory, and short enough . . .  On 5/22/2003, in a PUBLIC HEARING on the Judicial Confirmation, she said these 23 words, from the back of the room, and respectfully:

Mr. Chairman, there’s Citizen’s Opposition to confirmation of Judge Wesley based on his documented corruption as a New York State of Appeals Judge. May I testify?

see the link for more details, or look up on-line yourself.
Here’s the opening comments from her 2004 “trial” posted at http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/sassower_04a.htm

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

First Amendment,  U.S. Constitution

Having failed to elicit any response from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with whom she corresponded concerning her opposition to the confirmation of Judge Richard Wesley to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Elena Ruth Sassower journeyed to Washington to attend the Committee’s hearings on May 22, 2003.  The Committee was ready for her.  Denied the opportunity to participate in the “public hearing,” Sassower rose from her seat upon adjournment and requested permission to make a statement, whereupon she was handcuffed, jailed, and eventually put on trial for “Disruption of Congress.”  Her trial commenced on April 14, 2004 in D.C. Superior Court in front of a jury, Judge Brian F. Holeman presiding.  Sassower’s prepared opening statement to the jury is reprinted below.

My name is Elena Ruth Sassower, and I am the criminal defendant charged with “Disruption of Congress.” As you know, I am acting pro se, which means I am representing myself. Since I am not a lawyer, Mr. Goldstone is assisting me as my attorney-advisor. The reason I am representing myself is because this is a case about fundamental citizen rights — and, in such a case, I felt it appropriate that one citizen speak directly to other citizens.
You are not here because you have nothing else to do. You all have busy lives, and you have taken time from your work responsibilities and family obligations to be here. It is, after all, your civic responsibility, living in a country whose founding document — our U.S. Constitution — begins with words which our Founding Fathers wrote large, “We the People.” So, too, I am here because of my civic responsibility. Not because I had nothing else to do on May 22, 2003 — or because it was easy for me to travel from New York to Washington to be at the Senate Judiciary Committee on that date.
Nothing that is said in these opening statements is evidence. The evidence comes from the witness stand. I promise you that this criminal defendant will be embracing her right to take the stand in her own defense. Therefore, it would be wasteful and disrespectful of your time and that of the Court to make a lengthy opening statement — which is not evidence. Better to reserve it to when I can speak under oath.
However, I will tell you — and will prove to you over the course of the next few days — that the criminal charge against me is not just bogus, but malicious.

Apart from everything else, the evidence will show that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing to confirm New York Court of Appeals Judge Richard Wesley to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was already over when, as coordinator and co-founder of the Center for Judicial Accountability, I rose on behalf of the citizens of New York State and the Second Circuit to respectfully request to testify with “citizen opposition” to Judge Wesley’s confirmation to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This, based on his documented corruption as a judge on New York’s highest state court — our New York Court of Appeals.

The evidence will also show that at the Senate Judiciary Committee — if not at every other committee of the Senate and House — it is unprecedented to arrest a citizen for respectfully requesting to testify at a public committee hearing, even when it is not over.

This is how I came to learn about CJA (although it turns out I’d breezed past some of the related websites over time, seeking help for my own case):  here’s an After and Before photo of Ms. Sassower, in which we learn she was a 48 yr old Brown graduate and Hebrew School teacher, for Pete’s sake!
Judicial Watch
Citizen Activist & CJA Founder is released
from D.C. jail after serving 179 days for respectfully
requesting to testify at a U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Public Hearing.

Thursday, December 23, 2004
Contact: Harold Somer, 212 541 4838
or cell phone 646 236 6492
CJA: 914: 997-8105
email:  judgewatch@aol.com

Washington D.C. —   Prisoner of Conscience Elena Ruth Sassower, who has been called “the Rosa Parks of the judicial reform movement” for her efforts to get rid of “back of the bus” justice, was released today from the DC Jail in Washington DC 20003.   48-year old Brown University graduate, Hebrew School teacher, and youth leader, has served an unprecedented six month sentence for a “Disruption of Congress” charge in violation of First Amendment rights.
. . . .
Judge Wesley was one of five judicial nominees of President Bush, whose nominations were before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Wesley’s was a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviews federal district court appeals, including from New York. All five were confirmed after a two hour “rubber stamp” hearing, with politically pre-arranged guaranteed confirmation, Ms. Sassower’s was the lone voice to express intended opposition at the Public Hearing.
{{Apparently no one else was paying attention, or they were too busy?  or too afraid?}}

In a statement issued by Doris L. Sassower, Cofounder and Director of the Center,** which has been documenting judicial corruption for years, she says: “I am very proud of my daughter’s triumph of endurance to withstand the heinous conditions to which she was wrongfully subjected in Jail. We should honor her heroism and courage in standing up to governmental tyranny for all Americans, performing their duty as citizens to defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights here at home. Our First Amendment was designed to protect Americans from abusive police state tactics employed to suppress legitimate and properly expressed dissent. On the law and the facts, the government had no criminal case. What it had was a judge who was a political puppet and showed his bias from start to sentence.
And this is how I learned where Elena got some of her courage (and knowledge) from — her mother is an attorney as well.  Er, WAS….
READ ON, from the “OUR HISTORY” section of “CENTER FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY,” (inc. in 1994 in New York — and I checked).  They were tired of the party politics of tradeoffs which included Judge-ships as part of party politics:
From  CENTER FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY  (color-coding is mine, to help keep the parties & issues straight)

What began as a local effort by a group of citizens to fight political manipulation and dishonesty in local judicial elections has become the impetus for a national organization.  

In 1989, the Ninth Judicial Committee, a grass-roots group in the Ninth Judicial District of New York State, just north of New York City, was formed to do something about written Deal between the Democratic and Republican parties trading seven judgeships over a three-year period. By the Deal, the parties agreed to “cross-endorse” the same judicial candidates, effectively disenfranchising voters of their constitutional right of election — the major party slates being identical.

The Deal, which also provided for contracted-for resignations to create new judicial vacancies and a split of patronage, was thereafter implemented at judicial nominating conventions that violated the most basic Election Law safeguards. The Governor, the State Board of Elections, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and bar associations refused to investigate.

Consequently, in 1990, the Ninth Judicial Committee spearheaded litigation to challenge the Deal and the judicial nominating conventions. The litigation was dumped by the courts in decisions which violated fundamental legal standards and falsified the factual record.   

In the ensuing years, the Ninth Judicial Committee worked tirelessly to expose the political corruption of judicial elections in New York, as well as of the so-called “merit selection” of judges to New York’s highest court.  In that connection, in 1993, we twice testified before the State Senate Judiciary Committee. 

The Ninth Judicial Committee also undertook a ground-breaking six-month investigation of the federal judicial nominations process. Our fully-documented study, submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1992, established the deficiencies of the screening process upon which the President makes his nominations of our lifetime federal judges. In 1993, we presented that study and other documentary evidence to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal to refute its methodologically-flawed report as to the adequacy of existing mechanisms for disciplining federal judges.

By 1993, the Ninth Judicial Committee, having far transcended its local origins, inspired the formation of the Center for Judicial Accountability (CJA), which became formally incorporated in 1994.


If the screening process for the US President to nominate LIFETIME federal judges is deficient — and how many parents, others, with serious issues — hope to present them at the FEDERAL level which deals with serious issues, like civil rights violations, or other violations of FEDERAL (US) law — then what hope remains for justice?   We have hoped to get beyond cronyism in local counties –sometimes even states — but if the FED judge-ships are gone, then what hope is there for the entire system?
In 2003 & 2004, the Judiciary Committee then in session made it clear EXACTLY what it felt about women (these WERE women…) speaking “out of turn” even if they had every right to speak.  Perhaps their insistence on their First Amendment Right might be contagious and others might catch it — so Lock Her Up it was (this happens to Hims as well, we know).  She was also asked as condition of her (Elena’s) release to sign some totally unacceptable conditions, including “anger management classes” which the attorney writing out then-President Bush (in a  footnote) likened to Soviet indoctrination camps.
WHICH is basically the same idea, and where this is — FYI — headed, unless PEOPLE (as in “we, the…”) stop it!    This was in Bush’s FIRST administration, and he’d already set up that faith-based office, too.
ANYHOW — here comes CJA and they are speaking up.  They have FIRST-hand experience of retaliation by judges upon their lives, and so mince no words in dealing with the problem.  Here’s Elena’s mothers prior experience (also overlaps with the timeframe of the Ninth Judicial Committee).
Much of the material re:  DORIS L. SASSOWER is posted right on the CJA site.  Here’s a 1989 letter stating she’s a member in good standing of the American Bar Foundation (Exhibit B-2)  She has been concerned about JUDICIAL SELECTION PANELS since 1971 (funny how many of us even think about that?  Are we that involved in our local government?) .  Here’s a Letter to the Editor (June, 1991 — 20 years later) on Cross-Endorsements .

This shows how her law license was suspended:


indefinitely, and


. . .with no notice of charges,

no hearing,

no findings of professional conduct,

and no reasons.

The op ed, written three years AFTER, updates us, that there has been allowed:

no hearing on the basis of suspension, and

no appellate review.

And then she asks:  “CAN THIS HAPPEN IN AMERICA?”
Because obviously it did.   At the time her license to practice was suspended, she was pro bono in a voting rights case about this cross-endorsement practice.   It also said she had a career history of family law reform and equal rights.
And we wonder why some family law attorneys tend to sell us short on their demands.  They want to keep practicing!
(October 26, 1994 — what a Halloween Nightmare for her.  This is also the year the the Violence Against Women Act was passed in Congress….)
. . . . . . . . . Doris Sassower was honored as an early feminist, too, in fact among “Feminists Who Changed America:   1963-1975
I imagine Rick Santorum would call her “radical” even now, about 40 years later…..  But then again, isn’t he IN his forties?
(Please do click on it and see the photo of Ms. Sassower with Gloria Steinem.  For a reminder, in 2005, or so, Gloria Steinem also had a letter demanding some accountability on the HHS spending towards fatherhood funding, IF I remember it right….)

WPCNR LEGACIES OF WHITE PLAINS. From Center for Judicial Accountability. December 7, 2006: Doris L. Sassower, of White Plains, NY, a leading feminist lawyer who, at 35, was the youngest President of the New York Women’s Bar Association, is profiled in the just- published book, Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975. “The women’s movement was, apart from the civil rights upheaval, the major social revolution of the 20th century,” says Sassower.

White Plains’ Doris Sassower, right, with the feminist icon, Gloria Steinem at a reception at Columbia University, celebrating the publication of Feminists Who Changed America. Photo, Courtesy Center for Judicial Accountability.

The book, edited by Barbara J. Love, was released on November 13. Publication was celebrated with an all-day gala event at Columbia University and Barnard College in NYC, sponsored by the Veteran Feminists of America. The program included a symposium on the women’s movement at Columbia Faculty House, followed by a reception hosted by Barnard President, Dr. Judith Shapiro, and dinner honoring Sassower and feminists such as Gloria Steinem.

Sassower battled her own profession for years, and galvanized bar leaders into action that won greater equality between the sexes in and outside the legal profession. In 1993, {{actually, 1994}} she co-founded the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, based in White Plains, NY, which she describes as “documenting the corruption of our federal, state, and local judicial nominating processes for appointment, as well as for election, and of all remedies for redress of judicial abuse and other misconduct.” Find out more at http://www.judgewatch.org

Her articles, speeches, and legal cases challenging sexism, as well as other papers, are archived at the Schlesinger Library of Harvard University.


Here’s some of her credits (from same link).  I’ll use the quotation mark:

Sassower, Doris L. (1932 – ) It was her “second-class citi- zen” experience at NYU Law School as one of six women in the 1955 class that turned Sassower into a future leader of the women’s movement. By 1968, at age 35, Sassower was elected president of the New York Women’s Bar Association. Her 1968 Trial Magazine article, “What’s Wrong with Women Lawyers?” concluded that nothing whatever was wrong with women lawyers but the discrimination against them in the legal profession, reflecting the societal sexism of the time.

In February 1969, Sassower presented these “radical” views to the National Conference of Bar Presidents, the first woman ever invited to do so.

In that same year, four years prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, Sassower led the New York Women’s Bar Association to become the first bar association to endorse repeal of New York’s abortion law. In April 1970, Sassower co-convened a national conference on Breaking Down the Barriers in the Professions. More than 500 professional and academic women from across the country and abroad listened to documented reports on the unequal status of women in America. This, she says, led to the formation of the Professional W omen’s Caucus, the first respected professional support for what became known as the women’s movement. In 1971, as head of PWC’s legal arm, Sassower filed a class action complaint against every American law school receiving federal funds, based on their identified discrimination against women.

Sassower brought a test case under NYC’s human rights law and made new law for women by expanding city and state jurisdiction to include financial institutions and credit houses under the rubric “public accommodations.” In 1972, she became the first woman practitioner nominated at a judicial convention for the New York Court of Appeals. She also became the first woman named to the New York State Bar Association’s judiciary committee, serving for eight years. Sassower’s advocacy skills transformed the world for women and men, particularly in family law.

It’s in this arena of family law it gets interesting:

By the early 1970s, she had become known as “the mother of joint custody,” also arguing-well before the U.S. Supreme Court so ruled that statutory denial of alimony to men was unconstitutional sex- stereotyping. In 1977, Harvard Law School hung her portrait as part of its 25th anniversary celebration of its admission of women. Her pioneering efforts have been recognized nationally. In 1981, NY State NOW honored her with a Special Award for “outstanding achievements on behalf of women and children in the area of family law.” Since her retirement from law practice, Sassower has worked, pro bono, as co-founder and director of the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. In 1997, she won a national Giraffe Award, given to those who “stick their necks out for the Common Good.” In addition to her J.D. from NYU Law School (1955), Sassower holds a BA from Brooklyn College (1954). She has three children. Archives: Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Cambridge, MA. (ABS)

Love, Barbara, ed. Feminists Who Changed America 1963-1975. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006

This is where it becomes interesting, where this Equal Custody cuts across domestic violence protections, and harms situations where one parent is abusive, particularly notable in marriages or partnership which are in either a backwater or a backlash to feminism, and so even more restrictive on the women during marriage, including their ability to work.   In this circumstance, the “Equal Parenting” theme — shared by men’s rights groups and fatherhood promotion, and now ensconced into welfare policy under “access/visitation” has created another type of divide between certain feminists and mothers struggling to protect their children in the same family law courts. ..      The reasoning here simply didn’t take into account that the family law arena would absorb criminal matters, and treat them (again) as PRIVATE matters, which they are not.
So I found THIS link (1970s) very interesting, part of an interview of Doris Sassover, from 1977:

“By and large [the women’s movement]

has hurt women in divorce court more than it has helped them.”

Why? Because there is still an ingrained male chauvinism in our court system resulting from judges who punish women for not conforming to their own standards of behavior—wives who have asserted themselves in order to have careers or more than one role. Women on the bench are often of the same generation and no different. Aren’t things better for women in states with no-fault divorce laws?

One must differentiate between no-fault divorce, where fault is not a factor in a separation, and fault as a factor in the award of alimony. No-fault divorce, of which I am in favor, is a humane approach, but in some states it has been adopted without sufficient thought. The new laws simply permit husbands and wives to terminate a marriage unilaterally without providing for financial security or property rights for the wife.What about the stereotype of the divorced man who complains about being “taken to the cleaners”?That is a popular idea, but it’s a myth…

NOTE:  this was 20 years before welfare reform, and we can see a dollar went further in those days — average attorney cost $100/hour ???

Who Should Pay Alimony?  Divorce Lawyer Doris Sassower Offers a Surprising Answer

By Sally Moore, Dick Friedman

Currently, one out of three American marriages fails. When it happens, lawyers—at fees averaging $100 an hour—try to untangle the two knottiest and frequently bitterest problems divorce brings: child custody and alimony. In the case of alimony, both men and women charge that the present laws are economically and socially unjust, and many states have enacted or are pondering changes in legislation. According to New York attorney Doris Sassower, 44, even the best-meaning proposals are often based on myths and sometimes make the aftermath of a divorce worse—especially for women. Past president of the New York State Women’s Bar Association, Sassower has been a lobbyist for women’s rights legislation, but because in her legal practice she represents both sexes, she prefers to be called a “human rights attorney.” She is married to a lawyer and is the mother of three girls. {{who are the others, I wonder now, in 2012!}} In her Park Avenue office, Sassower discussed alimony with Sally Moore and Dick Friedman of PEOPLE.
What are the changes you see in alimony law? Most states are catching up with the idea that divorce laws should be de-sexed—that sex should not be the criterion for an award of alimony, nor should the award be based on fault but on the economics of the situation. How do new trends in alimony affect child custody? 

More and more men are assuming the child-rearing roles and asking for exclusive or joint custody of children. In such cases, it is justifiable for a man to ask for alimony and child support. 

Are women taking a greater initiative in seeking divorce? 

Yes. An increasing number of women want a divorce, particularly in marriages of long standing, and their husbands not only don’t want divorce but fight desperately to prevent it. I have handled any number of cases where the men will not let go to the point where women are so wretched they are willing to forget what the law entitles them to. 

Why are men resisting divorce? 

It’s a blow to their male egos. It isn’t possible for them to think their wives no longer want to live with them. They rationalize by saying they can’t afford two households. That’s a valid argument, but often not the true issue. 

Why have these changes been so long in coming? 

Because there is a legal tradition of divorce being a battleground. For example, in New York State, until 1966 adultery was the only grounds for divorce. **This set up the ugliest situations, all unnecessary because inevitably there were other reasons to dissolve the marriage. 

{{**only reason allowed in the Bible, that I’m aware of, either..  Then again, at the time, the penalty for adultery was death by stoning..}}
How often is alimony awarded? A recent national report concluded that alimony is awarded in only 14 percent of divorce cases. Moreover, the bulk of alimony awards are totally inadequate, and enforcement is a travesty. The same study concluded that only 46 percent of women awarded alimony collect it regularly. The process of collection is like rolling stones up a hill. Why are women unjustly treated? 

Quite simply, in many states the laws are an obscenity. In some states, there are no provisions for an equitable division of marital assets. They are distributed basically in accordance with whoever owns the title to the property—usually the husband. In New York still, if a husband can prove his wife guilty of one act of misconduct—regardless of his actions or what provoked her—she loses all chances of alimony. And if the case has to be litigated, a woman often can’t find a lawyer to represent her. She has no money, and all the marital assets are in the husband’s name. I have seen millionaires’ wives in that situation. 

Don’t husbands have to pay their wives’ attorneys’ fees? 

Counsel fees are awarded at the discretion of the court. That usually takes months, and often the amount is so small it deters a worthwhile attorney. 

Has the women’s movement helped? 

By and large, it has hurt women in the divorce court more than it has helped them. 

SO, interesting, huh?  I see two things — that the domestic violence advocates appear not to have been talking too diligently to these feminists, and the latter may have not understood that by the 1990s (if not late 1980s) we (the US) were in a definite “Jim Crow” era as to women’s rights as actually having merit.  Also recall that by the 1980s, the Internet boom had not yet taken off (far as I know).  The country had only recently been taken off the gold standard, etc.    As of the 1990s fatherhood and the fatherlessness crisis was up and running.  I didn’t notice because was in my own abusive marriage by then, but I sure did notice that there was a serious backlash to anything smacking of independent thought or action, based on my gender and talked about as such.  It took YEARS to get free, and now I have to turn the TV on and listen to a male-dominated religion, with a Republican Primary figurehead, spouting off about how forcing religious groups to violate their “conscience” by allowing women contraception (see top issue, where the 19 year old mother of two was raped by the police officer.  Under Santorum, she’d have to bear that guy’s child too, no doubt….).
What a situation, for this person to then witness her own daughter incarcerated for about six months primarily for SPEAKING and for STANDING ON HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (first amendment) in a PUBLIC HEARING!
People who have been through such things –as both Sassowers have, it seems — do not go for “train the judge” theory as do the Center for Judicial Excellence groups and friends, which is the general theme in their conferences, and publications — that experts such as ourselves have to train others to detect domestic violence in a custody matter (OH?) . . ..   Not that the judges actually might be dishonest, corrupt, or even on the take . . . . .
HERE (from the site) is a partial (the top) list of what the CJA actually does — they focus on the JUDICIARY which I think is appropriate — they do more  than complain about “Battered Mothers Losing Custody” (even though battered mothers do lose custody) — they focus about process and actually have sensible (to me) solutions:
They do not, as CJE seems to recommend, seem interested in forming more task forces and commissions, and actually think this will change something.

A national, nonpartisan,
nonprofit citizens’ organization
documenting how judges break the law
and get away with it.

Our Mission . . .

To improve the quality of our judiciary by removing political considerations from the judicial selection process and by ensuring that the process of disciplining and removing judges is effective and meaningful.

What We Do . . .

  • Educate the public about the paramount importance of the judiciary and its role in protecting our constitutional form of government.

  • Document the nature and extent of judicial incompetence, abuse, and dishonesty and the failure of judicial conduct commissions and screening panels to protect the public.

  • Network judicial activists and legal reform groups around the country to promote citizen involvement, concerted action, and protection for judicial “whistleblowers”.

(etc.  /ENDQUOTE]
ALSO, a seemingly related (or, working along the same lines) group, explains why GRAND JURIES DO NOT WORK and what is the real purpose of COMMISSIONS FOR JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE (whose function is to whitewash complaints the public, including even police officers, and insulate the judiciary from the effect of any CITIZEN-controlled, versus JUDICIARY-controlled, Grand Jury).
J.A.I.L. recognizes this can be achieved only through making the Judicial Branch of government answerable and accountable to an entity other than itself. At this time it isn’t, resulting in the judiciary’s arbitrary abuse of the doctrine of judicial immunity, leaving the People without recourse when their inherent rights are violated by judges.
Why Grand Juries Do Not Work
(By Ron Branson – J.A.I.L. Founder & CIC)
The other day, while sitting in a restaurant, Barbie said to me, “Look, someone left a newspaper,” and she handed me the Sunday Los Angeles Times. As I took it, out fell a center section entitled, “Civil Grand Jury – Los Angeles County 2003-2004. Final Report – June 24, 2004.” Ironically, this “Final Report” is only published once a year, and here it was in my hand as if the Lord wanted me to see it. I left the entire paper at the restaurant and took only this report. I already knew I had in my hands the makin’s for a very good J.A.I.L. News Journal.
. . . .{{so we deduce Mr. Branson is a believer.  however, that’s not why I’m posting this here.  I’m posting it because it answers MANY questions I’ve had about where should (what’s left of life energies) focus be put, when it comes to reform? Because it’s increasingly clear that too many judges KNOW they are totally out of control, and don’t seem to care much about it, either.  More upcoming on that topic soon…}}
Ah, we now have learned that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is hand-picked by the judges, their foreperson is selected by the presiding judge, and the Supervising Judge oversees the Grand Jury. Yes, folks, it is judges both coming and going when it comes to the Grand Jury. It is virtually a hand-picked committee by the judges, for the judges, and of the judges, and they even oversee it. But hang on to your hats, there is more shocking news forthcoming about these judges before I lower the boom in this Report.) I’m saving the best for last.
We all know that Grand Jurors are autonomous, that is, they can think for themselves, act for themselves, and they can follow corruption no matter where it goes – right?  There is no one within their territorial jurisdiction that is beyond their reach. At least that is what we have thought. But wait a minute. We are told in this report, “The Civil Grand Jury cannot investigate the Judiciary.” What’s that? Judges are the only branch of government within its territorial jurisdiction that is off-limits to them. Let me quote that again, “The Civil Grand Jury cannot investigate the Judiciary.” Notwithstanding anything these judges do, this Grand Jury cannot investigate them, for they have no jurisdiction, and these judges enjoy immunity regardless of how corrupt they become.
This will take some reading and thinking — and I’m not going to spoonfeed it a lot more to readers.  Chew your own meat!    But it’s clear situations are beyond “out of control” — we are heading towards what a friend of mine recently called, becoming in the US, a “Banana Republic”  (look it up!).
Based on the power — currently being freely exercised — by judges to terrorize individuals not just IN their courtrooms on some cause, but even those that are NOT engaged in litigation presently — and to attempt to seriously silence whistleblowers with incarceration, including young or old, and male or female — (that goes for the judges, too) — and to totally take justice into their own hands, and conference nationally about HOW TO KEEP IT THERE — I think that things have to change.  Fast.
By the grace of God (and if I get the work done!) — within the next week I intend to post some sites outlining the development of “judicial commissions” statewide, as well as the gradual implementation across the US of the Department of Children and Family Services in various executive departments of the states.  I have been seeing how the offices are being used by interests outside the state to standardize justice according to a Corporate/Foundation/Government (i.e. ,Federal Government) wide statute, and really, truly prepare the US as a country to blend in with other countries who do not have bills of rights, who DO have national churches or religions, some of them horribly abusive towards women, and in general remove the concept of individual rights from the face of the planet, except when it pleases those who have the power to call up on that tune to keep it.
J.A.I.L. acronym is not saying, go around jailing judges.  it’s reminding us that we have this power to put them in jail should it become necessary to criminal behavior (and failing to get in line with the Constitution).  It also is a reminder that this is what judges are doing to people, without cause — especially people critiquing them, or speaking out against serious taxpayer fraud and violations of their own state constitutions.  Which brings us to Richard Fine case too — and he spent 18 months, not 180 days — in coercive solitary confinement, got disbarred also, and was economically hurt (he was married, they lost their house, I heard) — for being “vexatious” litigant.
By the way (I didn’t post the link, but found it on Justia) this was also leveled against Ms. Sassower (at the time divorced) and Ms. Sassower (Brown grad) also — but that’s another day.   I can see they were definitely a thorn in the flesh, which is as it should be.  Often our so-called short suits are really our best fighting points…..
[QUOTE, from the J.A.I.L. site:]

Lives and finances are being ruined, properties are being lost, innocent people are going to jail, and families are being torn apart and destroyed.

Attorney Richard Fine was in for jail for fifteen months beginning March 4, 2009 because of his discovery of illegal payoffs by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges as annual salary bonuses. These payoffs began in the late 1980’s. Because of Richard Fine a hurried attempt to make these payments retroactively legal was made with the passage of California Senate BillSBx2-11


Here he is, apparently, being led off:

Please Sign Petition – Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición – Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing. 

Richard Fine – 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken “not permitted” payments (called by media “bribes”). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed “retroactive immunities” (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine –


SPEAKING OF UPCOMING PRESIDENT’S DAY — a NJ MOTHER, desperately trying to get a restraining order because boyfriend had threatened to kill her if she terminated the relationship, choking her, was told no cops available, it was a holiday — “take it to family court.”

NOTE:  The Domestic Violence and for the most part, the Professionalized “protective parent” industry treated Mr. Fine’s case like dirt — basically ignoring it.  While people all over the country, men and women, are going to jail over child support, or reporting abuse — certain entities ,year after year, picked certain poster child (or adults, as the case may be) they wanted everyone to free, including “FREE ELSA NEWMAN.”   I find this odd….  What about the person who caught California withholding millions of collected child support distributions from needy families?  Doesn’t he merit a little protest?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
~Thomas Jefferson, “The Declaration of Independence.”

Ron Branson explains how his experience of being tasered by LAPD relates to his formation of J.A.I.L. — no decision was rendered in his suit, so he could not appeal (it’s starting to sound familiar)  Link also has video of man with (it says) pregnant wife and baby in car being tasered painfully for asking what he was being stopped for.
The Police are there to serve and protect.  Here’s what happened in 2010 when a young mother, of a young daughter (not yet 4 months old) pleaded for help, to save her child’s life — when the father had, after she fled him (which he threatened to kill her for doing, allegedly) begun to include the child in his threats.  She knew about protective orders and BEGGED for one — but it was a holiday:
[QUOTE:]Courthouse News Service
Cops’ Day Off May Have Been a Fatal Mistake


NEWARK (CN) – A grieving mother says in Federal Court that an abusive ex-boyfriend threw their infant daughter over a bridge and into the icy Raritan River after police officers refused to intercede because of the Presidents Day holiday.
Venetta Benjamin claims that her relationship with Shamsiddin Abdur-Raheem became physically and verbally abusive about one month after she learned she was pregnant.
{{which is often when such abuse begins}}
Benjamin says she fled to her mother and then to the East Orange Police Department (EOPD) when the threats became more frequent and started to involve her daughter.
     Benjamin says she tried to get a domestic violence temporary restraining order (DV-TRO) against Abdur-Raheem on Feb. 15, 2010, but the attempt failed because it was Presidents Day.
“Despite entreaties by Venetta for protection for herself and Zara, EOPD personnel attending the front desk turned her away,” the complaint states. “They claimed due to the President’s Day holiday they could not help her and directed Venetta to report to the Superior Court of New Jersey Family Division-Essex County on February 16, 2010, to seek a DV-TRO.”
East Orange personnel “failed to contact the on-duty judge assigned to handle application for DV-TROs,” Benjamin claims.
But when Venetta went to the courthouse the next day, leaving her mother to look after Zara, Abdur-Raheem “forcefully kidnapped Zara,” according to the complaint.
“While on the Garden State Parkway, Shamsiddin stopped his car on the Driscoll Bridge and tossed Zara off the bridge into the frigid water of the Raritan River below which resulted in Zara’s death,” the complaint states.
     At the time of her death, Zara was three days shy of turning 3 months old.
The American writer: O. Henry (William Sydney Porter, 1862–1910),
coined the phrase banana republic.



banana republic is a politically unstable country that depends heavily on exports of a limited resource (e.g. fruits or minerals), typically having a heavily impoverished lower class ruled by a much smaller wealthy elite. In political science it is more precisely defined as being dependent upon limited primary productions, and being ruled by a plutocracy that exploits the country by means of a politico-economic oligarchy.[1]

The term banana republic originally denoted the fictional “Republic of Anchuria”, a “servile dictatorship” that abetted (or supported for kickbacks) the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.[1] In U.S. politics, the term banana republic was a political descriptor first used by the American writer O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1904), a book of thematically related short stories derived from his 1896–97 residence in Honduras, where he was hiding from U.S. law for bank embezzlement.[2] It is generally considered pejorative.

In practice, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country.Kleptocracy, government by thieves, features influential government employees exploiting their posts for personal gain (embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), with the resultant deficit repaid by the native working people who “earn money”, rather than “make money”. Because of foreign (corporate) manipulation, the government is unaccountable to its nation, the country’s private sector–public sector corruption operates the banana republic, thus, the national legislature usually are for sale, and function mostly as ceremonial government.[3]

Do we need much more evidence than that the “RARITAN RIVER BABY-TOSS INCIDENT”  the presence of the Family Courts enables police, who are to arrest for criminal behavior to then be prosecuted by district attorneys, provides them an “easy out”???  Or an indicator that the police and family law elements are indeed as coordinated as the Family Justice Center Alliance wishes them to be, resulting in more dead kids?
Or that restraining orders are no better than the paper they are — or are not — written on, signed by a judge or not signed by a judge?
This was how criminal elements of my case were handled, from the onset of family law case, until TODAY.  Police refused to enforce, and got upset with me when I asked them to, as well.   This includes attempts to REclaim my children after the father had abandoned them, too!   It was Criminal Law + Family Law AGAINST the individual parent, particularly female parents.
We (parents) don’t want to spend our lifetimes trying to sue for damages — we want to spend them with our ALIVE children!

This is a serious problem — and not even mentioned in the Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence!

There IS no alternative when justice is in a chokehold (or tasered, or bought out) than “We, The People” addressing this ourselves, in our proper stance — this is where the power to govern came from, and this is where it can be taken back from, should it turn to tyranny.
However, thanks to the power of media, distraction, confusion, ignorance of our legal rights, and most of all, the power of SILENCE on issues, is creating an increasingly passive population (except when it offends some religious sensibilities, it seems).

This has to change. Or, I suppose the alternative is to give it up and attempt a reverse immigration to a safer country for women, infants, and people who simply hold jobs, support themselves or their families, and are not trying to run the world or establish some universal utopia . . . . a “future without violence” — and without the conflict that comes from protecting one’s rights and confronting fraud, dishonesty, and myths.

Once Again From the Top, Ladies . . . Forget Psychology, Face the Music: It’s About The Business Plan….

with one comment


There is so much really bad social policy flying around, mixed in with politics and religion, I keep having to remove chunks of explanatory material from the middle of my posts, and store them on another one by subject matter.  It’s as though too many basic concepts have not been digested, indications of sleepwalking among hordes of individuals, as indicated by inability to process information and come up with a coherent framework for where it came from.

And no one has time to constantly re-diagram the wheel.

This one was introduction to a post alerting “Battered Mothers (Losing) Custody” to who’s been running their conferences.  Wake up!


This summary is directed to ladies because, for reasons probably relating to the general tendency of culture to assume that women don’t need to be told about the nuts and bolts of . . . .. dollars and cents . . . . when it comes to conferences and writings on WTF happened in the courtroom.  Somehow, men seem to grasp this reality a little better, even though I KNOW many of the mothers involved here actually have worked, if not run their own businesses, or someone else’s.  But collectively, they also apparently thought the United States was a land of equal opportunity simply because we got the vote and some feminists made a difference back in the 1970s, and groups like “Violence Against Women Act” grantees are saying they are stopping Violence Against Women, or are just about to . . . . .

So I’m publishing something of a quick review of how we got Access Visitation and why your court hearing is an out-come based, finance-influenced matter hooked into Federal/State balances and social science theory about what causes poverty, although possibly what’s contributing to it is the concept that people are here on earth to become subjects of (OR facilitate) running social science demonstrations upon them from afar.  From VERY afar . . . .


Once Again from the Top, Ladies. . . . . Wrap Your Heads Around the Business Model, Please!













I’m not spoon-feeding this information by links.  It’s all over my blog, with links.   One of the first organizations that (unnoticed, but unbelievably influential) which, when I saw it, the lights began to come on — was this Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado.    Being somewhat research minded myself, I simply googled the principals and noticed who they were publishing with, which led to the understanding that CPR is the nonprofit and PSI (Policy Studies Inc.) the for-profit.  One evaluates, the other operates — and many publications cooperatively bear both corporation’s names on the front page and at the bottom.   People, this is NOT “rocket science.”  They tell you what they do — just failed to tell you what other pies their principals have their fingers in, or how comprehensive was he original strategy, and how it’s developed:

The Center for Policy Research (CPR) is a private, nonprofit research agency founded in 1981 to work with public and private sector service providers to plan, develop, and test projects that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of human service agencies and the justice, health and education systems. …

Which is to say, they were keeping their options open — wide open! ! !

CPR provides comprehensive consulting, facilitation and survey research services and specializes in demonstration, evaluation, and basic research dealing with a broad array of services including:

  • Childcare and Education;
  • Child Support;
  • Child Welfare;
  • Court Services;
  • Employment Programs;
  • Health and Medical Issues;
  • Incarceration and Reentry;
  • Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution;  
  • Fatherhood and Child Access;
  • Poverty; and
  • Violence and Intimate Partner Violence.

To make contracting with CPR easier for federal government clients, CPR is a Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) and U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) contractor.

The italicized terms above are particularly fatherhood-related.  I don’t know which years CPR added these fields of study; but we do know that “Child Access” is a term from an associated group, “CRC.” .. . .   while these ARE listed alphabetically, I still find it interesting that “violence & IPV” is last.  It could’ve been labeled “abuse” or put the “IPV” first, or used the term “Domestic Violence.”  However, CPR is smart enough to know which gender is the majority in the US Congress, the Supreme Court, and most state-level governments, with whom they work closely.

As this modest website shows (“about us”) (plus, notice subdued colors — no flashy graphics or animations, such as is found at “NFI” or “fatherhood.gov” etc.) — ONLY 7 personnel are involved:  (there were 6 when I first noticed them).  3 Ph.D.’s, an M.A., a MPA, a B.A. and an Office Manager.  And — what’s interesting – all are female.  Now THAT is unusual.  There is a director, and an associated director, and everyone else (except Office Manager) is “Research Associate (or “Assistant.”).   They are Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes and Jane Venohr, as to Ph.D.’s.

Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net identified long ago that Jessica Pearson was also a co-founder of AFCC :

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE.  Pearson/AFCC have been using ther influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS.  She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government program

CPR doesn’t receive major HHS Grants — or even Contracts (USAspending.gov) — it doesn’t need to

  • Total Dollars:$171,514
  • Transactions:1 – 10 of 10
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER CO 80218-1450 DENVER 149387185 $ 997,740




























NEWS-FLASH (From last Friday, Pennsylvania):

The bullying and extreme terrorism in the family court realm has really gotten out of hand.   That ongoing judicial incites some people to kill each other, or blow up their houses with little boys inside, who might not otherwise have done so is just collateral damage in a good cause, fewer mouths to feed, sells newspapers:  

 “This all happened just days after a judge denied Powell custody of his boys. Leach said there was what he called an online cyber bullying effort to keep Powell from getting custody. Leach said he believed this should have played out in the courtroom not online” . . . 

ACOMA, Wash., (ABC 4 News) – A judge ordered that the children of Josh and Susan Powell will stay with Susan’s parents while Josh undergoes psycho-sexual evaluation. Attorneys also discussed pornographic images discovered by West Valley City Police on Josh’s computer, KOMO-TV reported.

“Psycho-sexual evaluation” and Supervised Visitation for the father . . . . after his (missing) wife’s parents got custody of the two boys:

Authorities placed Josh’s two sons in the custody of Susan’s parents after their grandfather’s arrest. The Cox’s attorney, Steven Downing, said that the children were at risk living in Steve’s home with child pornography. However, the judge did grant Josh supervised visitation rights with his son. (just one, or both?)

In a separate issue, a judge issued an injunction forbidding Josh or Steve from publishing the missing woman’s journals.

 Here’s the skinny on “supervised visitation”  — SOMEONE gets paid, but NO ONE really wants this situation — not the person accused of abuse or (as it also can turn out) the person accused of “alienation” for protesting abuse.   The house always wins — but just imagine if instead of this situation, they had finished their investigations, stayed consistent — and either clear the Dad or don’t — but no, here was some nice supervised visitation in an UNcontrolled environment.

Supervised visitation situations are off the chart BAD & a form of extortion, no matter which state one is in.
We had one in California (speaking of missing mothers — Nina Reiser — who went missing on a court-ordered exchange of the children; after her ex was convicted of murder (despite no body) he plea-bargained it down by showing authorities where he’d buried her.).   Another involved an SV person who was under investigation for criminal sexual assault of an animal!   (incidentally, the Commissioner (not Judge) assigning this person, at recommendation of a trusty local Ph.D. custody evaluator — happens to be a prominent AFCC judge and at least formerly on the board of the SF based Kids Turn, which is a “parent education” & access/visitation type nonprofit, see my blog.  DOn’t you think this represents great wisdom?  Having a child supervised by a person who was into sex with animals and a slave/master relationship (being the slave)? ??

Alternately, there’s the run-of-the-mill simply overbilling and financial fraud of some supervised visitation monitors, running nice side businesses, courtesy the local county courthouse and a nice judge.  One in California (1990s), One in New York, 2004?, I’ve mentioned these before; in the second case, it’s clear the judge was referring business to a supervised visitation monitor who was also robbing elderly people’s estates (including after their deaths), more than $30,000.    Or, 2011, Pennsylvania — and THIS time the FBI got involved.  Hover cursor for the gory details, which include parents being overcharged (($65 vs. $20/hour), being forced to pay cash, being refused receipts, etc.     “FBI Investigates Lackawanna County Family Court.”
In part — because what’s up next involves what happened last weekend (Friday) in the same courthouse, where the GAL under investigation is STILL taking cases and charging parents, despite best efforts to stop it on their part: From WNEP.com (and there’s also a video on the link above)>
By Dave BohmanAction 16 Investigates 4:52 p.m. EST, November 17, 2011

More information has been learned about why federal officials are investigating a program in the Lackawanna County family court system.In September, and again this week, FBI agents confiscated records from family court.The guardian ad litem is a court appointed lawyer who represents a child while its mother and father try to settle custody cases.

One or both parents are required to pay the fees for the guardian ad litem’s services. Now, sources tell Newswatch 16, federal agents are looking to see if parents were cheated and the fees were pocketed.  A woman who does not want to be identified because she`s testified to law enforcement agents claims she was cheated out of thousands of dollars during supervised visits with her young son. . . . Court papers show a federal grand jury directed the Lackawanna County courts to give investigators every case supervised by attorney Danielle Ross. She runs the Lackawanna County guardian ad litem program, and assigns caseworkers for supervised visits.

The woman said Ross was the guardian ad litem for her son. The woman claims she was overcharged between $1,500 and $2,000 in the last two and a half years.

From the Lackawanna County Bar Association, I note that (Parent Coordinator Promoter) Anne Marie Termini is Administering the GAL program?

Lackawanna County Guardian Ad Litem Program

Ann Marie Termini, Ed.S., M.S.
Lackawanna County Family Court (963-6512) and Clarks Summit, PA (586-5669)

The current Guardian Ad Litem Program has been in effect for approximately five (5) years.

and, . . . .


The Scranton Area Family Center offers supervised visit services based on the availability of funding.  . . . (my link shows the State-Contracted “Family Centers” and an * by this one shows it also has a Promoting Responsible Fatherhood program.  Someone should look those contracts up!

People willing to go to “DohertyDeceit.com” and look under “Cases” will see that Mr. Pilchesky challenged the hiring of this particular GAL, found out that it was by a certain Judge’s court order, who also happened to be a Child Support Speaker, an AFCC person, and who had, from what I recall, pushed for a Unified Family Court.  ….  Pilchesky v. [GAL, Commissioner, Comptroller & Judge].   Here’s the Hon. Harhut’s order (unsolicited, apparently — at least no grassroots requests for it and CERTAINLY not run by voters first) simply appointing Ms. Ross to get an $18,000/year salary as GAL — dated January 2008.  And on Scranton Political Times/Doherty Deceit section, Kids4Cash AND “co-parenting/Termini” threads you, too, can look at their receipts, thankfully!
So we see three playahs (well, public employees here — although one had no competitive bid, no contract, and no lease for occupying public office space, let alone office staff) — Harhut (the judge), Ross (the GAL and an attorney), and Termini (See degrees — not an attorney, or Ph.D. she has an M.S.) — and this compromises pretty clearly what I call one’s basic “AFCC operating unit”  (you need a Judge, an Attorney to order services, and a psychologist sort to provide them).     And, voila — here are exactly these 3 presenting at NACC conference in Brooklyn, NY (NB Ross was appointed the previous year) 2009:

2 FAmIly

Guardians ad Litem: Bridging the Gap Between High-Conflict** Divorce and Domestic Violence

Hon. Chester Harhut ~ Danielle Ross, JD ~ Ann Marie Termini, Ed.S., MS, LPC

(it also appears that Termini charged Lackawanna county a hotel bill for this conference).

** the AFCC buzz-word.  Actually, it seems they would rather simply get rid of the term “Domestic Violence” (and, particularly, child abuse) and assign conflict moderators, such as themselves, to everyone.
The Hon. Harhut was appointed by the Governor in 1987 and in 1996 he got “administrative and judicial responsibility” for the Newly Created Family Court.  This summary shows a “Classic” AFCC judge, besides which he was also on the “Commission for Justice Initiatives” on “Changing the Culture of Custody” — which it’s clear has been done in this county!   . . . for example:
In his role as Family Court Judge and President Judge, Judge Harhut moved to integrate human services, mental health and drug and alcohol treatment into the legal setting with the objective of alleviating conflict while helping families achieve a permanent solution to family issues. He established a categorical system of conflict with concomitant programming and services to help families in each level of conflict. The theory is that families coming through the court system are in crisis. They need patience, understanding, cooperation and services to help them overcome these difficulties and move them into position to resolve their own disputes.
For certain fees . . . . . and the theory is rather patronizing, don’t you think?
In addition, Judge Harhut is one of the state’s foremost proponents of resolving family conflict through alternative dispute resolution. He is a strong advocate of mediation as an alternative to litigation. Since the introduction of this interplay between the courts, social services, and the community, very positive results have occurred for families and the community. 
(that must be why the FBI had to come in to moderate the “conflicts” parents of both sexes were having with the court professionals! GAL and others who insisted on cash payments and refused to give receipts, plus possibly overbilled . . . .. )
SO, part of this “level of concommitant programming” would naturally be supervised visitation (see father blows up house, killing self and two sons, above), like or not, if you have “conflict” you just might be ordered onto Pay-Per-View of your kids.
Just in case we are still perplexed why there’s such a major interest in this field, see FY2012, the HHS/ACF’s “Justification for Appropriations” request:

The request for the mandatory budget is $34.5 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion from the FY 2011 current law level and includes policy increases of $1.4 billion in FY 2012 and $6.4 billion over five years. The mandatory budget:

• •

Invests an additional $2.billion over ten years in a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative designed to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives.  [[$2 billion/10 years = $2,000,000,000/10= $200,000,000/YEAR . . . ]]  {{A/V grants have been $10 million/year at least, since 1996, but that’s not enough yet ….}}
OR, stated at American Humane Association.org:   Summary of the President’s Proposed FY 2012 Child Welfare Budget

Child Support Enforcement

The Budget includes a Child Support and Fatherhood initiative to promote strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their children, changing policies so that more of fathers’ support reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous enforcement. The Budget increases support for States to pass through child support payments to families, rather than retaining those payments, and requires States to establish access and visitation arrangements** as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives. The Budget also provides a temporary increase in incentive payments to States based on performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency and will foster enforcement efforts. The initiatives would cost $305 million in FY 2012.

**just in case any women thought that access/visitation grants funding went two ways, and might help a separated, child support paying mother regain contact with her estranged children . . . ..   And, in the White House site, this is called “Giving a Hand Up to Low-Income Families” which I call, helping create new low-income families where none existed before:
Promote Fatherhood. The Budget promotes strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for the emotional and financial well-being of their children, changing policies so that more of their support reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous child support enforcement.
{{There seems to be no awareness here that mothers are now paying child support as a result of previous generations of this same theory}}
The Budget provides $1 billion over 10 years to encourage States to pass through child support payments to families rather than retaining those payments.  The Budget also provides $570 million over 10 years for States to provide access and visitation services, which can strengthen a father’s relationship with his children and facilitate the payment of child support.
To help states through difficult fiscal times, in FY 2012 and 2013, the Budget provides an additional $300 million per year for State performance incentive payments, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency. The Budget also provides for $75 million in Responsible Fatherhood grants and $75 million in Healthy Marriage grants in FY 2012.
Our President loves families JUST as much as any Republican contender, and says so on the “issues” link for “Family.”  And of course the best way to strengthen a family is to prop up a father (not a mother, or help HER develop some “assets for independence” — that’s old school):

A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.


Strengthening Families

President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways

Well, anyhow, among the funded services are supervised visitation and parent education, plus counseling.  That’s where these AFCC tactical units come in to “help” more families resolve their conflicts the right way — or the highway.   Did I mention where this money comes from, and can you spell, besides, the public — TANF?
Anyhow, perhaps that’s why we have this multinational SVN (SUpervised Visitation Network) so excited about making sure families are never fully separated, and running nice conferences sbout this, too:


The Supervised Visitation Networkchampions a world in which all vulnerable families have access to safe and quality visitation services.


Mission Statement: The Supervised Visitation Network is an international membership network that establishes standards, promotes education and advances professionalism in the field of supervised visitation.

Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD, a founder of this network, his bio reads in part:  (note the years and the connections)

He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.

From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.

Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.

Other source of grants for Supervised Visitation include from the Office of Violence Against Women, “Safe Havens” grants series.
LOOK — the parents are literally crying out under these grants, they are a farce, and keep people’s tensions very, very high.   They also expand and dilute (at the same time) the authority & responsibility of the courts.    They are a RIDICULOUS concept — and unbelievably egotistical.  Their failures do not seem to stop the funding the next year under “fatherhood promotion = better child support payments = less welfare.”  That’s, sorry, “BS.”

These grants, established under section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2258)—title III, section 469B of the Social Security Act —enable states to establish and administer programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.

The use of the funds in California is limited by state statute to three types of programs:

  • Supervised visitation and exchange services;
  • Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
  • Group counseling services for parents and children.
From the California Site, a little more on their “fact sheets”

Purpose of the Grant Program

The purpose of the federal Child and Visitation Grant Program is “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become actively involved in their children’s lives.

In effect, it increases opportunities for extortion of parents by providers, and fraudulent billing practices, plus the occasional unbelievably avoidable familicide by a variety of creative means from the parent upset at being put on this form of visitation.
LOOK at this description (from California, again) which shows HOW THE MONEY GOES (I can’t speak for other states):

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/avgp.pdf :  (Fact Sheet, June 2011)

 The overarching policy goal of the grant program has been to ensure accessible and available services statewide for low-income families.

Grant Funding Eligibility

  • Family courts throughout California are eligible to apply for and receive Access to Visitation Grant funds. The family law divisions of the superior courts are required to administer the programs

  • COMMENT:  This is unbelievably relevant — the courts get the money for the programs — and they also administer it. This money in California comes (last I heard) to the California Judicial Council, and the next bullet confirms that it’s the AOC who distributes.  There just so happen to be a few AFCC people on California’s AOC….).
  • •Nonprofit agencies desiring to participate as the courts justice partner for direct service delivery are not allowed to apply directly to the AOC for these grant funds but must do so as part of the individual court’s Access to Visitation Grant application. Contract agreements are made only with the designated superior court.
  • •Under the state’s grant award allocation process, funding is awarded to the superior courts through a statewide request-for-proposals grant application process. The funding preference has been for multiyear funding.
  • •The recipients of Access to Visitation grant-related services are low-income separated, separating, divorced, or unmarried parents and their children who are involved in custody and visitation proceedings under the Family Code.


That’s how it works in California.  Let’s see what it was in 2011 — not the largest segment of Marriage/Fatherhood promotion, but it’s still there:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards


2011 1110CASAVP  FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 1 1 ACF 10-08-2010 360709414 $ 928,087 

This is kinda funny because The California Judicial Council – -and the Various Trial Courts throughout the state — are engaged in strident “high-conflict” relationships with each other and protesting a  recent Bill (passed) that distributes more funding actually FOR the trial courts TO the trial courts.

While funding grants to help parents get along with each other better fueled by AFCC personnel whose first words upon joining the group arenot “Ma-ma” or “Da-Da” but “High-Conflict!”


(Hot off “Courthouse Forum News” – this is 2/9/2012…) (Thank you, Courthouse Forum News.  You are a good resource!)


Overholt Quits as Top Court Admin Followed by Longtime Insider Patel

     SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At an emergency meeting of the Judicial Council Thursday, regional administrator Jody Patel was chosen to replace Ron Overholt as interim director of California’s central court bureaucracy.
     Overholt quit suddenly on Thursday morning, saying the job has “become a lightning rod for controversy.”
     Overholt had been in charge of the Administrative Office of the Courts for five months, after working 11 years as deputy director of the agency.
     Patel had worked six years as a regional director after working as the head clerk for Sacramento County Superior Court for five years. Before that, she worked in the lobbying office for the AOC.
     “The position of Administrative Director of the Courts has become a lightning rod for controversy, impacting the focus on budget discussions, Judicial Council governance of the judicial branch, and the AOC itself,” said Overholt in an email sent to the Judicial Council Thursday.
     The former head of the bureaucracy, William Vickrey, left in September of last year (2011), after becoming a focus of criticism on a range of issues, including an ambitious and costly IT system that is used in only a few courts. Overholt had served as his deputy for 11 years, and was said to be in the hunt for the director’s job on a long-term basis.

. . .

Overholt’s departure could take some of the pressure off of the administrative office, which bore the brunt of criticism in floor speeches in the state Assembly before last week’s passage of AB 1208, a measure reforming the financial structure of the courts and diminishing the bureaucracy’ power.

. . .

A group of reform-minded judges called the Alliance of California Judges has often been critical of the agency run by Overholt. They welcomed his departure, saying it opens the door to a “systematic overhaul of a bureaucracy that has caused many to question its competence and ability to spend public dollars prudently.


A little hard to keep track of, however the sequence is:  William Vickrey Quits, leaving Ron Overholt, who lasted 5 months, now it’s Jody Patel.

Here’s from one day earlier — Wednesday:

     SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye slammed the state Assembly in a recent speech to about 100 judges and court clerks, saying the legislators had made “false claims” about the court’s big and powerful bureaucracy.
     The chief justice said she met with the Assembly Speaker John Perez before the Assembly voted last week to pass a bill that would reduce the power of the Administrative Office of the Courts, an agency criticized by trial judges as arrogant and spendthrift.
     “I had frank discussions about what was happening in the judicial branch in 2011,” said the chief justice, “and so was quite surprised to hear on the floor of the Assembly all of the meritless, false claims that were made about the judicial branch and the AOC.”

{{{ . . . This gets interesting, when I learn that the head of Alliance of California Judges is from San Diego (see PLENTY of my blogs), who ought to pay better attention to some of the organizations doing business with their courts, like Relationship Training Institute, Kids Turn SD, and what’s left of the Leucadia-based California Healthy Marriage Coalition (CHMC).  Not to mention, isn’t this where this whole one-stop-justice-shop {{Family Justice Center Alliance or whatever it’s called that’s supposed to be a state and national model for “One-Stop-Justice”}} thing got started too?}}


 The chief justice spoke last week in the auditorium of the State of California Building that serves as headquarters for the central court bureaucracy and is located in downtown San Francisco. The audience of roughly 100 was made up of presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, head clerks and their lieutenants.
     Her speech was videotaped and then a link to the online video was circulated as part of an email newsletter to all the judges in California this week. It is part of a campaign by the bureaucrats to, in their eyes, set the record straight, and, in the eyes of their critics, to continue a pattern of propaganda.
     AB 1208 would require that 100% of the money allocated by the Legislature for operation of the trial courts in fact go to the trial courts. That money totals roughly $1.8 billion a year.


. . . Yes, in our state it WOULD be necessary to write a law insisting that all the money allocated for its intended purpose actually go for that purpose.  I think that’s what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is about, isn’t it?

     The bill would also require that 2/3 of the trial courts approved any major projects started by the central bureaucracy, with voting power apportioned based on population. The provision is driven in large part by an extremely high-priced IT system that is considered a fiasco by many trial judges.
     “AB 1208 helps restore funds that the Legislature designates for the trial courts,” said San Diego Judge Daniel Goldstein. “It’s a systemic approach to having fiscal sanity so trial courts aren’t running out of money.”
     Goldstein is a director of the Alliance of California Judges, a group that supports the bill. His points reflected a frequent argument by trial judges who say the bloated bureaucracy dominates proceedings of the policy-making body for the courts, the Judicial Council.
     “The Judicial Council lacks oversight of the AOC,” Goldstein said. “AB 1208 actually helps the chief. It translates into fiscal reform of the branch in that it gives the chief justice the tools to make sure the trial courts have enough money to operate.”


Anyhow, Access Visitation grants are distributed from this court as described above, for the purposes put into law, and who are we to protest if several of the grantees also just happen to be nonprofits started by AFCC family law judges + AFCC family law attorneys to start with?

AOC Programs and Services

Approximately 750 staff members, with offices in San Francisco, Sacramento and Burbank, serve 11 divisions. These divisions, as the administrative arm of the Judicial Council, are tasked with delivering the following programs and services to the entire California court system, the largest in the nation.

Under the “Service for Families and Children” division, among other paragraphs, we see:

Distributes and administers over$70 million in grants to local courts and court-connected programs. Administers funding for dependency counsel and DRAFT program, Equal Access Partnership grants for legal services agencies, federal and foundation grants for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Office of Violence Against Women, and the Archstone Foundation. {{WHO???}} Manages and implements interagency agreements with the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Department of Child Support Services, Department of Mental Health, Department of Social Services, Office of Emergency Services. Co-administers state drug court dependency counsel collections program.


Supports expansion and enhancement of collaborative justice models through cost effective state and local collaborations with justice system partners.

Finally — in case someone is tempted to say< “what’s CALIFORNIA’s model got to do with my state?”  I notice that (our) CFCC — “Center for Families and Children in the Courts” — is listed in the MacArthur Foundation-sponsored “MODELS FOR CHANGE”  –which I discovered when looking up a radical restructuring of Washington State (around an DSHS and nonprofit started by a judge collaboration); it’s listed HERE as a Model For Change.

So sounds like this MacArthur Foundation is very influential in “Driving” change.    So much for states’ individual involvement with normal, non-aligned citizens. . . .

Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice

Center for Families, Children & the Courts


Department of Justice, MacArthur Foundation Provide $2 Million to Support Juvenile Justice Reform

January 26, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Office of Justice Programs (OJP) January 26, 2012 (202) 307-0703 http://www.ojp.gov


Amazing what the combo of internet (for communications platforms and dissemination of information) + a nice foundation working with networked nonprofits can do to change society. . . . .  Why after all should be we taking orders and clues from ourselves, locally, based on what’s going on within communities?  Rather, let us defer to the tax-exempts and let them collaborate, model, and speed up implementation of change based on models they’ve agreed upon.


March 9, 2011


1300 I Street P. O. Box 903447 Sacramento, CA 94203-4470 Telephone: (916) 445-2021 Fax: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail Address:RCT @doj.ca.gov


RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.


KIDS’ TURN (San Francisco) is marked current, and apparently turned in its 2009 & 2010 RRF’s (state-level filings), but this is not posted yet up on the site:

Registrant Information
Full Name: KID’S TURN FEIN: 943112621
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1657442
Registration Number: 075606
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 6/30/2006 {{??}} Renewal Due Date: 11/15/2011
Registration Status: Current Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal: 2/7/2011
Address Information
Address Line 1: 55 NEW MONTGOMERY STE 500 Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105

Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-09
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-10
Total Assets: $6,284.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $406,085.00
RRF Received: 21-JAN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Related Documents
00387CB6 Founding Documents
00387CB7 RRF-1 2008

Interesting record of diminishing assets here (990 filings): Must be the economy:








Kids Turn CA 2010 $6,284 990EZ 17 94-3112621
Kids Turn CA 2009 $25,000 990EZ 17 94-3112621
Kids Turn CA 2008 $241,882 990 39 94-3112621
Kids Turn CA 2007 $96,127 990 21 94-3112621

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 9, 2012 at 6:55 pm

As Previously Published, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy.” That It’s Corporate and Foundation-Funded NONProfits Collaborating in Private, Closed-Door Sessions, Seeking to Test National Model “Solutions” for a Privately Determined Set of Problems, Hand-delivered to Legislators and/or Chief, Governor-Appointed Executives In the Public Interest and for Its Own Good, which Consistently, Increasingly, Resembles Tyranny (Fascism/Theocracy) is Just Coincidence. (Did I mention Tax-Exempt yet?)

with 2 comments

It’s not “Conspiracy” — the preferred term is  “Collaborations” (linked to Collaborations linked to Collaborations of Experts seeking, ever questing, for the Holy Grail  of a “Solution to End All Solutions.” 

Starting with the income tax (to redistribute wealth AWAY from the wealthy?), through “problem-solving courts,” and Faith-Based Offices.    The motive of all collaborators, without exception, is of course NOT to be questioned by menials (anyone receiving government services in any form and for any reason), OBVIOUSLY it’s because of innate generosity of the whole pack, and desire to end welfare as we knew it *poverty.

Did I read somewhere that the purpose of government is to protect families and end poverty, educate the young, eradicate disease, and run social science demonstrations upon the nation at its expense, discuss the results of these tests in publications most people will not read, and don’t understand is going to drive their futures and restrict their privileges (liberty)?   Because I sure have had a gutful of reading publications that indicate this is EXACTLY what too many seem to believe it is for.


Copyright © 1971 by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham  ISBN: 0899666612

This entire book seems to be available on-line, here

Having been a college instructor, a State Senator and now a Congressman I have had experience with real professionals at putting up smokescreens to cover up their own actions by trying to destroy the accuser. I hope that you will read the book carefully, draw your own conclusions and not accept the opinions of those who of necessity must attempt to discredit the book. Your future may depend upon it.


John G. Schmitz was not exactly portrayed as a nice guy, at least per Wikipedia here.  Also of note, it looks
like one of his sons working for Blackwater.  He fathered two children through an affair with one of his former college students, ending his political career; and didn’t support them.  After their mother died (1994) they went into the care of astrologer Jeanne Dixon.  When SHE died in 1997, they became wards of the state and went to an orphanage.   John Birch society, extreme conservative and so forth.
One of his legitimate daughters was convicted of having sex with one of HER students (except the student was 12 at the time)
later marrying him.
Apparently this man’s son Joseph E. Schmitz was referenced in my post yesterday, in re: “Opus Dei:  The Vatican/Pentagon Connection” by Frank Morales

One current Opus Dei member worth noting is Joseph E Schmitz. A former Pentagon inspector general, he became chief of operations for Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm, back in 2005. While at the Pentagon, he’d been tasked with the job of overseeing all war contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His connection to war profiteers became well known. At least $2 trillion went “missing” from the Pentagon during his watch. Shortly after Schmitz exonerated his friends in the war industry, he announced that he was going to work for Blackwater, where he is today.

In a 2004 speech Schmitz said, “No American today should ever doubt that we hold ourselves accountable to the rule of law under God. Here lies the fundamental difference between us and the terrorists.” Aside from his membership in Opus Dei, Schmitz is also a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a Christian militia formed in the 11th century, before the first Crusades, with the mission of defending territories that the Crusaders had conquered from the Muslims. The Blackwater leadership apparently think they are following in that tradition.

Wikipedia on the son here:
Joseph Edward Schmitz (born on August 28, 1956 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin)[1] is an American lawyer, formerInspector Ge
neral of the Department of Defense and a former executive with Blackwater Worldwide, a private contractor providing security services to the U.S. State Department and the U.S. military.
Joseph Edward Schmitz is the son of the John G. Schmitz, former California State Senator, member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and U.S. Presidential candidate (1972). Schmitz attended Catholic schools as a child and Georgetown Preparatory School **  while his father served in Congress. He holds a Bachelor of Science (1978) from theUnited States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland and a Juris Doctor (1986) from Stanford University. He was on the wrestling team at the Naval Academy.
Georgetown Preparatory:
Georgetown Preparatory School is an American Jesuit college preparatory school for grades 9 through 12. It is the oldest all boys school in the United States[3], and the only Jesuit boarding school in the country. It is located in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington on 90 acres (360,000 m2) in the suburban community of North Bethesda in Montgomery County, Maryland, outside of the District of Columbia.
(this reminds me of former Gov. Keating of Oklahoma, who attended Cascia Hall Preparatory School (prior to Georgetown, the college), except that Georgetown Prep is Jesuit, and Cascia Hall based after the order of Augustine.  Both were all-boys (Cascia Hall, became co-ed and stopped being a boarding school in 1986, long after Gov. Keating was there….)…
Anyhow, as fascinating as all this is, and despite the biographical profile of the person who wrote an intro to this book, I believe its principles are relevant today.  They make sense and almost none of them make it into public dialogue, let alone electoral politics.
The Blackwater Connection is exceptionally disturbing as is my continuing evidence of Catholicism (specifically this Opus Dei) kind in US policies.

“The Knights of Malta are the militia of the Pope, and are sworn to total obedience by a blood oath which is taken extremely seriously and to the death. The Pope as the head of the Vatican is also the head of a foreign national power.”
-”Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences” by Albert G. Mackey 33rd degree Mason, published by the Masonic History Company, Chicago, New York, & London, 1925: (Volume One, pp. 392-95)

(Interesting book — see “The Goddess, the Grail and the Lodge,”  Alan Butler)  (not that all reviews were good — I did read the book — but, for example,
“He uses very solid archelogical and other evidence from the megalithic period in Britain and Ireland and into Egypt, Crete, Malta, et al to prove there is a thread in the fabric of history regarding goddess worship and its ultimate connections thereof to modern religious practice. But, this is NO novel. It is REALITY that spans across thousands of years with a clear thread running through the fabric of history which Mr. Butler refers to as “The Golden Thread”. The reader will learn of a select group of indivduals who have perpetuated this practice throughout the ages.”   AND . . . .

“Alan Butler demonstrates, in the most fascinating manner possible, how an original veneration for a Great Goddess, perhaps as much as 5,000 years ago, never stopped in Western Europe and beyond and he explains how the rise of Christianity tried hard to destroy the Goddess worshipers. But what is most convincing about Alan Butler’s investigation is that it shows, clearly and in an entertaining style, just how important Goddess worship has been and remains to the progress of the world in which we live.”)

Relevance?  Current religion’s (Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) utter hatred of women, and why is this religion so “masculine,” really, and why has it degenerated into essentially dominating the feminine — and particularly, the weak — in society?)  (Just a side-note, there…)


“The painful saga of modern Arab-Muslim history evokes the battles fought in Crusades of the 11th century – when the Knights of Malta began their operations as a Christian militia whose mission it was to defend the land conquered by the Crusaders.

These memories return violently to mind with the discovery of links between the so-called security firms in Iraq such as Blackwater have historic links with the Order of Malta. You cannot exaggerate it. The Order of Malta is a hidden government or the most mysterious government in the world.”
– Jordanian MP Jamal Muhammad Abidat, from an editorial in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan entitled “The Knights of Malta – more than a conspiracy”. Abidat describes the role played by the Knights of Malta during the Crusades, and that the Order is playing a similar role in the Middle East today, citing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Successor to Fascist Dictator Francisco Franco and Knight of Malta, King Juan Carlos,

with Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, [“SMOM”]  Andrew Cardinal Bertie, 2000

((previously noted, Opus Dei’s connection — in origins — with “Carlists”)

Blackwater is more than just a “private army”, much more than just another capitalist war-profiteering business operation.

It is an army operating outside all laws, outside and above the US Constitution ** and yet is controlled by people within and outside our government whose allegiance is primarily to the foreign Vatican state. In other words, Blackwater is a religious army serving the Pope in Rome through the Order of Malta, which is itself considered under international law, as a sovereign entity with special diplomatic powers and privileges.

**from the “outside and above” link — so you know how relevant this is, from a 2007 Los Angeles Times . . . .

The Blackwater ‘hole

Neither Iraqi nor U.S. laws apply to its contractors, so a controversial shooting may go unpunished.

November 09, 2007

‘They can get away with murder” has been the cry of critics of hiring private companies such as Blackwater to provide security for the U.S. military and diplomats in Iraq and other war zones. Now it looks as though the critics may be right — and in the worst way.

Legal experts say the Blackwater contractors accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians and wounding 24 others while guarding a State Department convoy in Baghdad in September cannot be prosecuted under either Iraqi or U.S. law — even if an FBI investigation validates the Iraqi view that the contractors opened fire unprovoked. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, quizzed by a congressional committee last month, agreed that “there is a lacuna in our law about this. And even though this particular case . . . has been referred to the Department of Justice for further action, we believe that there is a hole.” What Rice didn’t say was that the State Department has been aware of that “hole” for at least two years and has rejected Pentagon suggestions to plug it by making security contractors subject to military law

{{Back to the other link on Blackwater…}}

Like Blackwater, the Order of Malta is “untouchable” because it is at the heart of the elite aristocracy.

Knight of Malta Amschel Mayer Rothschild (1744–1812)

The Knights of Malta is not merely a “charitable organization”.

That’s just an elaborate front, as should become clear to you later. As the name Sovereign Military Order of Malta confirms, it is a military order based on the crusader Knights Hospitaller of Jerusalem and is interwoven with Freemasonry. Most people have never even heard of SMOM, much less that it is a part of Freemasonry. But that is the way the aristocratic elite like it.

One of the symbols of the military orders of the Vatican, the masonic double-headed eagle emblazoned with the Maltese cross, signifies omnipotent royal dominion over both East and West. The orb signifies temporal dominion over the globe of Earth, and the scepter signifies control over the spiritual and religious impulses of humanity.

This eagle symbol is used in the masonic rite of Memphis and Misraim, under which it reads, “Order Out of Chaos”, the Hegelian method of crisis creation. It is found on the seals of many European and Eurasian nation states including that of Russia, indicating direct Vatican control over those countries.

It symbolizes the desire of a predatory elite with virtually unlimited resources, to totally dominate the entire world under a New World Order global government system using secrecy, manipulation, coercion and terror with the ends justifying the means.

Double-Headed Eagle Symbol

The two-headed eagle emblem of the Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire) on a Red Shield was adopted in 1743 by the infamous goldsmith Amschel Moses Bauer.**((link gives a brief history of start of the Rothschild family))  He opened a coin shop in Frankfurt, Germany and hung above his door this Roman eagle on a red shield.

The shop became known as the “Red Shield firm”. The German word for ‘red shield’ is Rothschild. After this point, the Rothschilds became the bankers to kings and pontiffs alike, among the richest families in the world. Ever since, they have financed both sides of every major war and revolution using the Hegelian Dialectic to engineer society toward their New World Order.

Notable — the family taught their sons about money — financing and banking . . . . From the “redicecreations” link (though probably available plenty of other places on the web):
Amschel Bauer had a son, Meyer Amschel Bauer. At a very early age Mayer showed that he possessed immense intellectual ability, and his father spent much of his time teaching him everything he could about the money lending business and in the basic dynamics of finance.
Pause to note:  How few public schools in USA teach kids ANYTHING about it, how little politicians talk about the nuts and bolts of money to the public; rather they are constantly talking about “Job Creation” which to me is an oxymoron — and it’s not the business of government.  The business of governments (at least these days), is paying their debt to controlling bankers, and collecting taxes to do so, or (as cause arises) starting wars somewhere for financial reasons related to their ruling elite.    Ask me why Ron Paul almost never gets any MSM press, again?  He’s got actual skills (M.D.) and he’s the only candidate who squeaks out ANYTHING at this point, about the Federal Reserve.   Prolonged Silence . . . prolonged ignorance . . . .   The business of money is a SKILL, and it can be taught.  The history of it also needs to be taught.
To understand money, one needs some concept — at LEAST rudimentary — of basic math.  US Schools can barely teach that AND reading at the same time.

A few years after his father’s death in 1755, Mayer went to work in Hannover as a clerk, in a bank, owned by the Oppenheimers. While in the employ of the Oppenheimers, he was introduced to a General von Estorff for whom he ran errands. Meyer’s superior ability was quickly recognized and his advancement within the firm was swift. He was awarded a junior partnership. Von Estorff would later provide the yet-to-be formed House of Rothschild an entré into to the palace of Prince William.His success allowed him the means to return to Frankfurt and to purchase the business his father had established in 1743. The big Red Shield was still displayed over the door. Recognizing the true significance of the Red Shield (his father had adopted it as his emblem from the Red Flag which was the emblem of the revolutionary minded Jews in Eastern Europe), Mayer Amschel Bauer changed his name to Rothschild (red shield). It was at this point that the House of Rothschild came into being. Through his experience with the Oppenheimers, Meyer Rothschild learned that loaning money to governments and kings was much more profitable than loaning to private individuals. Not only were the loans bigger, but they were secured by the nation’s taxes. 

Five Sons, Five Arrows, Five Directions.

Meyer Rothschild had five sons, Amschel, Salomon, Nathan, Karl and Jakob. Meyer spent the rest of his life instructing them all in the secret techniques of money creation and manipulation. As they came of age, he sent them to the major capitals of Europe to open branch offices of the family banking business. Amschel, stayed in Frankfurt, Salomon was sent to Vienna. Nathan was sent to London. Karl went to Naples, and Jakob went to Paris.

 But, what about the church?   This next section I find interesting — a Catholic priest, on exposure to Jesuit teaching, became an atheist.  I don’t know what was done, but this was the result!
Meyer Rothschild began to realize that in order to attain the power necessary to influence and control the finances of the various monarchs in Europe, he would have to wrest this influence and power from the church, which would necessitate its destruction. To accomplish this, he enlisted the help of a Catholic priest, Adam Weishaupt, to assemble a secret Satanic order.
The point not being, do we believe in God, or Satan, or not — but what about people who do?  Or, who know how to use religion to broker power?  We are not running world banking systems, or governments.  But those who do have to deal with religion.  Always have.  Religious imagination can lead people to start a war, or to refrain from engaging in defense of others.    
Adam Weishaupt was born February 6, 1748 at Ingoldstadt, Bavaria. Weishaupt, born a Jew, was educated by the Jesuits who converted him to Catholicism. He purportedly developed an intense hatred for the Jesuits. Although he became a Catholic priest, his faith had been shaken by the Jesuits and he became an atheist.
And he read Voltaire:

It is believed that, as a result of Voltaire’s writings, Weishaupt formulated his ideas concerning the destruction of the Church. In 1775, when summoned by the House of Rothschild, he immediately defected and, at the behest of Meyer, began to organize the Illuminati. The 1st chapter of the order started in his home town of Ingolstadt.As the name implies, those individuals who are members of the Illuminati possess the ‘Light of Lucifer’. As far as they are concerned, only members of the human race who possess the ‘Light of Lucifer’ are truly enlightened and capable of governing. Denouncing God, Weishaupt and his followers considered themselves to be the cream of the intelligentsia – the only people with the mental capacity, the knowledge, the insight and understanding necessary to govern the world and bring it peace. Their avowed purpose and goal was the establishment of a “Novus Ordo Seclorum” – a New World Order, or One World Government.

And it’s at this point I’m going to stop the narrative, the backdrop, and again reiterate:  We are talking in both Opus Dei, apparently in the Knights of Malta, which is to also say Blackwater, and definitely in associates of the Bush family regime, a mentality in which, there are those intelligent enough to govern and formulate governments, and then there are those whose duty is to shut up and be managed.  I don’t think that matter is exactly up for debate — but if you want to, comments field is open.
The attitude (which I complained about yesterday, and recently — and in general — displayed by Ron Haskins et  al., shown by the creation of entities like MDRC (government/corporate/foundation — which is to say, tax-exempt for the latter, tax-collecting for the former, and hiring workers which produce tax income for the middle, get it?  Govt/Corporate (produce jobs, workers wages are taxed), foundation (does not pay taxes, accumulates and distributes wealth,e tc.) —   they have what I call a “bad attitude.”  supercilious, proud, arrogant, DETACHED, and full of assumptions about human nature, chief of which is, it needs an overlord, and, somehow, “WE” are qualified.
They got this attitude from their position in life, which is who they are connected to, and who is buttering their bread, in exchange for TALKING and WRITING.
Also the fact that there is no conscience about conducting these conservations and conferences without input from the people whose lives are going to be changed as a result of them.   That’s taxation without ANY representation.  This attitude affects society, negatively.

fast forwarding some more (from “redice creations”) to remind us about the creation of the Federal Reserve — due to an engineered crisis, which precedes most centralization:

Just a passing mention to Benjamin Franklin’s OPPOSITION to centralized banking, which he’d apparently witnessed in London:

After the Bolshevik Revolution and the wholesale murder of the entire Russian royal family, Standard Oil of New Jersey brought 50% of the huge Caucasus oil field even though the property had theoretically been nationalized. In 1927, Standard Oil of New York built a refinery in Russia. Then Standard Oil concluded a deal to market Soviet Oil in Europe and floated a loan of $75 million to the Bolsheviks. Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg at the Kuhn Loeb Bank started a campaign for a central bank in the United States. They then helped the Rothschild’s to manipulate the financial Panic of 1907.

Then, the panic of 1907 was used as an argument for having a central bank to prevent such occurrences. Paul Warburg told the Banking and Currency Committee: ‘Let us have a national clearing house’.”

The Federal Reserve Act was the brainchild of Baron Alfred Rothschild of London. The final version of the Act was decided on at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island Georgia, owned by J.P. Morgan. Present at the meeting were; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant secretary of the Treasury, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip, President of Kuhn Loeb and Co., Henry Davidson, Senior Partner of J.P. Morgan Bank, Charles Norton, President of Morgan’s First National of New York, Paul Warburg, Partner in Khun Loeb and Co. and Benjamin Strong, President of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Co.

Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA
A Talk by G. Edward Griffin Author of The Creature from Jekyll Island
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, brought about the decimation of the U.S. Constitution and was the determining act of the international financiers in consolidating financial power in the United States. Pierre Jay, Initiated into the “Order of Skull and Bones” in 1892, became the first Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. A dozen members of the Federal Reserve can be linked to the same “Order

To be a little more balanced (?), here’s a site (found by searching Weishaupt) explaining things a little differently — but note, it talks about Gnosticism and calls Judaism, Christianity and Islam ‘Satanic’ religions:


How did it come about that a revolutionary movement committed to the overthrow of corrupt European monarchies and privileged elites became, via the propaganda of its enemies, the very embodiment of everything it opposed? The Illuminati, through several historical epochs, have striven to overthrow the super rich and super powerful, and they have suffered savage persecution as a consequence. So how can they be confused with the puppetmasters who stand behind these tyrants of privilege and power? It’s absurd. Any person who knows anything of the history of the Illuminati should be able to see that their aims are incompatible with the aims commonly attributed to them by many anti-NWO conspiracy theorists.

Below we provide a Q&A list to address many of the myths surrounding the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master – Adam Weishaupt, and the Illuminati in general.

Quoting a long section here:  (“AW” stands for Adam Weishaupt)

Q. Did AW reject Catholicism and the Jesuits?
A. Yes. He became a Gnostic and therefore an enemy of the Satanic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He was content to be described as a deist rather than a theist. Anyone who understands Gnosticism will see why this should be so.

Q. Was AW influenced by the European Enlightenment?
A. Yes. He was a radical freethinker, but he did not go down the atheist/agnostic path as so many other leading thinkers did. He wanted to bring the light of knowledge/gnosis to those in the dark thrall of Satan.

Q. Was the Illuminati part of Freemasonry?
A. No. Freemasonry was a creation of the Illuminati, though it then evolved undesirably (paradoxically due to its success in America where all the main figures involved in the American Revolution were Masons) and eventually became everything the Illuminati opposed i.e. Freemasonry was corrupted and transformed itself into the very oppressive establishment it once resisted. (The vast majority of members of the Old World Order today are senior Freemasons.) The Illuminati did not travel the same path as the Masons. They remained true, steadfast and untarnished, although they have never subsequently been able to shake off their connection to Freemasonry in the eyes of the unenlightened and ill-informed. The Freemasons, as a creation of the Illuminati, are not party to any secrets unknown to the Illuminati, and were duped by the Illuminati to protect the Illuminati’s core secrets – as will be discussed in another section.

Q. Did AW and the Illuminati believe in perfecting human nature?
A. Yes. (As far as possible within the framework provided by Gnosticism.)

Q. Was the Illuminati linked to the Alchemists, the Cathars, and the Knights Templar?
A. Yes. They were all Gnostic, and the Illuminati stood behind all of them.

Q. Did the Illuminati believe in the abolition of religion?
A. No. Only in the abolition of Satanic religions that enslaved and damned people (such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.) It is true that many members of the Illuminati went under the guise of orthodox Christians to avoid the penalties associated with heresy.

Q. Did the Illuminati believe in the abolition of government?
A. No. Only in the abolition of oppressive governments such as those of monarchs, aristocrats, and privileged elites. They opposed Communism for the same reason.

Q. Did the Illuminati believe that they should rule the world?
A. No. They wished to create a New World Order in which everyone would have the chance to go as far in life as their talents warranted. At that stage, there would be no further need of the Illuminati. The purpose of the Illuminati was to free and educate people as far as possible. A society composed entirely of free, well-educated and talented individuals would result in an emergent society from which a new, higher type of humanity would emerge. Throughout history, most people have been neither free nor educated, and the human race has remained enslaved.

Q. Are the Illuminati linked to a Masonic elite in the present day?
A. No. The Illuminati have repudiated Freemasonry and now rank it alongside the Satanic religions. Most Freemasons are Protestant Christians: anathema to the Illuminati. (The Illuminati are enemies of all forms of Satanic Christianity. Catholicism was their great enemy historically, but Protestantism now spawns the greatest opposition to the Illuminati.)

Q. Do the Illuminati believe in a free, just, noble and unified world?
A. Yes, that is their ultimate vision, though they believe it would take many steps to get there. They believe that nationalism, patriotism, separation, isolationism, different languages, different cultures, different religions, all inevitably lead to division, suspicion, fear and, finally, conflict. Humanity should emphasise what unites it rather than what divides it. A New World Order with a single world language and a single economy where there are no boundaries and no barriers best symbolizes this new state of being

Note:  Bible talks about the Tower of Babel and is opposed to this, i.e., the metaphor of confounding languages so that men wouldn’t again try to build a tower to heaven, etc ….

What comes next is telling:

Q. Do the Illuminati believe in the abolition of private property?
A. No. But they are opposed to excessive ownership of private property. They believe in a fair share for everyone. When one person gains more than his fair share, he is depriving another of his. You end up with a few families owning much of the land and wealth of a nation, thus placing massive power in their hands and outside the hands of the people. This cannot be tolerated. It is the basis of unfairness, inequality and injustice in society.

Q. Do the Illuminati believe in the abolition of the family?
A. No. But they do advocate much higher government involvement in the lives of failing families in order to save those families from themselves and stop them becoming a burden to other members of the community. All families are ultimately interdependent: a failing family affects all the families around it. Therefore government must intervene decisively to stop one bad apple spoiling the barrel, which is what happens too often in contemporary society. A huge underclass of failed families exists which sucks up taxpayers’ money and requires an extremely costly police force to keep it in order, an extremely costly criminal justice system, an extremely costly prison system, and an extremely costly welfare and social care system. These are huge costs that are never recovered. Failed families are a constant drain on the rest of society. Therefore, government must act before the failure of a family becomes cast in stone and irretrievable. No family has the right, in the name of personal freedom, to become a burden to other families.

OK, RIGHT THERE is where I make note of the (current and recent US Administration’s) ongoing assumption that we actually have a “meritocracy” right now — and that government is wise or capable enough to direct the lives of families.  We can see (taggs.hhs.gov and incorporation records) that the Federal Designer Family is a medicine worse than the disease, and is being used to further impoverish families, blaming them for being impoverished.  It is one of the most evil creations, a “conduit” theory, a “training theory” and so forth, I can think of.  

Then again, this is the female perspective after having had identity dismantled within a family, for having had a personal intellectual life before and during it — and then again afterwards, for failling to have blended well enough into a family, and continuing to have and act on a personal, moral, intellectual and professional life based on choice, and assessment of the situations.    Based on my existence as a free-will individual, within societal restraints against criminal behavior.

This also assumes that the familial failure has nothing to do with prior or current government policies!  In short, it indicates, “NOT” equal under the law.

The paragraph shows the “us/them” mentality in operation, and as such, I am opposed.   Families consist of people.  People do not ONLY exist in (functional, economic unit, etc.) families — nor should they be forced to.  It’s a force for good or evil, and seems to me, about 50% which way any particular family (rich or poor) might go.

Q. Did AW believe that the world would be improved if “every man were placed in the office for which he was fitted by nature and a proper education.”
A. Yes. This is a good definition of meritocracy.

Q. Do the Illuminati believe in democracy?
A. No. They believe in meritocracy where the vote is granted to those who have demonstrated that they can think meaningfully and productively about the issues of the day. No one should get an automatic right to a vote simply by living long enough to reach their 16th, 18th or 21st birthday.

(I note the plural “their” avoids using the pronoun “her” — No one should get an automatic right to vote simply by living long enough to reach his or her 16th, . . . . etc.)

Logical hole there — it’s presumed the someone exists intelligent and neutral (ethical) enough to determine what is or isn’t “meaningful and productive thinking” on the issues of the day.  Nontraditional, or visionary thinking, under this system, could easily be shut down.

Q. Is the Illuminati fascist?
A. No. Meritocracy is opposed to fascism. Fascism is obsessed with racial purity, nationalism, patriotism and xenophobia. Meritocracy is opposed to all of these. Ironically, many of the people who denounce the Illuminati as fascists could themselves be accurately described as fascists. The nationalist American “patriots” who despise their government, who rail against the Illuminati, who hate foreigners, who have never ventured out of their country, would all be classified by the Illuminati as dangerous fascists.

FINALLY — with apologies for quoting so much of this — The writer talks about “Master and Slave” mentality.  Essentially he is talking about Job versus  Business owner situation — and I find it hard to read, because unlike the (just go fulfil your joy-less work), I actually love the work I was doing, or put my heart into work outside that field; I loved the process of solving problems, engagement with others in the community, making  difference, and so forth.  This is going to sound like straight communism (and maybe is) — but think about it, OK?  How true is it?  How much has been bread and circuses, and have you actually struggled with and answered, to satisfaction, the principal questions of life — or have you swallowed others answers whole, or partially digested?  Do you adjust your world-view when confronted with evidence, it’s time to — and does that in any way change your actions?  I sure hope so.

Most of us are slaves. No matter how much we loathe that conclusion and reject it, it is true nevertheless.
If you want to know if you are a slave, consider these criteria.

Every day you go and do a job you don’t like. {{assumption — may be true or false…}}  It gives you no creative thrill, and you derive no feeling of self-worth from it. You are under someone else’s control. Your employer decides how you spend your time, not you. Your employer demands obedience, application and proper conduct from you. If you don’t comply, you will be fired. You must behave in the way that the employer sees fit, not in the way that you deem fit.

In other words, you have handed over your definition of “proper conduct” to another. You have sold your time and effort to your employer. Sure, you get a salary in return. {That is the DEFINITION of “JOB” (just over broke)}}

You can pay the bills, buy nice things, support your nearest and dearest, go on holidays, go out for fine meals at the weekend. {{Consume Bread and Circuses, if there’s leftover from food and housing, from basics}}   In short, you can live comfortably. It is on that basis – that your petty needs are satisfied – that you can justify the fact that you have given away your control over the most precious thing you have: your own life.

Your employer, on the other hand, is wealthy, loves what he {{note gender}} does, gets immense status and prestige from it, is admired and envied. His lifestyle is breathtaking. He has three magnificent homes, a 300-ft yacht, a stable of Ferrari supercars. He stays in the best hotels, and everyone is eager to do his bidding and fulfil his every wish. They are permanently at his beck and call, falling over themselves to please him. He can come and go as he pleases. He will never be sitting in front of another person waiting to hear if he is about to lose his job. He is the one who decides who gets hired and who gets fired. He controls his life. He allocates his time as he sees fit. He behaves as he wishes to. He imposes his views on others. Others depend on him, but he does not depend on them.

So, then, which are you…master or slave?

Who are the masters? The Old World Order. Who are the slaves? The rest of us.

Who is guilty? We are. Why? Because we allow the masters to rule us. In exchange for a “comfortable” living, we sign away our own lives. All over the globe, for billions of us, the headstones of our graves will bear exactly the same inscription: “Here lies the body of a person who was an adequate employee. He did what he was told and paid his taxes. He made no impact on the world. Nothing more need be said.” Are you happy for that to be your epitaph?

But on the marble headstones of the members of the Old World Order, overlooking vast, spectacular mausoleums, will be magnificent eulogies, great lists of achievements, the tales of the lives of people to whose tune so many danced.

SO — is there a resurrection and different, eternal life or not?  The question counts!  (cf.  “you can’t take it with you.”)

Overwhelmingly, the masters are those born into privilege, those handed huge advantages from the outset. Their parents are wealthy. They live in the finest neighbourhoods. They go to the finest schools. They join Masonic societies with the other sons and daughters of privilege. They agree to carve up all of the best jobs amongst each other. They marry each other and breed new generations of masters. They don’t care about anyone else. Why should they? They have everything they want. On their side of the equation, there is no question to be answered.

{{You KNOW there is some truth to this!}}

The people who must answer the question are the slaves. The question could not be simpler. It is: Why do we let the masters get away with it? And the answer is a painful one. It’s because we are lazy, apathetic, cowardly, satisfied with our trivial comforts. We’d rather accept the status quo than make any attempt to change things because then we’d need to leave our comfort zone, put in time and effort, and above all be brave and take bold risks. If we weren’t content with our enslavement, we’d be doing something about it. We’d be fighting back. But how many of us are doing anything at all? Don’t ask others what you need to do. Use your initiative.

(THEN, he brings up Hegel…)

You want to listen to masters talking about what to do with slaves?  They will generally bring up religion and family.  Anyhow, here’s a sample:

Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

By Barbara Vobejda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 23 1996; Page A01President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

“Today, we are ending welfare as we know it,” Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients. “But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began.”

It ALL boils down into exchange of services and goods, and the money system.    There’s almost no facet of life, including use of time, which can’t be understood from this framework.  And yet what do we hear on TV (during primary season, USA) — about creation of JOBS and about upper, middle “class”  and “the poor.”  What’s all that about class status?
  • Upper class — has assets and an income stream, minimizes taxes, the real job of life is to fill all the free time with something meaningful, like changing the world according to one’s particular desires.
  • Middle class — works decent enough jobs to own homes, or at least consistently pay rent, raise children, even get them to college.  Works at businesses owned, or invested in, by upper class, and is a good employee so as to make it to retirement, and keep cash flow going.   Too busy to really learn investing, so if there’s something to invest, hires professionals to do this.
  • “The Poor” — live paycheck to paycheck and are stuck in public institutions everytime the roll out of bed in the morning.  Or, have no jobs.   Have more of their stuff tracked — if they are on food stamps or cash aid, some bureaucrat literally knows what they eat, wear, and where they shop!  (you get the picture).  They bury their dead more often and have more relatives in prison.  This doesn’t mean they have more relatives engaged in criminal activity.
The poor (and middle classes) are constantly being stopped and interrogated about WHAT THEY ARE DOING.  Their status is not so secure, and having something endure depends on hooking up with the right associates, and those associates sticking around long enough to make a difference.  The poor — forget it — their time is simply NOT valued.  Their existence makes others’ careers and middle class government jobs managing them.
QUESTION:   Why are the election political discussions so irrelevant to what’s actually taking place, and has been for a few centuries, in the country?
If you want another interesting discussion (From the same site, not that I always agree), here’s THE TRIUNE BRAIN (Crocodile, horse, computer)  Warning — may insult women.  Well, and men.

Few of humanity rise to the world of reason and consciousness powered by the logic circuits of the computer brain. This highest arena is uniquely human – no other animals have an onboard computer – and the irony is that few humans know how to operate it. They are whizz-kids at using iPhones, but they are clueless about using their own brains properly. They mostly use brains 1 and 2 and rarely trouble brain 3. It lies dormant and dusty in most people, like some never-visited library containing all the knowledge of the cosmos. In fact, many men struggle to use anything more than the crocodile brain. Their minds are preoccupied with fucking, fighting and feasting – like the Vikings.

The computer brain, sadly, does not dominate the lower brains. The limbic system – the seat of the emotions – usually hijacks the higher mental functions i.e. reason is put to the service of the emotions rather than the emotions being in the service of reason. In times of great stress or sexual excitement, the crocodile takes charge of everything and humans become reptiles operating at the basic instinctive level.

With this model of the brain, it becomes easy to see why humanity struggles to reach its potential. {{IS humanity an “it”??}} Most people are stuck at the level of crocodile or horse, and can’t {{or is it WON’T?  Or is it numbed, to the point they don’t sense the need? — which is it?}} raise themselves to the godlike, rational level of the internal supercomputer. The attainment of gnosis** requires the highest brain working at full capacity.

In Jungian terms, the “shadow” is the crocodile brain, the “ego”, “persona” and “anima/animus” are the limbic system and the “Self” is the computer. Reason, not belief, makes us Gods


(** I did mention, the site is Gnostic, right?)

The Abrahamic religions — all of them — tell a different story.  The one thing I have to say though — and face — is that they’re good at hating (and, more rarely, some — loving).   Christianity talks about spirit, as in a spiritual awakening through baptism in the name of Jesus.  Are these just different languages for the same things?  Is it possible to love without hating, and why all the murder?  what’s all this about DEFINING “God” and Monotheism?

(etc. . . . . . ).  Those who do, and those who do not, believe in “God” are so often considering themselves superior — and the other inferior — on that basis alone, it gets ridiculous.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 Back to title Topic: (though it overlaps, ALL this above was a distraction, or exploration, of the person who wrote the introduction to the book “None Dare Call it Conspiracy.”  It ain’t my fault he happened to be conservative Republican, possibly a very poor husband & father, and have a son involved in The Knights of Malta, or at least Blackwater!    The point is to keep understanding how did we get to this (insane) point in US history.   AND NDCC provides insight.

From Chapter One:  “Don’t Confuse Me With Facts” (remembering, this is 1971!!!):

Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation. They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters they can’t quite put their fingers on it.

Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation. They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters they can’t quite put their fingers on it.

. . .We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the world-wide Communist advance {{See date…}}, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the tea of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong. Yet despite high hopes and glittering campaign promise these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

FDR once said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” He was in a good position to know

And, how an “ad hominem” attack usually stops discussion of the matter through ridicule and satire.  Having just recently been the subject of (another) one of these, I can certainly understand.  Also works well in family court — psychological profile, rather than facts of the case gets the job done most of the time.  Derails the conversation, and I’ve already shown, the system was set up to do this (afcc.net, about us/history page — change the language):

Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can’t be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn’t work, these “objective” scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.

However, the most effective weapons used against the conspiratorial theory of history are ridicule and satire. These extremely potent weapons can be cleverly used to avoid any honest attempt at refuting the facts. After all, nobody likes to be made fun of. Rather than be ridiculed most people will keep quiet; and, this subject certainly does lend itself to ridicule and satire

Successful trial lawyers are expert at this.   It’s a clear technique.

Or, because of racial or religious bigotry, they will take small fragments of legitimate evidence and expand them into a conclusion that will support their particular prejudice, i.e., the conspiracy is totally “Jewish,” “Catholic,” or “Masonic”. These people do not help to expose the conspiracy, but, sadly play into the hands of those who want the public to believe that all conspiratorialists are screwballs.

Author(s) prefer the term “Insiders.”    They confront attitude — social acceptability over protecting one’s children from slavery:

Because the Establishment controls the media, anyone exposing the Insiders will be the recipient of a continuous fusillade of invective from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. In this manner one is threatened with loss of “social respectability” if he dares broach the idea that there is organization behind any of the problems currently wracking America. Unfortunately, for many people social status comes before intellectual honesty. Although they would never admit it social position is more important to many people than is the survival of freedom in America.

If you ask these people which is more important — social respectability or saving their children from slavery — they will tell you the latter, of course. But their actions (or lack of same) speak so much louder than their words. PeopIe have an infinite capacity for rationalization when it comes to refusing to face the threat to America’s survival. Deep down these people are afraid they may be laughed at if they take a stand,. . .

The Insiders know that if the business and professional community will not take a stand to save the private enterprise system, the socialism through which they intend to control the world will be inevitable. They believe that most business and professional men are too shallow and decadent, too status conscious, too tied up in the problems of their jobs and businesses to worry about what is going on in politics. These men are told that it might be bad for business or jeopardize their government contracts if they take a stand. They have been bribed into silence with their own tax monies!
This was written before the internet.  It was written before welfare reform, and (to be quite honest) before the feminist movement of the 1970s was under way.  It was basically before no-fault divorce.  Yet it was NOT before some other significant developments in finance, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the selling of the income tax as a way to reign in the ultra-rich!   HOW YOU THINK THAT ONE’S GOING SO FAR? (Actually, this was unbelievably pernicious and has heightened the caste differences — it creates classes by tax laws! And knowledge of how to deal with them…).
What do you think?

Is it not theoretically possible that a billionaire could be sitting, not in a garret, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dream the same dream as Lenin and Hitler? You will have to admit it is theoretically possible. Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man might form an alliance or association with other like-minded men, might he not? Caesar did. These men would be superbly educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes. These are advantages that Hitler and Lenin did not have.

It is difficult for the average individual to fathom such perverted lust for power. The typical person, of whatever nationality, wants only to enjoy success in his job, to be able to afford a reasonably high standard of living complete with leisure and travel. He wants to provide for his family in sickness and in health and to give his children a sound education. His ambition stops there. He has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be a king. He wants to mind his own business and enjoy life. Since he has no lust for power, it is difficult for him to imagine that there are others who have … others who march to a far different drum. But we must realize that there have been Hitlers and Lenins and Stalins and Caesars and Alexander the Greats throughout history. Why should we assume there are no such men today with perverted lusts for power? And if these men happen to be billionaires is it not possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to seize power for themselves?

. . .

In keeping with the fact that almost everybody seems to have his own definition of Communism, we are going to give you ours, and then we will attempt to prove to you that it is the only valid one. Communism: AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM-GLOBAL CONQUEST.

The men at the apex of this movement are not Communists in the traditional sense of that term. They feel no loyalty to Moscow of Peking. They are loyal only to themselves and their undertaking. And these men certainly do not believe in the clap-trap pseudo-philosophy of Communism. They have no intention of dividing their wealth. Socialism is a philosophy which conspirators exploit, but in which only the naive believe. Just how finance capitalism is used as the anvil and Communism as the hammer to conquer the world will be explained in this book.
. . . . THE ROLE OF TAX-FREE FOUNDATIONS: . . . DO I HAVE OUR ATTENTION YET?  (Because, in investigating the trail leading back from my troubles, and others, in this one venue — family law, domestic violence + the child support system, and the failure of criminal law to ‘function’ under family law – – — I have been stunned at the influence (not to mention “chutzpah”) of foundations.  They simply run government — period.  Then you look at the backgrounds of the wealth (families) behind them, and the puzzle pieces begin to show the frame, the outline, of the reality we live.
(I am still working on where religion fits in….)
In addition, the-author has interviewed six men who have spent considerable time as investigators for Congressional committees. In 1953,one of these men, Norman Dodd, headed the Reece Committee’s investigation of tax-free foundations. When Mr. Dodd began delving into the role of international high finance in the world revolutionary movement, the investigation was killed on orders from the Eisenhower occupied White House. According to Mr. Dodd, it is permissable to investigate the radical bomb throwers in the streets, but when you begin to trace their activities back to their origins in the “legitimate world,” the political iron curtain slams down.
This source (link above) at first glance, seems a chronological and factual account of the influence of these foundations, no need for a Ph.D. to understand. It also makes sense from my experience of life under some of the institutions that the foundations finance.  Excerpts:

Tax-exempt Foundations

Tax-exempt Foundations were originally setup for humanitarian purposes to provide grants to existing institutions. Rene A. Wormser served as General Counsel to the Reece Committee, which was a congressional committee that investigated the Tax-exempt Foundations from 1953 to 1955. His book, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, is a documented expose of his experience with the committee. In it he wrote, “Foundations were originally created to support existing institutions and to undertake certain ‘operating’ functions.”

Soon after (or possibly from their inception) foundations became a loop hole that the financial elite used to avoid taxes. “By the time the income tax became law in 1913, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations were already operating. Income tax didn’t soak the rich, it soaked the middle class,” wrote Perloff. “Because it was a graduated tax, it tended to prevent anyone from rising into affluence. Thus it acted to consolidate the wealth of the entrenched interests, and protect them from new competition.”

Smoot pointed out that the primary purpose of some of the large Tax-exempt Foundations is no longer humanitarian in nature, but “predominately tax avoidance.” “One of the leading devices by which the wealthy dodge taxes” concurred Perloff “is the channeling of their fortunes into tax-free foundations.” He also charged that, “The major foundations, though commonly regarded as charitable institutions, often use their grant-making powers to advance the interests of their founders.”

It’s claimed that The Woodlawn Foundation (assets, see tax returns) which funds Opus Dei-served nonprofits (i.e., some of the men’s & women’s homes and retreats, I gather — and there are 40 to 50 of them around the US) holds stock in AES (Advanced Energy Systems) — lots of it.  For a sample of what AES does (just a random find here) and how technical, first understand, it used to be part of Northrup Grunman:

Our Mission:

To be the supplier of choice for advanced radiation sources, high brightness commercial accelerator applications, government accelerator projects, and integrated engineering services.

Our History

On September 28, 1998, the former employees of NorthropGrumman’ sAdvancedEnergySystems Group completed the formation of a new small business, Advanced Energy Systems, Inc. (AES). Incorporated in New York and purchased from Northrop Grumman as a legacy organization, AES retains all former assets including the skilled personnel,intellectualproperty,accelerator development laboratories, prototype machine shops, computational analysis systems and contracts. The new company can draw upon a 22-year experience base in accelerator and fusion technology to supply full service engineering and physics analysis & design, in addition to component fabrication. Our active customers include many US national laboratories, international laboratories, and commercial corporations. AES technical operations are conducted within a 7,800 ft2 facility in Medford, NY, that includes a machine shop and a 650 ft2 facility in Princeton, NJ. Specific areas of AES expertise include: electron accelerators and free electron lasers, advanced radiation sources, low energy ion accelerator systems for commercial applications, high power ion accelerator systems for government applications, and fusion systems.

They are into, “Scientific Research, Homeland Security, Medical Imaging, Drug Discovery, Defense”  -“Putting Accelerator Technology To Work”  get the picture?  Prior to spinoff from Northrup Grunman (it says), it delivered more than $400M in sales to NG.     Highly technical.

Now– assuming The Woodlawn Foundation indeed has a good amount of shares in this group, how much wealth do we think is going through the foundation?  And that’s just one example (Note:  author cited “hoover on-line” a database I don’t know to use yet).

Back to the Congressional investigations of the role of these tax-exempt foundations:

The “independent, uncontrolled financial power often enables foundations to exert a decisive influence on public affairs,” wrote Wormser. He further testified that, “They have a power comparable to political patronage.” He cautioned “When they do harm, it can be immense harm–there is virtually no counterforce to oppose them.”

(quote, continued):
According to the findings of congressional investigations, the foundations have been known to fund political movements in a direction inclined to favor a socialistic, one-world government. Individual foundations have also been known to merge themselves in a “cartel-like” fashion to fund their political projects, which tends “to endanger the freedom of our intellectual and public life,” warned Wormser. Wormser referred to this merging as theTax-exempt Complex.
{{I have been documenting these — see Washington State’s CCYJ:  The Shape Of Things To Come, which partly inspired today’s post’s LONG title;

“The Center for Children & Youth Justice is shaping better lives for youth involved in Washington’s foster care and juvenile justice systems. In partnership with parents, advocates and policymakers, the Center develops and advances innovative approaches to systemic changes that will support kids, stabilize families and strengthen communities.”

Parents may at some level be involved, but the tax return shows a different story — it shows WHICH foundations were involved in each purpose.  The only “local” part of it was an about to retire, prominent woman judge (Bobbe Bridges) and it was of course handy to have cooperation from a 2009 DSHS appointee Susan N. Dreyfuss (of wisconsin fame and behavioral health organization backgrounds) to head up a $20 BILLION government department and cooperate with CCYJ in having Washington State be a nice “MODEL FOR CHANGE.”

Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice

So, such forces can truthfully say “The Shape of Things To Come” because the same forces are the shapers!  Get it?  
I was upset at AFCC doing this — but this makes AFCC look like kids’ play.  That’s why I publicized “ALEC.”  However, it’s the structure that enables this which is causing the trouble — and never do the “shapers” suggest any change to THAT system, which allows them to play chess with the world, or USA, state by state, and system by system!   Suppose you, as an individual, chose to live in a manner different from “the Shape of Things to Come” — and had children?  I’ve experienced this (it’s why I blog) — simply opted out of a malfunctioning public institution for my kids’ and households sake.  Boy, was that an eyeopener!  If I experienced a degree of freedom (culturally, in the air, in the country) in my 30s, by early 40s, they had evaporated.  Now we are 50s, and I’m looking down this immediate future, and my kids’ and thinking, WHAT can I do, to change the course of these things?   (hence, the blog and on-line activity, activism, you name it. . .. )Another example (I remember the progressive discovery of how things work) is Stand for Children — run by Jonah Edelman, son of the famous Marian Wright Edelman (Children’s Defense Fund).   Apparently the group over-reached, or boasted too much of its (genuine) clout and deep pockets:  see,

Education Group Tries to Rebound After Diatribe By KRISTEN McQUEARY Published: December 2, 2011

Stand for Children Leadership Center” 2002 return.  Scroll through, esp. board of directors at the end (includes Geoffrey Canada (Harlem Children’s Zone), someone from the National Council of Churches, Jonah’s mother, Marian Wright, and others. . . . Mostly, notice their planning — 33 centers nationwide, shared offices with the 501(c)4 “Stand for Children, Inc.”   They simply tell you what they are doing, and are not ashamed of “deep pockets” to influence school boards or politics.








Stand for Children Inc. OR 2010 $770,075 990O 32 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2010 $770,075 990O 32 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2010 $770,075 990O 32 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2009 $427,528 990O 29 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2008 $429,570 990O 27 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2007 $329,701 990O 17 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2006 $287,008 990O 18 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2005 $231,751 990O 16 52-2146673
Stand for Children Inc. OR 2004 $123,114 990O 11 52-2146673
Stand for Children Leadership Center * * * OR 2010 $4,954,746 990 45 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center OR 2009 $2,387,883 990 39 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center OR 2008 $1,819,690 990 36 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center OR 2007 $1,300,706 990 25 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center DC 2006 $1,285,006 990 26 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center OR 2005 $1,245,615 990 26 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center OR 2004 $754,309 990 20 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center OR 2003 $487,799 990 19 52-1957214
Stand for Children Leadership Center DC 2002 $375,773 990 15 52-1957214 

Contrast SCLC 2002 with 2010 – it has close to $11 million revenues, 135 employees, nearly 6,000 volunteers; several directors now being paid $100K or well over (Jonah, $190K), and I saw approximately $1 million on contractors, including consultants, strategy group, etc.  Whether their idea is basically good, or not so good (breaking the back of teachers’ unions appears to have been involved, in part), the fact is, they are getting that strategy pushed through; the family has a history of organizing for change, obviously, and is going about it state by state, now.

Concentrations of power.

(more from “the hidden evil: tax-exempt foundations” link):

The first glimpse into foundation influence came under the Congressional Act of August 23, 1912, when the Commission on Industrial Relations studied labor conditions and the treatment of workers by the major U.S. industrial firms. They eventually examined the foundations, which were interlocked with them. “Starting with a study of labor exploitation, it [the Commission on Industrial Relations] went on to investigate concentrations of economic power, interlocking directorates, and the role of the then relatively new large charitable foundations (especially of Carnegie and Rockefeller) as instruments of power concentration,” wrote Wormser.

During the commission hearings, future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis testified on January 23, 1915, that he was seriously concerned about the emerging danger of such a concentration of power. He said, “When a great financial power has developed … which can successfully summon forces from all parts of the country … to carry out what they deem to be their business principle … [there] develops within the State a state so powerful that the ordinary social and industrial forces existing are insufficient to cope with it.”

“Control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereinafter designated ‘foundations'” declared Mr. Basil M. Manly, director of research for the commission. The commission’s report concluded that, “As regards the ‘foundations’ created for unlimited general purposes and endowed with enormous resources, their ultimate possibilities are so grave a menace … [that] it would be desirable to recommend their abolition.”

. . .(more investigations in the 1950s) . . ..

On August 1, 1951, a motivated Congressman E. E. Cox (Democrat) of Georgia introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to conduct a thorough investigation into the foundations. He asserted, “There are disquieting evidences that at least a few of the foundations have permitted themselves to be infiltrated by men and women who are disloyal to our American way of life. They should be investigated and exposed to the pitiless light of publicity…”

The Cox resolution to investigate the foundations was passed in 1952. Unfortunately, Congressman Cox died during the investigation. The commission met the same fate as the one before it. No actions were taken to prevent the expansion of these foundations, or provide means for future accountability to the public. And as Smoot described it, “the final report of his [Cox] committee (filed January 1, 1953) was a pathetic whitewash of the whole subject.”

However, it did still yield some important facts. Part of the final report on January 1, 1953 said some foundations “supported persons, organizations, and projects which, if not subversive in the extreme sense of the word, tend to weaken or discredit [our] system as it exists in the United States and to favor Marxist socialism.” Or in other words, they were found to promote Communism.

The third attempt to investigate the foundations lasted from 1953 to 1955, during the Reece Committee hearings. Smoot wrote, “On April 23, 1953, the late Congressman Carroll Reece, (Republican, Tennessee) introduced a resolution proposing a committee to carry on the ‘unfinished business’ of the defunct Cox Committee. The new committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations … was approved by Congress on July 27, 1953.” Author Perloff added, “For what was probably the … last time, the CFR came under official scrutiny.

and,  . . . . . .(CFR being “Council on Foreign Relations”)

The report clearly states that the CFR with interlocked foundations have infiltrated the government. And that they use enormous sums of money to propagandize “educate” the public in support of the policies which they decide we should adopt. What congress has told us is that the government has been infiltrated by the CFR using multi-billion-dollar private bank accounts known as Tax-exempt Foundations.

This means that when a major U.S. policy is filtered down from the federal government, into the local and state governments, that it may originate from the CFR/foundation interlock. Specifically, this means that it has come from the big corporations and the international banks, of which the CFR and other Think Tanks are composed.

The “State within a state” that Justice Louis D. Brandeis warned about in 1915, was part of the beginning of a government within a government, or, as FBI Agent Dan Smoot calls it, The Invisible Government. Other notable components include: the emergence of the Federal Reserve System, and the creation and infiltration of the CFR, the Bilderbergers and the TC into the executive branch.

CAN YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THE NEXT PART — THAT THE MILLIONS BEING DUMPED INTO SOCIAL SCIENCES (including literally starting institutes and centers at various universities around the US) PLUS PSYCHOLOGY IS INAPPROPRIATE, IF NOT SUSPICIOUS — BUT DEFINITELY EXISTS?   (see welfare reform, diversionary funds).   

The Reece Committee found that, “When their activities spread into the field of the so-called, ‘social sciences’ or into other areas which our basic moral, social, economic, and governmental principles can be vitally affected, the public should be alerted to these activities and be made aware of the impact of foundation influence on our accepted way of life.”

“The power of the individual large foundations is enormous,” they concluded. “It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. … It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. … This power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the united States.”

The foundations are not there to “help” the average citizen.  They may, but that is not their purpose for existing.
Make sure you also read “A Revolution in Education, Part 1” (and Part 2).

Charlotte Iserbyt was the Senior Policy Advisor at the U.S. Department of Education during the 1980s & was trained as a Change Agent to help promote this change. In her book, The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America, she provides evidence in the form of a timeline, which contains a paper trail dating back to the 1930s, consisting of mainstream news, congressional records, & publications authored by these institutions. Her evidence shows undeniably that the major Tax-exempt Foundations caused a drastic change in the school system, by way of legislation, incredible funding, propaganda, & deception.

Iserbyt stated, “Principals who resisted innovation eventually ended up being forced out of the system undergoing radical change.” “Their trials and tribulations, ” says Iserbyt, “were known only to them, and what they underwent during the change agents’ activities in their schools could be described as inhumane treatment . . .

Iserbyt describes a Change Agent, as, “[a] term used by many people, including President Clinton, leading educators, and social engineers, to identify individuals, highly trained in the group process and in the Delphi Technique.” The Delphi Technique is a method used to manipulate a group, large or small, during a Q&A period so it arrives at a predetermined conclusion. She continues, “These people are designated to bring about controversial change in education, in the operation of our local and state governments, and at the federal and international levels.” After resisters were identified, Change Agents would use other educators who had embraced the new system to pressure them into conforming. Non-conformists were forced out of the industry.

. . .

According to Iserbyt, instead of focusing on conveying knowledge, public education is now mostly about changing a person’s fixed attitudes & beliefs. The new system is based specifically on the works of behaviorists such as Ivan Pavlov & B.F. Skinner. Pavlov & Skinner are best known for their behavior modification tests on rats, pigeons, & dogs. In some cases, communist educators from Russia & China were literally flown into the U.S. to help with the re-structuring.

On August 1, 1977, the Washington Post ran an article entitled, New Curriculum Shifts Teaching Methods in District, stating, “the new curriculum is based on the work in behavioral psychology of Harvard University’s B.F. Skinner who … trained pigeons during World War II to pilot and detonate bombs and torpedoes.”

Can you read the next few paragraphs?  I put them in, because I have LIVED the war over the education of my children in the context of family breakup due to my husband’s violence and threats.  Thereafter, I was treated like “dirt” by specific members of my family, one of who had recently been indoctrinated (himself) into this behavioral-change agent thing (apparently) and was blatantly using it on me, and my minor children.  It became very clear that resistance to total domination was met with HATE and multi-faceted attack, particularly when I refused to “submit” docilely to this person’s plan for me, which (in context) made no sense.  What was particularly annoying was lack of (1) truth and (2) reason in his attempts.   It’s gotten worse over the years, too.   I understand TOO much of this.  So, reading on, I’ll affirm this one:

Iserbyt essentially states that public schools are factories, & compares the educational process to an assembly line, whereas, at the end of this line (graduation), you’ll find a predictable product–an indoctrinated person. This appears to be a process of mental castration where students are conditioned to be small-minded, which makes them easier to control. This new system has an emphasis on “global interdependence,” with little tolerance for independent freethinkers. This means the financial interests that funded this revolution want everyone completely dependent on the global state in their New World Order. This is obviously for control purposes.

Iserbyt wrote, “I had experienced traveling in and living in socialist countries. When I returned to the United States I realized that America’s transition from a sovereign constitutional republic to a socialist democracy would not come about through warfare (bullets and tanks) but through the implementation and installation of the “system” in all areas of government… The brainwashing for acceptance of the “system’s” control would take place in the school–through indoctrination and the use of behavior modification, which comes under so many labels…” She warned that this, “war has, in fact, become the war to end all wars … [if] citizens on this planet can be brainwashed … using dumbed-down Pavlovian/Skinnerian education, to accept what those in control want.”

This revolution apparently took place as part of the installation of a world government & according to Iserbyt, the “brainwashing” is part of a plan to achieve a type of “global feudalism,” which will be managed by behavioral scientists. “[T]he carefully laid plans to change America from a sovereign, constitutional republic … to just one of many nations in an international socialist (collectivist) system (New World Order) are apparent,” proclaims Iserbyt. “Only a dumbed down population … could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the … Rockefellers …which is being implemented by the United States Congress.” This global school system is managed by UNESCO.

When I could not be bullied, extorted or fully intimidated enough, or fast enough, out of compliance, a conscious decision was made (in our case), involving several people, to remove the children from me illegally and curtail all of my “influence.”  ONE of my daughters even reported overhearing the dialogue — the people needed a “win” and were afraid that I might attempt to teach my own children — ANYthing ! !    ! ! ! !    Most of us (as it says in NDCC) are not equipped, if we are relatively ethical, moral, mind our own business, centered, enjoy our work type people — to deal with totally corrupt lust for power over others.  But, unless slavery is acceptable — we’d better get up to speed fast in how to deal with the reality!
Here is a Transcript of a Norman Dodd Interview I found, in which the topic of how to get America into war, take charge of their diplomacy and education systems, and recruit bright young “stable of historians” to send to London, so as to teach history from the “right” perspective is discussed calmly.  Foundations involved were:  Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Guggenheim, with responsibilities being “divvied up” among them casually, like a game of Monopoly — you take domestic, you take international, someone else help with Education, and who will fund those (revisionist) historians?   Cool as cucumbers.  The narration indicates that a bright young attorney “Kathryn Casey” was so disturbed in reading through the minutes, she stopped practicing law and (it says) “lost her mind.”    We are talking about calculated intention to involve the USA in World War I, make sure it didn’t end too soon, and to plan life in the US to be easily merged with life in Russia.   . . . .
WELL, This title & paragraph sets it up.  I have been curious about this Reece Commission for a long time, and so now am reading more about it.  i have also pasted into the “link” a segment which I think most interesting (hover cursor, to view)

Transcript of Norman Dodd Interview

1982 A.D.


G. Edward Griffin

Alan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation.  Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.  On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, “Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves.”

Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on to say, “Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is, that we use our grant-making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.

Warning!  You are about to enter the Reality Zone — a place were truth is stranger than fiction — where knowledge is king — where myths are shattered and deception exposed.  It is a place where the lessons of history are found, and where true-life adventures reveal the hidden nature of man.

HERE we go — it’s a LONG quote  (and another long post, I see!):

If you proceed, you will not be able to return to the twilight zone from which you came.

You have five seconds remaining to escape.

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5.

Welcome to the Reality Zone.  I am Ed Griffin.  The story we are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history.  We are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt foundations of America, since at least 1945, have been operating to promote a hidden agenda.  That agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works or philanthropy.

This man will tell you that the real objective has been to influence American educational institutions and to control foreign policy agencies of the Federal government.  The purpose of the control has been to condition Americans to accept the creation of world government.  That government is to be based on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of saying socialism;  and, it is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which control the tax-exempt foundations.

Is this a believable scenario?

Well, the man who tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd who, in the year 1954, was the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations — sometimes referred to as the Reece committee, in recognition of its chairman, Congressman Carroll Reece.  I conducted the interview we are about to hear, in 1982.  I had no immediate use for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd’s story was of great importance.

Since he was advanced in age and not in good health, I wanted to capture his recollections on videotape while he was still with us.  It was a wise decision, because Mr. Dodd did pass away just a short time afterwards.

In later years there was a resurgence of interest in Mr. Dodd’s story, and we released the videotape to the public in 1991. And so, what now follows is the sound track taken from the full, unedited interview, broken occasionally only for a tape change, or to omit the sound of a passing airplane.  It stands on its own as an important piece in the puzzle of modern history.

 JUST another reminder:  At a certain point, you either continue to process information, cognitively, (see “the 3 brains,” above), or have a “fight-or-flight” response — and RUN from it, after which, your cognitive system will continue to go down the same road, next time more evidence shows up — and after a period of time, your thinking will become potentially useless in processing this.   World views will have to shift back to an altered reality to convince you, somehow, that the “powers that be” are really well-intentioned, if inefficient, and that with better communications, we all can just get along with each other!

Not to mention continuing to believe that because you may have even got to the level of talking to a Congressman or woman, you are talking to someone actually in power.

And that it’s OK if your children’s education and futures was worse than your own (as the case may be) . . . .

(Consider yourself warned . . . .. )

[begin interview]

Griffin:  Mr. Dodd, let’s begin this interview by a brief statement, for the record, telling us who you are, what your background is, and your qualifications to speak on the subject.

Dodd:  Well, Mr. Griffin, as for who I am, I am just as the name implies — an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover, Massachusetts, and then Yale University.

And, running through my whole period of being brought up, growing up, I have been an emphaticable [sic] reader, and I have had one major interest and that was this country, as I was led to believe that it was originally founded.

I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated.  And, I realized that the only way to find out what that world was, and consisted of, would be to become part of it.  And I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world, and in the world of international communications, and finally chose banking as the field I wished to devote my life to.

I was fortunate enough, to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York.  I lived there.  I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929.  I witnessed what is tantamount to a collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.

Much to my surprise, my superiors, in the middle of the panic in which they were immersed, confronted me.  I was confronted with the question, “Norm, what do we do now?”

I was thirty at the time, and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon.  However, I did manage to say to my superiors, “Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof of something that you do not know about banking.”  And you better go find out what that something is, and act accordingly.

Four days later, I was confronted by these same superiors, with a statement to the effect that, “Norm, you go find out.”  And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell you what you were looking for.  I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented to it.

I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and, two and a half years later, I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment.  So, I rendered such a report and, as a result of the report I rendered, I was told the following:  “Norm, what you are saying is, we should return to sound banking.”  And I said, “Yes, in essence, that’s exactly what it is that I am saying.”

Whereupon, I got my first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect:  “We will never see sound banking in the United States again.”  And they cited chapter and verse, to support that statement.

What they cited was as follows:  since the end of WWI, we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests.  And they are so prevalent inside this country, that they can never be resolved.

This came to me as an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country.  The bank of which I was a part was spoken of a Morgan bank.  Coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me.

Institutionalized Constant Conflict to create centralized control . . . .
(and it goes on a while — not too hard a read, just text):

But, they had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop completion of this investigation, given the direction that it was moving.  That direction would have been exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story, and the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundation — all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States.

 {{HOW the investigation was stopped]]

Well, to secure the help of the White House in the picture, they got the White House to cause the liaison between the White and the Hill — a major person — to go up to Hayes and try to get him, as it were, actively to oppose what the investigation was engaged in.

Hayes, then, very kindly, would listen to this visit from this major person.  Then he would call me and say, “Norm, come up to my office.  I have a good deal to tell you.”

I would go up.  He would tell me he just had a visit from this major person, and he wants me to break up this investigation. So then I said, “Wayne, what did you do?  What did you say to him?”  He said, “I just told him to get the hell out.”  And he did that three times.  I got pretty proud of him, in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up.  We finally embarked upon hearings at Hayes’ request.  Hayes wanted to get them out of the way, before he went abroad in the summer.

Griffin:  Why were the hearings finally terminated?  What happened to the Committee?

Dodd:  What happened to the Committee, or to the hearings?

Griffin:  The hearings.

Dodd:  The hearings were terminated.  Carroll Reece was up against such a furor in Hayes, through the activity of our own Counsel. Hayes became convinced that he was being double-crossed;  and he put on a show in the public hearing room, Mr. Griffin, that was an absolute disgrace.  He called Carroll Reece publicly every name in the book.

Mr. Reece took this as proof that he couldn’t continue the hearings.  He actually invited me to accompany him when he went down to Hayes’ office and, in my presence, with the tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carroll Reece for all he’d done, and his conduct.  He apologized to me.  I thought that would be enough, and Carroll would resume.  He never did.

This is what he states as the focus and purpose of these foundations’ intense desire to control ALL educationin the US (from Early Childhood (as we see it now) up through College — and I’ve SEEN this, on-line, at the Ivy League level.  It cannot be denied that foundations endow universities for THEIR projects . . . And these projects are increasingly in the social sciences, “human development,” and so forth. . ..

. . . .

Griffin:  How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations — the big foundations — in the very beginning?  What was their motivation?


Dodd:  Their motivation was, well, let’s take Mr. Carnegie, as an example.  His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain.  He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.


Griffin:  Would that have required the collectivism to which they were dedicated?


Dodd:  No.  No.  No.  These policies are the foundations’ allegiance to these un-American concepts;  these policies are all traceable to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of Trustees, Mr. Griffin.  Those Trustees were not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment, or the use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.


Griffin:  It was a subversion of the original intent, then?


Dodd:  Oh, yes!  Completely so.  We got into the worlds, traditionally, of bankers and lawyers.


Griffin:  How have the purpose and direction of the major foundations changed, over the years, up to the present?  What are their purposes and directions today?


Dodd:  100% behind meeting the cost of education, such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of this United States, on the subject of our history -– to prove that our original ideas are no longer practical.  The future belongs to collectivistic concepts.  There is just no disagreement on this.


Griffin:  Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States?


Dodd:  Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly — as the organization, we’ll say, of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.


Griffin:  Do they think that they will?


Dodd:  They will be the beneficiary of it, yes.


This section below was actually from higher up on the tape.  I can just about imagine the conversations taking place — gods planning the fates of mere mortals, in the US, that is, and seeking help from fellow elites to make it happen.     The fact that death by bloodshed, bomb, or starvation was sure to ensue doesn’t seem to bother their consciences much . . . . .  Font color will be GREEN:

Off she went –{{his staff person, an attorney, to read over notes of board minutes of a tax-exempt foundation}}  to New York.  She came back at the end of two weeks, with the following recorded on dictaphone belts.

We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out.  At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States.  And they realize that is a pretty big task.  To them it is too big for them alone.

So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion:  that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.

They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History.  So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country — people like Charles and Mary Byrd.  Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject””  And, they get turned down, flatly.

So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians.”  Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say”  “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so?  And the answer is, “Yes.”

So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London.  There, they are briefed in what is expected of them — whenas, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.

That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association.  And then, toward the end of the 1920’s, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.

That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six.  The essence of the last volume is this:  the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.

That is the story that ultimately grew out of, and of course, was what could have been presented by the members of, this Congressional Committee, and the Congress as a whole, for just exactly what it said.  But, they never got to that point!

Reminds me, naturally, of The Road to Serfdom.  Note:  it’s easier to make fun of books than to process their ideas and see if a reality-test fits reality.

The Road to Serfdom is a book written by the Austrian-born economist and philosopherFriedrich von Hayek(1899–1992) between 1940–1943, in which he “warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,”[1] and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualismclassical liberalism, and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual. Significantly, Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism was a capitalist reaction against socialism, instead arguing that fascism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and the power of the state over the individual.

And I have to agree with this.  We are SO far down the road, but still, it’s a hard sell to have acknowledged.

The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of market libertarianism and remains a popular and influential work in contemporary discourse, selling over two million copies, and remaining a best-seller.[2][3]

The Road to Serfdom was to be the popular edition of the second volume of Hayek’s treatise entitled “The Abuse and Decline of Reason,”[4] and the title was inspired by the writings of the 19th century French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville on the “road to servitude.”[5] The book was first published in Britain by Routledge in March 1944, during World War II, and was quite popular, leading Hayek to call it “that unobtainable book,” also due in part to wartime paper rationing.[6] It was published in the United States by the University of Chicago Pressin September 1944 and achieved great popularity. At the arrangement of editor Max Eastman, the American magazine Reader’s Digest published an abridged version in April 1945, enabling The Road to Serfdom to reach a wider popular audience beyond academics.

The Road to Serfdom has had a significant impact on twentieth century conservative and libertarian economic and political discourse and is often cited today by commentators.

SO — does my title start to hold some water yet?  I could prove more instances of it in the HHS field, but it’s definitely what I see.


I think WOMEN are well-equipped to turn this around, as well as people who have painfully experienced this type of repression and are more likely (if still surviving) to FIGHT it, and prioritize fighting it (rearranging the rest of life, including comfort zones) based on principles.
HERE’S from the conclusion to None Dare Call It Conspiracy:


1. Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American citizen.

2. Abolition of private ownership of hand guns.

3. Detention of individuals without judicial process.

4. Requirements that private financial transactions be keyed to social security numbers or other government identification so that government records of these transactions can be kept and fed into a computer.

5. Use of compulsory education laws to forbid attendance at presently existing private schools.***

(*** but notice which schools some of our government leaders, and their children, attend!)

6. Compulsory non-military service.

7. Compulsory psychological treatment for non-government workers or public school children.

8. An official declaration that anti-Communist organizations are subversive and subsequent legal action taken to suppress them.

9. Laws limiting the number of people allowed to meet in a private home.

10. Any significant change in passport regulations to make passports more difficult to obtain or use.

11. Wage and price controls, especially in a non-wartime situation

12. Any kind of compulsory registration with the government of where individuals work.**

(**welfare roles document this — the poor are subject to even more invasion than others…)

13. Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United States.

14. Any attempt to make a new major law by executive decree (that is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized as by existing executive orders.)

As you are n6 doubt aware President Nixon already has invoked numbers 1, 14 and 14.

Steps 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 already have been proposed and some are actively campaigned for by organized groups. As of January 1, 1972 banks must report to the government any deposit or withdrawal over $5,000.The next step will be to restrict the taking of money out of the country. Big Brother is watching your bank account!

Increased government control over many kinds of private schools is proposed annually in many state legislatures.

And here’s the rallying call (now about 40 years old, just as urgent . . . . . )

The Insiders are counting on your being too preoccupied with your own problems or too lazy to fight back while the chains of slavery are being fastened on you. They are counting on their mass media to con you, frighten you, or ridicule you out of saving your freedom, and, most of all, they are counting on your thinking you can escape by not taking part in opposing their takeover.

They are also counting on those of you who recognize the conspiracy becoming so involved with watching all moves that you become totally mesmerized by their machinations, and thus become incapable of acting.

The choice is yours. You can say, “It can’t happen here!” But nearly every one of the one billion people enslaved by the Communists since 1945 doubtless said the same thing. Or you can end run this whole conspiratorial apparatus.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 5, 2012 at 9:31 pm

“Must Clap Rapist” and “Won’t Wear Hijab” — Saying “No!” Differs Drastically by Culture. And a good deal more on Opus Dei, etc…..

with 2 comments

(Note:  the post is 23,000 words.   I found things worth reporting on, and put them in the middle . . . . .None of them are particularly good news, particularly in a US Presidential election year . . .  )

The High Cost to Young — and older — Females of Endorsing Western Values, like Individual Rights,

& of Believing & Acting on the Myth or Hope that This Includes Them.

I hope people will more carefully examine what happens when they enroll their children in the local public schools, which are a nationally subsidized institution, and like most nationally subsidized institutions, however large, however well-staffed, and as well as what GOOD they do, have their issues.  They may be a ‘solution” whose time has passed.

Part of their justification is that they prepare young people to take their place in our country as voting citizens, and help them understand their rights and responsibilities.  Let’s look at how this school showed a rapist his rights and the raped young cheerleader (and her parents, who will have to pay) her responsibilities, while under public protection and education at a sports activity that brings schools fame and potentially funding.


Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap ‘rapist


A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school’s cheerleading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision.


The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squadmeaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.

Was she being PAID to cheerlead?  How is a 16 year old supposed to figure this out, particularly when faced with the situation.  She did the RIGHT thing there!!!

She was 16 when she said she had been raped at a house party attended by dozens of fellow students from Silsbee High School, in south-east Texas. One of her alleged assailants, a student athlete called Rakheem Bolton, was arrested, with two other young men.

In court, Bolton pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour assault of HS. He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team.


He did the wrong thing, as a youth, and got a slap on his wrist (boys will be boys, especially when in gangs), and back to life.  She did the RIGHT thing, as a young woman, and got slapped with a $45,000 fine by sticking to her right to refuse to applaud, and failing to realize that civil rights only apply if you are in a certain Venue, and don’t in others.   A hard concept to understand if you are 16 and have been raised on the mythology that the Bill of Rights means you, too, or (your daughter, too).


Although the Declaration of Independence talks about “UNALIENABLE” rights, it seems to me there is no end of circumstances in which these rights ARE alienated, or become unenforceable.



This is a far lesser price to pay than several Canadian women did — however in that case, the country did the right thing, and convicted:

Guilty: Muslim Family in Canada Convicted in Honor Killings

by Phyllis Chesler
PJ Media
February 2, 2012


On Sunday, January 29, 2012, two years and seven months after the bodies of four Canadian women all from the same family were found murdered, after a ten week trial, and after fifteen hours of deliberations, a jury voted “guilty” to first degree murder for three other members of the Shafia family.

Although I myself initially hailed this as possibly a turning point in Canada in terms of the nation’s failed multicultural policy, I now wonder why the life sentence, which in Canada means 25 years without parole, was not 25 years without parole for each life coldly snuffed out.

(Ages 13, 17, 19 & 52)

On Sunday, January 29, 2012, two years and seven months after the bodies of four Canadian women all from the same family were found murdered, after a ten week trial, and after fifteen hours of deliberations, a jury voted “guilty” to first degree murder for three other members of the Shafia family.

 . . .The three Shafias were tried under Canadian law for premeditated murder and for conspiracy to commit murder; no special “honor killing” related law was needed. This is as it should be and yet, if such a special law did exist, there might have been an “enhanced penalty” which might have maximized the sentences. However, Canadian law in general is lenient. They have no death penalty and there has been no capital punishment in Canada since 1962.

 . . .Nevertheless, the case was vigorously pursued by the Canadian authorities on behalf of justice for four freedom-loving Muslim girls and women.The Shafias are a prosperous family of polygamous Afghan immigrants who fled Afghanistan in 1992, took up residence in various Arab states and in South Africa, and then came to Canada in 2007.Clearly, this was an honor killing and one that a biological mother, biological father, and biological older brother perpetrated. By definition, according to my own studies in Middle East Quarterly, the classic honor killing is that of a young daughter by her family of origin. This is not at all like Western domestic violence or even Western domestically violent femicide. Judeo-Christian families of origin in the West do not conspire to kill their young daughters because they are behaving in modern, western ways, i.e., are dressing in Western clothing, mingling with infidels, planning on higher educations, going on dates, attending parties, expecting to marry someone of their own choosing, etc.

These are all considered crimes of honor, which “dishonor” their families — and if intimidation, beatings, isolation, and stalking (all of which applied in the Shafia household) fail, daughters may then be honor killed.

Khatera Siddiqui (2006) in Kingston, Aqsa Parvez (2007) in Toronto, Amina Said and Sarah Said in Dallas (2008), Nour al-Maliki in Arizona (2009 ), and the three Shafia girls and one Shafia woman (2009) all committed such “crimes,” including refusing to wear hijab and refusing to marry a first cousin. All were murdered by their fathers or by their fathers and brothers. In two instances, their mothers lured them home

It’s almost impossible to add much more than, this is a must read, and a wake-up call.  I notice that Canada did the right thing, at least close to it — and convicted.   Here are a few more paragraphs, showing handling of this case, and similar matters, in the US:

This is even more true in Europe, where honor killing victims are viciously tortured to set an example to other daughters that this is what will happen to them if they disobey tribal and religious customs.

However, the Wall Street Journalthe New York TimesCNNBBC, and the Washington Post all shied away from using the term “Muslim,” but did indicate that the perpetrators of these honor killings were “Afghans” and “immigrants”; they sometimes utilized the term honor killing but usually either in quotes or preceded by the phrase “so-called.”

The Huffington Post has published more than twenty articles in the last 24 hours on this trial. A quick review suggests that very few articles use the word “Muslim.” Some of the journalists include Supriya DwivediDanielle CrittendenStephanie Levitz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. My Canadian colleague, Farzana Hassan,** uses the word “Muslim” and addresses the cultural and religious tradition of honor killings:

Regrettably, far too many men raised in patriarchal settings regard their female offspring as liabilities. The birth of a female child is often marked with anxiety and dismay. Later on, the issue of family honour kicks in when the girl reaches puberty. In fact, the notion of honour revolves primarily around women and their sexuality and conduct. The men in the family are rarely subjected to the kinds of constraints their female relatives endure. It is mostly when the conduct of the women is perceived as dishonourable that matters worsen.

Interestingly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not use the word “Muslim” as she opines on this case. But she does make an important point, namely, that American justice may lag behind Canadian justice. Hirsi Ali cites the Arizona case of Faleh Almaleki, who was only convicted of “murder in the second degree.” However, Almaleki received a sentence of 34 years — and for only one murder, not for four. An additional point that one must make concerns Arizona’s failure to charge Noor’s mother as a co-conspirator.

**From Fassana Harzan article:   “Let this be a lesson to all who wish to impose patriarchal values on their daughters, sisters, and other female relatives: Canada will not tolerate such horrendous violence in the name of patriarchy, honour, or religion. “
Another word for “patriarch” is father.  Compare, “Fatherhood.gov,” “National Fatherhood Initiative,” etc.  This has become a national obsession perhaps secondary only to sports, which the young rape victim above’s wish to say “No” fell victim to — that, plus finances.  LOOK at the graphics on the NFI link (website update is fairly recent), it’s simply advertising.  “Recent initiatives” include “Join the Club”
 The Connections Project Iron DadsMilitary Fatherhood Award™ CeremonyWhat's Your Legacy?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 — just a fraction.  “Connections” helps get men in prison back with their kids, which may include pro bono help in custody cases, help not available to mothers in custody cases.  “What’s your Legacy” targets African-American men and encourages them to get married (which has to be the height of hypocrisy, as formerly the same “masters” were breaking up families, as well as starting new ones with African American women, including by rape); Iron Dads -is directed to the religious community and implies that men can coach men become better fathers, which is far better than having to learn it from and with the opposite sex who helped them become fathers to start with).  If there is ANY group which does not need more patriarchal talk, it’s religion.  Then, borrowing a word from “Waiting for Superman,” a film critical of the public school education system, fathers are encouraged to get more involved in their children’s educations, too.
One look and clearly this is ALL sale — marketing  — establishing relationships and pushing brochures, conferences, toolkits, all kinds of things.
But at whose expense?  From the Department of Health and Human Services, which men and women both pay into (via taxes):
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Amazingly, this comes from only two grants series.  Also amazing is that somehow, someone at HHS managed to spell the word “fatherhood” and “initiative” both correctly, which neither grant title does.  that’s what happens when you assemble a few “prominent thinkers” in one place?  Perhaps they do indeed need to sit in on their granddaughters’ spelling class: (not the first time I’ve pointed this out, but once entered, always entered, I guess).
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90FB0001  NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE 1 0 ACF 09-25-2006 879885986 $ 999,534 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 999,534
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2001 90XP0023  THE RESPONSIBILE FATHERHOOD PUABLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 1 0 ACF 04-09-2001 879885986 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2001 Total: $ 500,000
And — while this amount may see quite small, only $5 million total, the influence is pervasive.  Besides, these savvy investors (of HHS funds) are training others.  I should also mention that the group got started early with a grant which does not show on this database — the first one was not in 2001, as it shows.  Nor is it only support from HHS or support from Grants that the Federal Government is distributing to this group.  I took the DUNS# above and looked at USASpending.gov (closest thing to a free look-up I know, presently):
CONTRACTS with HHS totalling $11 million by my count puts HHS sponsorship of the group at over $12 million and growing — substantially.  (I also note — which is typical — that USASpending does not record as much in grants as TAGGS — usually it’s off by around $1 million or more, as is true this time also.  You can check yourself — so which is right and which is wrong?  Is TAGGS over-reporting or Spending under-reporting?).
  • Total Dollars:$11,574,644
  • Transactions:1 – 9 of 9
$2+ million in 2010 for “Data Collection.”  Oh yes – taken from TANF (welfare)  And isn’t that quaint, filed under a “disused code.”:
 Transaction Number # 1
PIID: HHSP23320062924YC: 5 (Definitive Contract)
Date Signed:
September 23 , 2010 

Obligation Amount: 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NFI in DOJ — Juvenile Justice Program — this is Grant #1 of 1, starting in 2008.  After all, the same tactic that worked early on, starting up NFI, can be replicated, right?  So this $626K should be noted — see purpose and scope, look carefully at PURPOSE:
Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 2008JLFX0054: 00 (Grants)
Date Signed:
September 17 , 2008 

Obligation Amount: 

View more reads, when one clicks “To Reach Fathers Effectively and Promote Father Involvement.
Here’s an OIG audit of some of this grant series.  While I have to emphasize this is NOT an “NFI” grant it is definitely a grant that is reaching out to fatherless teens, and has a few minor grant administration problems:

Audit Report GR-40-09-002
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General

Executive Summary
Executive Summary

The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division has completed an audit of Grant Numbers 2006-MU-FX-0295 and 2007-JU-FX-0013 awarded by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Grant Number 2006-CK-WX-0218 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to Team Focus, Inc. (TFI). TFI was established as a non-profit organization to provide community-based and comprehensive outreach programs for fatherless young men between the ages of 10 and 18.

Between November 2005 and May 2008, OJP awarded TFI Grant Numbers 2006-MU-FX-0295, 2007-JU-FX-0013, and 2008-JL-FX-0554 totaling $2,153,576. At the time of our audit, TFI had not expended funds under Grant Number 2008-JL-FX-0554; therefore, we did not include this grant in our audit testing. COPS awarded TFI Grant Number 2006-CK-WX-0218 totaling $148,084. The OJP and COPS grants we reviewed totaled about $1.5 million.

We tested compliance with essential grant conditions pertaining to internal controls, drawdowns, budget management and control, expenditures, reporting, accomplishments, and monitoring contractors. In addition, we tested the accounting records to determine if costs claimed under the awards were allowable, supported, reasonable, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the grants.

We found weaknesses in TFI’s internal controls, drawdowns, accounting for expenditures, reporting, achievement of grant objectives, and monitoring contractors. As a result, we identified $718,443 in questioned costs. We found that TFI:

  • did not adequately separate the duties of processing and paying expenditures,
  • engaged in hiring practices that created the appearance of a conflict of interest, 
  • did not have procedures for procuring and monitoring consultants hired to perform grant-related services, 
  • did not maintain time and attendance records and grant-related activity reports for employees and consultants paid with grant funds,
  • did not maintain adequate documentation showing how it calculated its grant fund drawdowns and drew down $273,126 in grant funds for which it had not made grant-related expenditures,
  • charged $445,317 to grant funds that were either unallowable or not supported by documentation,
  • did not submit accurate and timely Financial Status Reports,
  • did not submit timely progress reports, and
  • did not achieve all grant-related objectives.

These concerns are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I


TEAM FOCUS, INC. OF ALABAMA . . .. exists:
Entity ID Entity Name City Type Status
556 – 552 Team Focus, Inc. MOBILE, AL Domestic Non-Profit Corporation Exists
It was incorporated in 2002 as “Camp Focus, Inc.” changing name in 2006.  Purpose of this nonprofit is “PROVIDE YOUNG MEN W/LEADERSHIP SKILLS/GUIDANCE”   Corporationwiki shows some real interesting combo of businesses with Silverstein and Crump (etc.) (click) from one street address.
Appears to be organized online for the USA with an Alabama Chapter (of about 16):
  • The mission of Team Focus:
  • The mission of Team Focus is to provide a year round program of support, encouragement and Godly values that foster the development of life skills in young men (ages 10-18) without a father figure in their lives, bridging the fatherless gap and supporting the family structure.
  • The average cost for one young man in the Team Focus Program is only $1500 per year. Please consider sponsoring one of these young men. All donations of any amount are greatly appreciated.

. What is Team Focus?
Team Focus is a faith based non profit organization the mentors young men, ages 10-18, who are without a father figure in their lives.

2. What are the requirements for these young men?
These young men must have no male figure living in their household, show leadership qualities and must be between the ages of 10 through 18.

3. How can I get involved?
You can serve as a volunteer or mentor to work with the young men, and you can help the organization with your financial support.

4. Where are your camps located?
We are currently located in Alabama (3), Ohio (2), Tennessee, Texas (2), Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina, California, Neveda, Kentucky, Florida, and the District of Columbia.

5. How much does it cost the young men?
There is no cost to the young men.

Your query: ( Organization Name: team focus , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
3 documents matched. 3 documents displayed.








Team Focus Inc. AL 2007 $552,136 990 25 27-0015821
Team Focus Inc. AL 2006 $279,555 990 21 27-0015821
Team Focus Inc. AL 2005 $439,616 990 19 27-0015821
I clicked on the 2006 return (last showing here) — which shows directors paid:  $24K, $38K, $55K and $64.7K respectively (but showing 55 hour weeks).  The sole purpose reads “run a camp for young men” — cost, $920, 808 (gov’t grant that year were $366K)


The director being paid $64.7 K (Paul Alt, address in Ohio) was also listed as an employee with the same salary and 55 hr/week schedule.
They also spent $60,000 for a WDC Fundraiser, “Patton & Boggs” (or so the return reads).  I notice that the audit (OIG) above is talking about the years 2008 & 2009 — presumably those tax returns are also somewhere.
The problem with attracting faith-based operations to get fatherhood grants is sometimes their organization and simply inadequate accountability once they’re up and running.  I’m not sure what category this one comes under.   . . . .
MORE on the FUNDRAISER for “TEAM FOCUS, INC.” — meaning a team of young men, only, getting godly values in annual camps:
The 2008 Fatherhood Awards™ GalaTuesday, April 29, 2008
Grand Hyatt Washington
1000 H Street, NW
Washington, DCThe firm is a contributing sponsor at the 2008 Fatherhood Awards Gala. The National Fatherhood Initiative advocates for responsible fatherhood programs nationwide. The gala will honor Senators Bayh and Shelby who have championed these efforts.For more information, visit theFatherhood Awards Galaweb site.  (NOW at http://www.fatherhood.org/military-fatherhood-award/2008/ceremony)

(THERE is almost no realm of life, including giving birth to a child, in which fatherhood cannot be promoted or rewarded.  NFI was not negligent to also award two legislators and a mayor, a sports hero, THREE doctors, a few corporations producing (this year), Beer, Chips, and Insurance, and a military hero, who was probably the only real hero present:

NFI awarded The Three Doctors for highlighting the national epidemic of father absence and the importance of healing and renewal between fathers and children, through their bestselling book, The Bond.

Senator Richard Shelby and Senator Evan Bayh received Community Impact Fatherhood Awards™ for their work to promote public policy and legislation that encourages involved, responsible, and committed fatherhood. Mayor Tom Barrett was honored with a Community Impact Fatherhood Award™ for his efforts to promote involved, responsible, and committed fatherhood in the city of Milwaukee.

Anheuser-Busch was honored for its father-friendly broadcast advertisement titled, “Daddy’s Girl”, which is part of its Responsibility Matters “Prevent, Don’t Provide” campaign. Herr Foods, Inc. was awarded for its HIS chip campaign which promoted responsible fatherhood on specially branded bags of Herr’s potato chips. Northwestern Mutual was honored for its father-friendly television broadcast advertisement titled, “Swimming Hole.

(How cute>  HERR foods and HIS chips . . . Who gets the remote control?)

Inaugurated in 1997, the Fatherhood Awards are presented each year to individuals, corporations, and organizations that make a substantial contribution to the strengthening of involved, responsible, and committed fatherhood in their work or personal lives.  Past Fatherhood Awardees include: actors James Earl Jones and Tom Selleck; country music superstar Tim McGraw; author Dr. Stephen Covey; news anchors Tim Russert and Neil Cavuto; NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Jim Kelly; IBM, Johnson & Johnson, and Chevrolet.

NFI began in 1994; by 1997 they had an Award Series.
NFI began with a gleam in the eye of an HHS appointee, and has since been spreading its wild oats throughout the land, fathering many more organizations.
However, it looks like there have been some immaculate conceptions, as groups that pre-dated NFI found themselves having bought into the vision, and presented as handmaids for the NFI”s service, a good part of which includes reducing child support (let’s remember that the bright idea of 1996 welfare reform also included the creation of the OCSE, of a Child Support Enforcement Component.  This then so irritated the fathers, however, moving swiftly, one proponent tacked “Access Visitation” programming on as (ostensibly) a way to help reduce welfare by reuniting fathers with “their” children (removing biological moms if necessary), and hence creating a better world.
MADONNA PLACE  in Connecticut (Remember Connecticut?  The state where Fairfield University priest continued collecting funds for The Haiti Fund,  even after the young man RUNNING its target project, “Project Pierre-Toussaint,” had been arrested for systematically molesting the young boys/men he was mentoring and saving?)  was around since 1987, it says:

In 2000, The CT Department of Social Services, (DSS)

selected Madonna Place as one of three pilot programs in the state.

After a number of years of research by The University of Hartford,

The Connecticut Department of Social Services in conjunction with

The National Fatherhood Initiative, created a certification process

to ensure quality standards of operation for fatherhood programs.

The first Fatherhood Certification Program took place in 2005. It included a comprehensive review of our program and Madonna Place

successfully completed this process and became one of the original

five Certified Fatherhood sites in Connecticut.  There are currently 10 Certified sites in Connecticut.

The purpose of the Program is to increase positive involvement and interaction between fathers and their children.  We work with fathers to help them increase their ability to meet their parental responsibilities of providing social, emotional, medical, educational and financial assistance to their children.

The links to the left include, naturally:
  • Child Support Arrearage Adjustment Program, and
  • Family Court Support

An Australian organization called ChildFriendly.org

recently put out a children’s rights video titled “Children See.” It depicts parents at their worst — abusive, violent, careless, angry — as well as their children following their lead. It’s disconcerting, disturbing, startling, but it’s also an excellent reminder for even the most thoughtful parent that our children are watching us, every minute of every day.

Funding for this ‘Promoting Responsible Fatherhood’ program was provided by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Service, Administration for Children &Families, GRANT #: 90FR0031, as administered by the CT Department of Social Services.  The Department of Social Services’ programs are available to all applicants and recipients without regard to race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age disabilities, learning disabilities, and national origin, ancestry or language barriers

Here’s their 2010-2011 Annual Report, showing that whatever Madonna Place WAS, what is is NOW is supported as shown in the pie charts (DSS, below, and the CT “Children’s Trust Fund” (common in many states), and distributing to various programs as shown also in pie charts, including a large part to “Fatherhood Initiative.”
In 2010-2011, according to this nice pdf, 118 fathers out of 178 came to them wanting to spend more time with their kids, I.E., ‘HELP ME WITH MY FAMILY LAW CASE (and/or dependency hearings), which I’m sure this place obliged.  In fact it helped just about, or just over 1 out of every 2 father succeed in this manner:

The Fatherhood Initiative Program

There is a myth in our society that quality time with kids is as good as or even better than quantity time. Studies have consistently shown that this is simply not true. Those same studies show that children blossom when they have consistent and positive interactions with their parents. Children with positively involved parents, especially involved fathers,** have less behavioral issues in adolescence, have healthy marital relationships, and tend to experience a satisfying adult life. The reasons for supporting fathers are clear. The Fatherhood Initiative Program aims to achieve positive results for children of our community.

Face it — our society DOES value fathers more than mothers, and men more than women, the theme is universal and governmentally endorsed.  I’m reading it to you.  As such, children, who do soak up things from their elders, are subject to the same myth that fathers are actually indispensable, and mothers are not — they are taken for granted, except when they get out of line.  And while you can see the “without respect of gender” disclaimer here — what MOTHER is going to approach a FATHERHOOD group and ask them to help get contact with her children, once a fatherhood initiative of some sort has successfully removed them from her — or ordered joint custody, but Dad won’t share?  Women who have attempted to maintain even an equality sometimes end up dead, or their kids (Samaan/Fay; DeKraii/Fournier), sometimes with company.    Yet I DO know mothers who have approached access visitation centers with the word “father” in their title and asked them for help, getting none.  I also know mothers who went to battered women’s shelters, but no help once the predictable next step occurs — Dad sues for custody.  I have been a mother seeking pro bono help to either enforce child support or at least retain custody during a challenge (the father having been a serious batterer) — and it’s just not there!

All our Texas cheerleader (see top of post & title) wanted to do was NOT CHEER HER RAPIST — and she was soundly scolded, dumped from the team, and when she protested that, legally, fined $45,000.  Welcome to our world. . . . . This is how they do it in America, no matter what you were taught about the US in school.  Would she have been better off in an entirely different educational system, perhaps?  Where when it came to choosing between a sports success and a young woman’s safety and sense of fairness, the sports success was more important.  . . . . .

In 2010-2011 we enrolled 178 fathers in our program. Of those, 118 dads were looking for assistance to increase the amount of time they spend with their children. {{WHO Told them this wAS WHERE TO FIND IT?}}  Out of those 118, we supported 64 fathers (54%) in attaining that goal. This process involved one to one case management educational groups. Case management services are provided to assist fathers with navigating the family court system in an effort to get custody or visitation rights

This is perhaps why some of us have come to understand that this is WHAT “fatherhood” programs are truly about.
Please review this one– the sustaining partners are all governmental except United Way, there are a ton of contributors (including plenty of religious ones) and yet what, really, are they doing?  Running class after class and intervening in court cases, whether dependency or family courts?
Government Grants reads close to $1 million, and foundation/corporate, about 1/10th of this.  Essentially — this IS a government program, just called a nonprofit and with some other partners.  Here are their tax returns:
. . . . and everyone (by now) knows that the best way to subtract abuse and neglect is to add a father . . . . . .








Madonna House CT 2010 $501,429 990 28 06-1205879
Madonna House CT 2009 $485,299 990 21 06-1205879
Madonna Place CT 2008 $477,732 990 19 06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc. CT 2007 $558,880 990 21 06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc. CT 2006 $482,786 990 17 06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc. CT 2005 $519,356 990 14 06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc. CT 2004 $451,413 990 23 06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc. CT 2003 $429,525 990 13 06-1205879

Search Again

A dozen or so directors put in one or two hours a week, earning nothing.  Amazing, it must be kinda self-sustaining, then.
Apparntly (looking at 2009 return) they also ran a supervised (“family”) visitation center, which was closed due to lack of funding.  Item #2 on “What We Did”:



What about the mothers in these cases?  Did they go up unaware and unassisted against the government-funded legal assistance with your custody case program?  Or was some kind of deal cut with the child support agency and the court, somewhere along the line — how did this happen?  Who checks the receipts against the claims?
NOT FOR ThIS POST — but CHILDREN’s TRUSTS are in state after states, and seem to be part of the federal CAPTA — “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.”

What is the Children’s Trust Fund?

Recognizing a need to establish coordinated efforts and funding for programs designed to prevent child abuse and neglect, the State of Connecticut General Assembly created the Children’s Trust Fund in 1983. This proactive initiative was part of a national movement to establish such Funds in all 50 states.

Since 1997, when the Trust Fund became an independent state agency, the Trust Fund has developed or funded more than 250 family service programs and initiatives statewide.

 and . . . .

The movement was championed by U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd who introduced federal legislation to encourage all 50 states to establish Children’s Trust Funds. In response to this legislation, the Connecticut General Assembly created the Children’s Trust in 1983.

The Children’s Trust Fund, a division of the state Department of Social Services, is the state’s lead organization for preventing child abuse and neglect before a crisis occurs.


All Bill Titles

  • Short: CAPTA Reauthorization ACT OF 2010 as enacted.
  • Short: CAPTA Reauthorization ACT OF 2010 as passed senate.
  • Short: CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Official: A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988 to reauthorize the Acts, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 as introduced.
Organizations supporting it are REAL big on “Fatherhood” – but that must be a coincidence:

Specific Organizations Supporting S.3817

  • National Network to End Domestic Violence
  • Family Violence Prevention Fund  (by the end of 2010, as I recall, FVPF had a name change….)
  • Association of University Centers on Disabilities
  • Stop Abusive and Violent Environments  (“SAVE”) * * *
  • Casa de Esperanza
  • Women in Transition
  • Ohio Domestic Violence Nerwo
From “SAVE” site* * *
SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Falsely Accused

False allegations harm the innocent, squander resources, and shortchange true victims.

 Have you been falsely accused of domestic violence? Have you been forced from your home, deprived of seeing your kids, forced to prove you didn’t commit the abuse?

Any person who has been falsely-accused of domestic violence is welcome here. And when you’re ready, we invite you to join the Domestic Violence Legislative Project (DVLP) to push for change at the state level.

In 2011, SAVE distributed 26 national press releases that reached millions of persons. Please support SAVE’s continuing efforts to stop false allegations! Make a donation now:www.saveservices.org/contribute

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849

SAVE is a 501(c)3 organization. Contributions are tax deductible.

(this group was incorporated by an Edward Bartlett in 2008):
(D12735569) STOP ABUSIVE AND VIOLENT ENVIRONMENTS INC General Info. Amendments Personal Property INCORPORATED
RADAR is a name associated with groups that feel violence is a 50/50 thing, and that saying men are more violent is a real exaggeration.  A different group puts it like this:
Despite the best of intentions, our nation’s effort to curb domestic violence is not working. Current solutions not only fail to reduce domestic violence, but also create other severe problems. Families are being undermined and children harmed. Innocent Americans are penalized based on false accusations. And victims of violence are re-victimized by a rigid system that ignores their wishes  {{i.e., not to prosecute}} , or excludes them altogether.R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence.

(AND then there’s a piece featuring Erin Pizzey)

this group protests VAWA because of civil rights violations:

FLYER: Widespread Civil Rights Violations Under the Violence Against Women Act
They proclaim far and wide that women are the aggressors and the link underneath the chart leads to a psychiatry article on ‘Borderline Personality Disorder.”   Somehow, this still reminds me of Dr. Chesler’s earlier book “Women and Madness.”   Astonishingly, about 75% if the people with this BPD are women:
New Video Educates Public About BPD  from “Psychiatric News” 2/2/2007, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 31-37.  (HEY — about five years old, exactly!)
A short documentary-style video has been released to educate the public and the medical community about borderline personality disorder (BPD), an increasingly diagnosed and yet, to many, relatively obscure mental illness.” Back From the Edge” features first-person accounts by people who have the disorder and their family members and information from leading clinicians and researchers.
According to the nonprofit Borderline Personality Disorder Resource Center at New York Presbyterian Hospital, approximately 10 million Americans, or 2 percent of the U.S. population, have BPD. About 75 percent of them are women. In fact, according to Otto Kernberg, M.D., the center’s clinical director, the condition is actually two to three times more prevalent than bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and yet many people have never heard of it,
“Due to the complexities of this diagnosis, an extraordinarily large number of people go misdiagnosed for years before receiving proper treatment,” said Kernberg. “But once they begin getting the right treatment and support, many people with [BPD] can sustain loving relationships and enjoy meaningful careers.”
My question is, what pushed these people “to the edge” of their personalities, and somehow, is it possible to ever acknowledge that it might just have been violence or molestation while growing up, or within a family line?    Who diagnoses?  what’s the norm?  . . . . .     A close look at some of the symptoms shows almost immediately they parallel many with survivors of abuse, if not shell-shock, PTSD, and other situations.   What would happen if we EVER acknowledged how much violence happens with in this family unit that has been so glorified and which so much public funding goes into “strengthening,” despite the prevalence of social institutions that break it up anyhow?
ANYHOW (context being, who is behind “CAPTA” Federal act to prevent child abuse by strengthening families and engaging fathers, etc. . . .. ):
Despite the name change to SAVE, this is still the Maryland group’s pre-occupation (See April 2011 pdf)  “Unequal Justice in the Criminal Justice System”  report:

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”

— Sir William Blackstone1

Each year about one in seven American couples experience some form of intimate partner aggression.2 Over 250 scholarly studies show domestic violence is initiated equally by males and females, with half of all abuse being mutual in nature.3,4,5,6 And self-defense accounts for less than one-fifth of female-initiated partner aggression.7,8

About two-thirds of cases represent minor incidents such as a shove or a slap. The remaining one-third involve severe incidents such as being kicked, hit with a fist, threatened or attacked with a gun or knife, or beat up.9

As a result of such incidents, about one million persons are arrested each year under criminal law for intimate partner violence,* of whom 77% are male.10

(RE:  The grant behind MADONNA PLACE fatherhood initiative, above):
It is the American Way.  We get a bright idea, someone has to put some capital into it.  Currently, this seems to be taxpayers; a million here, a million there, discretionary, demonstration, we trust you.  In this case, it’s the feds (prompted by a nonprofit, “NFI”) directly paying the state government, to push its programs.   (The column “CD” here seems to be added recently, and stands for “Congressional District.”  I can now also add the column “DUNS” to a search, thank you HHS!)
Results 1 to 7 of 7 matches.
Excel Icon
Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Address Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator CD Sum of Actions
IN LOOKING UP WHO IS ANTHONY J. JUDKINS, I SEE HIS NAME IS ON A BRIEF? FROM CFFPP (search my blog, it’s a Wisconsin-based fatherhood group, although logo has changed acronym to highlight “Families” rather than “Fathers.”  Same difference, in policy):   They have made the bright observation that sexual trauma in childhood, of boys, can lead to them becoming abusers as adults.  Rather than then setting a separation policy to protect THEIR children from the same thing, it is recommended to help them process their childhood trauma within the context of fatherhood programs, and screen for it.Yet the policy is still going to be Reunification practically not matter what (or what expense), unless it’s a mother who objects to reunification, in which case punishment can be called down for the crime of “alienation.”  That’s the WESTERN way . . . . . .   Therapy . . at public expense:

Here’s the excerpt, a joint study with YALE, date, July 2011 (i.e., recent)

The study found that men who reported having traumatic sexual experiences in their own childhoods were 10 times more likely to be involved with child protective services as an adult and nearly 6 times more likely to have court-ordered restrictions on contact with their children. Given these results, the authors make several recommendations:

􏰀 “Observations from this study call for fatherhood programs to explore with men how their past sexually traumatic experience impacts their ability to parent and coparent.”

􏰀 “It may be in the best interest of fatherhood programs and/or clinicians to help men process their traumatic experiences, and increase their active coping strategies.”

􏰀 “…programs may consider engaging men and fathers in proven psychoeducational trainings to help them mitigate the effects of their past trauma.”

{{ALL roads tend to lead to psychoeducational trainings for the poor.  It seems to be where the money is….  This should help them adjust better to being poor, and most definitely will help those producing the programs, including on their resumes.}}

􏰀 “Our findings lend additional support for Alaggia and Millington’s (2008) recommendation that sexual victimization be a part of a regular assessment used by clinicians and caseworkers who serve these men.”

For more information or to obtain a copy of “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Programming…”, access the Journal of Poverty at the link below, or contact the authors directly by email:

Mission Statement

The mission of the CENTER FOR FAMILY POLICY AND PRACTICE (CFFPP) is to strengthen society through the expansion of opportunities for low-income parents – mothers and fathers – to protect and support their children. CFFPP operates as a policy think tank to remove the unique barriers and negative public perceptions that affect low-income men of color. Through technical assistance, policy research and analysis, and public education and outreach, CFFPP works to support low-income families and develop public awareness of their needs.

Contact Us: If you would like to share comments, questions, ideas for future briefing topics, or to sign up for our email list, please contact Nino Rodriguez, Program and Policy Specialist, at nrodriguez@cffpp.org, or visit the CFFPP website at: http://www.cffpp.org/emailupdates.php

This policy briefing is made possible in part by the generous support of the Ford Foundation and Community Shares of Wisconsin. Any opinions, errors or conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or positions of CFFPP’s funder

Mr. Judkins manages or managed DSS Strategic Planning, too.  He is the CSBG (Community Service Block Grant?) Official on ACF website
Fair’s fair — you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, can we sell our stuff together?
HERE’s another religious group getting a “JLFX series grant.”   
I finally found at least one project supported by this grant SERIES (JLFX-0073), run by Minnesota Teen Challenge, and aimed at reducing drug use; with this Board of Directors (including 3 Revs) but it is not religious.  The program also is for both boys and girls; however, labeled as we see, “to reach fathers effectively and promote father involvement.”

Know The Truth Prevention Program

Know the Truth is a non-religious substance abuse prevention program developed to educate high school and middle school students on addictions and the consequences of their choices and help them tackle their everyday struggles.

Every year our presenters conduct more than 900 presentations in more than 120 high schools and middle schools, and speak to more than 38,000 students.

In 2008 and 2009, 78% of teens surveyed made a commitment to not use drugs in the future after hearing our presentation.

I find this so interesting (see the year) because by this year in MY life, and thanks in good part to previous effective fatherhood interventions, the father of MY children had obtained control over them, successfully STOPPED child support current obligations, and was about to start skipping out on his drastically compromised and whittled down monthly payments (to less than 1/4 of original, which had never exceeded the minimum set for welfare to start with), and abandoned his children!   This combination of factors, applied consistently over time, helped drive me — although against my will, which I cannot say on his part — out of the workforce.  it was the season that my offspring became, through court assistance, BOTH fatherless and motherless, which is one reason I sometimes say — whatever it says on the label, understand it means EXACTLY the opposite when applied, or in practice and no jokes intended:  “Child SUpport Enforcement” means “Abating Child Support Arrears and/or terminating it for the kids.” and so forth. . . . .
This money, this $626,000, probably helped set up (I’m speculating, but is it unreasonable?) their training college:
not this one — which was already around:
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
(Note:  there are direct- action 482 grants (each could be one year, or multiple years) — so far — with the word “responsible fatherhood” (spelled correctly, that is) in them, per HHS, as of today.  Easy to search.
The DOJ grant would be in addition to the HHS capacity-building grant, which had awardees from 2006 through 2010 and posts for 2011 also.  What is any good cult without a Certification College, anyhow?

The 2011 Capacity-Building Grant Awardees have been announced. Click here to view the 2011 Awardee List.No future Capacity Building grants will be awarded.  

Download a printable version of this grant opportunity 

This appears to be what they do:

Through a competitive bidding process, top applicants will receive funds for the specific purpose of increasing capacity to develop their fatherhood programming, and to improve their financial sustainability by becoming more familiar with—and better qualified to receive—federal or private philanthropic support.

Some examples of fatherhood programs could include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Parenting education programs for new and expecting fathers, teen fathers, fathers in need of general parenting skills, or fathers with special needs children
  2. Programs providing marriage counseling, relationship counseling and/or divorce counseling
  3. Support groups for stay-at-home and/or single fathers
  4. Programs for incarcerated fathers
  5. Programs providing court-mandated fathering skills training   [{BATTERERS INTERVENTION, ANYONE?  OR NOT?}}
  6. Job skills training and/or job placement programs that include a fatherhood component

Awardees must agree by signing a Memorandum of Agreement to use their funds to send two staff members to participate in an intensive, weeklong “Certification College,” to be held in St. Louis, MO, or another centrally located US city, November 8-12, 2010 and led by fatherhood experts from NFI and private consultants who have past government experience. Awardees will also receive follow-up technical assistance from NFI, including phone consultations, e-mail follow-up, occasional web-based seminars and other resources. Finally, selected organizations will participate in a two-day mini-conference,to be held in St. Louis, MO, May 10-11, 2011, including assessment and evaluation that measures their improvement.

Almost every category mentioned above would also qualify for some version or another of TANF diversion programs, particularly but not only Access/Visitation.  In short, they are teaching other groups how to take advantage of federal programming pushed by some of the founders of NFI to start with.  Since 2001, it’s become even easier to incorporate religious theory into this as well, and does (see grantees).

Past Capacity-Building Awardees

Overall, recipients of the Capacity-Building Initiative Award represent community-based, faith-based and other grassroots organizations-including Head Start organizations-that either have existing fatherhood programs, or are beginning new fatherhood initiatives, in their local communities. These groups are located in cities and neighborhoods across the country. Click on the links below to view a list of past awardees.

A review of the list shows how many ways one can work the word “father” (or family, parent, resource, baby, child, etc.) into something which might net a grant.  Also that abstinence-promoting groups are also welcome.   (I’d rather see a sermon on abstinence than hear one any day, and many Congressmen & not a few US President/ial candidates (I trust/hope except President Obama!), not to mention not all celibate priests, don’t seem too great at it either …)
I looked up the inestimable Ron Haskins again (he’s all over the internet), who by reputation devised the Access/Visitation earmark to welfare reform, of which he is so proud.  Being a guy perhaps / / / ??? He figures that the best way to work with people is by force — punishments and rewards, THAT’s what they need — with a round dose of being lectured at as well.  This is why we have programs where men are rewarded for sitting through psychoeducational classes on what it means to be a father with, perhaps, reduction in their child support arrears and more access to their children, whether or not it is a veritable nightmare for the mother of the children in this situation, or not.   Mothers, their problem is not staying married and too much fertility, so let’s drive them into the workforce (the theory goes, that women are poor because they just aren’t working hard enough — which many of us know to be false even when married, as well as when single parents).   They need to be separated from their kids, and the Dads need to be re-united with them.  Everyone pays for education, everyone pays for early childhood education (if not home visitations to prevent child abuse and neglect) and everyone also should pay for diversion from welfare which are intended to push marriage and abstinence.
They don’t have the program quite right yet (which is why they keep testing and refining and evaluation — which I’ll show in a moment, on a tax return) — BUT give them another decade or so, and they promise they will.
I remember being SHOCKED when I got solid information that my own government (who’d just failed to stop a child-stealing, stalking, to serve a seek-work order on my very much in arrears husband (which I spent hours attempting to get an honest explanation for — and never did), how public law enforcement opted not to enforce what I considered a good enough law (called a court order // custody), and so on.
I specifically remember recognizing that my government was trying a system of CARROTS and STICKS which I wouldn’t try on kids, and I’ve been a teacher.  They are not dogs.   Yet apparently adult human beings are.   Trust a GUY to think that one up and even be proud of it (I was very insulted.  No one carrotted and sticked me to be a decent mother, to seek and maintain employment, and I sure as hell didn’t need to be bribed into not hitting my children — it’s not on the map to do that.  Or to loving and caring about their welfare.    what an insult!  I know exactly what it feels like to be treated like this — and it was part of the abuse within my marriage, which I resisted, and with any one else who wishes no restraints on THEIR behavior, but a specialized and peculiar system of punishments and rewards on what is to be a human relationship! !!!    I can see within an employment relationship — you don’t show up, you don’t perform, you don’t retain the job.   But within human relationships    ? ? ? ?

This is an essay about how the 1996 welfare reform law and other policies contributed to the sharpest decline in child poverty since the early 1970s. The story is told in the context of the nation’s long struggle to reduce poverty and the factors that have made it so difficult to make progress against poverty. These factors involve both forces over which individuals have little or no control and factors over which they have almost complete control. Such factors include the problems with child poverty, male non-work, education rates, and the influx of low-skilled immigrants. To a large extent, the achievement of welfare reform was to use both positive and negative incentives carrots and sticks. The sticks encourage, cajole, or force able-bodied mothers to exploit the factors over which they have control and enter the labor force. The carrots reinforce their initiative with government-provided benefits that support poor and low-income workers. I argue that this combination of carrots and sticks is the most successful strategy for reducing child poverty that the government has yet devised. The strategy enjoys solid support from taxpayers, which suggests that innovative expansions that further increase personal responsibility, increase income, and reduce poverty would receive public support.

Unfortunately, there are clear downsides to the new policies, raising the issue of whether creating outcomes that include increased work, increased income, and reduced poverty for many offset the decline into deep poverty of a few. The Article concludes by suggesting policy changes in order to maintain the country’s work support system, to reduce non-marital birth rates and increase marriage rates, to better assist single-mothers, and to better assist young black males.



This introductory essay questions putting nearly all effort into social policywhich has failed to reduce povertyand calls instead for reinvigorating other tactics and re-imagining the unfinished dream of economic justice. Indeed, what Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned was an actual war on poverty, not merely the abbreviated, under-funded, and ultimately unsuccessful effort of the 1960s, nor the imposter war on welfare that has dominated our social policy effort since. But our social policy has not only failed to reduce poverty, it failed to focus long-needed attention on poverty and inequality. Nor has social policy facilitated the political mobilization of poor people or secured their legal rightstwo other means for seeking economic justice. Thus, this essay reviews the problems associated with working for less than a minimum living wage (No Acres and No Mule), including the lack of political power (No Politics), and constitutional rights (No Rights). The essay concludes by raising questions of welfare experimentation and argues social policy must be changed in order to reverse course in our battle against poverty.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Speaking of work, what’s Mr. Haskins’ line of work, besides writing, and sitting on boards of large, government-funded nonprofits for this, and that dreaming up who to manage next, and getting paid for it?

Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution

This was found a