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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Holy Giant Squid! (Our Govt’s Amazing Anatomy and Habits) or is it, Rodin’s “The Thinker (Sitting Over the Gates of Hell)”?

leave a comment »

This post is out of sequence,* but perhaps somewhat timeless.

*(unrelated to the Rhodes empire, Diamonds, or the Scramble for Africa, etc.).  it also happens to be about 10,680 words (much of it quotes as usual) and have some choice insets from the US GAO report on the state of our fiscal affairs.  After you wade through the discussions on symbols, and a few descriptions of the ones I picked.)

I’m considering various symbols (and symbols deal with the affective/emotion more than only cognitive/intellect).  Originally just three, but in the revisions, I added a fourth…

Again, being a woman, mother, and having to deal with my own emotional response to some cold,hard.fact$, and knowing many, many other women who have gone through this also — perhaps it may help some of them.  Hopefully it also alerts “neutrals” to what time of day it is — your income taxes are getting lost in the system and feeding a very dangerous “beast.”  “Think” about whether you wish to preside over these “gates to hell.”

Whether it’s the creature from the depths, or time to think about “the Gates of Hell,” we need symbols as tools to grasp — really — our present situations.  In the USA, is it a “fiscal cliff” and a huge national debt?

We also need tools to assess the symbols being shoved in our face as the collective social consciousness we are supposed to adopt (or else…..) 

“We audited and expressed an unqualified opinion on the Schedules of Federal Debt managed by Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.(fn26)

For these 2 fiscal years, the Schedules reported (1) approximately $10.1 trillion (2011) and $9.0 trillion (2010) of federal debt held by the public;(fn27)”  [link below, this inset is repeated….]

An UNqualified opinion that the public (2010, 2011) — who are they? — held $1.1 trillion MORE debt in 2011 than in 2010. Although, this is certain (an “unqualified opinion”) that someone is going to, someday, go after that public for the trillions, they cannot express ANY opinion on the following, including (on closer examination, and in many categories) sometimes several hundred billions. This being from the USGAO’s Audit Report to The President (Currently President Obama) and the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That’s who gets these reports. We can get them too, if we know that reports like this exist and might be worth looking at. GAO stands for “Government Accountability Office” and what they are auditing is described in the next inset.

The fine print gets real interesting if you pay attention to the adjectives and think about some of the noun phrases:

[To:] The President ~ The President of the Senate ~ The Speaker of the House of Representatives

The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget {{“OMB”}}, is required to annually submit financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and the Congress. GAO is required to audit these statements.1

[[OK, two parties submit the statement and the GAO audits their submissions. We are now looking at the cover letter to that audit for the years referenced below…]]

This is (1) our report on the accompanying U.S. government’s accrual-based consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 [ONLY]; the 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007 Statements of Social Insurance [[Why 5 yrs’ worth in a row? Not done annually for the other years?]] ; and the 2011 {{only?? why??}} Statement of Changes in Social Insurance Amounts; and (2) our associated reports on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations. As used in this report, accrual-based financial statements refer to all of the consolidated financial statements  {{CAFRs to us}} and notes, except for those related to the Statements of Social Insurance and the Statement of Changes in Social Insurance Amounts.2

OK, now they are SURE about the $10.1 trillion dollar debt (up $1.1 trillion in one year….), but read what comes next (actually, the above quote on the public debt was from later in the report), starting on page 1.  It’s several statements — just diagram the grammar (subject|verb|object) — what are they saying, literally?

Management of the federal government is responsible for (1) preparing annual consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); (2) establishing, maintaining, and evaluating internal control to provide reasonable assurance that the control objectives of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)3 are met; and (3) complying with laws and regulations.Also, the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies are responsible for implementing and maintaining financial management systems that substantially comply with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA).4 Appendix I discusses the objective, scope, and methodology of our work.

{{what they just said — “Mgmt of the Federal Gov’t” (who runs/manages this place anyhow?) is to: 1, 2, 3.  They are to: 1.  Prepare the statemts; 2. establish internal controls to reasonably convince (assure) someone {the GAO?}  that the [1996?] FMFIA Act control objectives are met and 3.  Comply with laws and regs.}}
Re: the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act (the act dates to 1990; <=<=that’s it’s link), that’s another topic (<=<=<= that’s a 20yr review).  Among several findings, in 1990, Congress found, #3, that “Billions of dollars are lost each year through fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement among the hundreds of programs in the Federal Government.”   As we can see, in general, this is still true, only make it probably HUNDREDS of billions, if not trillions (when it comes to Dept. of Defense.  You name the agency — it’s not balancing its books.  HHS especially)…

“I think it an object of great importance…to simplify our system of finance, and to bring it within the comprehension of every member of Congress…the whole system [has been] involved in impenetrable fog. [T]here is a point…on which I should wish to keep my eye…a simplification of the form of accounts…so as to bring everything to a single centre[;] we might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union, should be able to comprehend them to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.”

Thomas Jefferson April 1802

(cited up front the 20yr [=2011] review of that “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990)

But here’s the (2011) list of which agencies are meant:

he current CFO Act agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services [HHS], Homeland Security [DHS], Housing and Urban Development [HUD], Interior, Justice [DOJ], Labor, State [the State Department] , Transportation [DOT], the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; Environment Protection Agency [EPA]; General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration [“NASA,” right?]; National Science Foundation; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID]; and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act of 2004 included the Department of Homeland Security to the list of CFO Act agencies in place of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In summary, we found the following:
Certain material weaknesses5 in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations on the scope of our work6 resulted in conditions that continued to prevent us from expressing an opinion on the accompanying accrual-based consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.7  {{i.e., on the collective net worth (assets/liabilities, etc.) of USA, Inc.!!!
Significant uncertainties (discussed in Note 26 to the consolidated financial statements), primarily related to the achievement of projected reductions in Medicare cost growth reflected in the 2011 and 2010 Statements of Social Insurance, prevented us from expressing an opinion on those statements as well as on the 2011 Statement of Changes in Social Insurance Amounts. The Statements of Social Insurance for 2009, 2008, and 20078 are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with GAAP .
• Material weaknesses resulted in ineffective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding of assets).
• Our work to test compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations in fiscal year 2011 was limited by the material weaknesses and other scope limitations discussed in this report.

Nevertheless, despite being completely unable to even express an opinion (that’s the US GAO talking) on the state of our federal government’s fiscal affairs because of (this, that and the other) OR for that matter on the Statements of Social Insurance (Social Security?) — we DEFINITELY (we, the public) are in the hock to the tune of — as of 2011 — $10.1 trillion.

Would you voluntarily “get into bed with” (contract) or continue partnering (continue to contract with and advance money to) with a HUGE business that admits it can’t tell you where it stands?

Suppose this were about sexual relations and not commerce:  How about if it was already a sexual partner and you got back a report even close to the quality of this report on the fiscal status of the US — “It sucks, and we’re raising taxes to correct the situation.  However, no, I don’t really know how many prior partners we were in business (bed) with, or the state of commerce (intercourse) among them.  Pending our figuring it out, please continue business as usual, and give us our cut of your profits…”

(No seriously, how different is it, really, from:   Current partner: “Do you have STDs?”  Answer: “Well, due to certain material weaknesses and lack of internal controls, I can’t express an opinion on that..my other partners I’m doing business with can’t tell me if they’re STD-free.”)  What would be the normal response:  “let’s have some more sex and make some more babies together?” or “Let me know when you can, til then, count me out — and by the way, I may be presenting you with some health bills.…”

Having found this out, would you then want this partner in charge of teaching your children about safe sex, abstinence, or for that matter marriage, family, fatherhood (motherhood), in fact anything?


See, that’s what comes of swimming around in an ocean and not knowing the ocean.  That’s what comes from not understanding what “citizenship” means — from not knowing who we are doing business with — because it’s just too d@mn big and powerful, too “pervasive” and because “everyone else is doing it.” (contracting to do business with this federal government).

OK, looks like, after showing the statements, I pulled in a fourth category of symbol:  Having sex with someone.  Well, both engaging in unsafe sex and engaging in unconscious business relationships with this federal government are unwise.

Moreover, if you want to take a history of the past partners of this particular entity, continue the “long and winding rhodes” series; that’s who it is, and basically what government is about.  Government is a form of corporation..that not only makes rules it doesn’t play by itself, it makes different rules for you than for itself.

And when it has the (unidentified — because it can’t express an opinion on how those statements, right) assets, and you have the debt — plus it has the enforcement power, and controls “commerce” {{other than black market commerce, and possibly even that:  narco-dollars}} then perhaps this is not much like being controlled by a very powerful pimp.  RIGHT???  How would the benefits (going with the flow, keeping some of your take, handing over the rest, and hoping not to get into too much trouble while “working,” and hoping to dear God you also don’t lose the ability to attract business (cf. hold a job) in a culture that’s obsessed with youth — or try to break free, at possibly greater risk?


Socially and emotionally, who should a person align with, when it comes to sheer survival and hope for a future?  how about for preserving and protecting one’s kids?  Or ARE they really (legally) our kids — in the huge state system called “Social Security’ where each of us is numbered (etc.).   Should the courts be reformed?  Who the heck are the courts anyhow — what are they there for?  What are the police there for, also — when they are tossing parents into jail for protesting inappropriate removal of their (alleged) children from their (alleged) homes when a piece of paper said, “no can do”?  How about when a piece of paper says someone else owes you some money?  Should  you hire a lawyer, or an expensive law firm (called “the big guns” to shoot at the other side, verbally that is?  if you pay an attorney a whole lotta moulah — is that attorney on your side?

Bottom line, what’s the best description of the (current) landscape, for someone who is wanting to know, which way next?    What if you’re a family court refugee, or displaced person?  What if the beast just kidnapped one of your kids, but if you go after that kid, by the time you return, home (and job) will be gone?       What emotional/social/ and intellectual stance should be taken?

(note:  I don’t have YOUR answers, but am giving a few analogies that seem right to me.  Try them on for size — maybe one will seem to fit the scenario)….

Diagrammed, nice and neat:

Giant squid have eight arms but use their two long feeding tentacles to seize prey.

Around Veteran’s Day, 11/12/2012 (we had already voted as a nation), I was starting to comprehend just how large and how grossly inaccurate (and dangerous) the system of centralized accumulation of unmonitored and unrestrained wealth — by repeat shearing of the many, to be domesticated by the few –the whole operation has become.

At the time, I was looking at the US GAO report on the United States of America (Financial Statements, that is), including the parts mentioning where it can’t issue an opinion because the component parts are discrepant by, oh, a few hundred billion here and there…   Seeing this produced an (affect) emotion in me, when compared to what I personally endured, and know so many, many others also have, in prolonged distress and disruption to basic functions of life.

Automatically, I again thought of “The Giant Squid,” which I still say is a great analogy for even the family court system alone (let alone for government itself as a whole).  The image works for me because it’s a predator – -it’s a live; there are many aspects in which the image speaks to me.

However Google also that day had as its display the image of Rodin’s The Thinker” (one of the best-known status in the world, we are told).  On learning it was designed to sit over a larger ensemble, namely “the Gates of Hell,” I figured, time to talk about these symbols, before applying them.

Finally, I brought up again the inappropriate phrase (which is a symbol) “Our Broken Family Courts.”  Every part of that phrase is inappropriate except, they are “courts” (and corporations).  So here it is.

It is to the point where biochemistry is affected (we’re talking hormonal balances from too many repeated near-death, prolonged stress, or otherwise emotionally savage experiences, followed by bystanders proclaiming “it’s nothing,” etc.).   If a person is to remain functional as a physical entity yet has to shut down psychological sensitivity to others’ pain, or identifying with victims of various crimes because to do so is to identify with the weak — how can that society survive?  Is the entire system then in a state of virtual shock, thus turning off its own alarm systems because to keep them on would be too overwhelming?

Therefore, I took time to talk about the importance of symbols to grasp documented reality.  Without comparing one thing to another and seeing where it connects (“fits”), where it doesn’t, one can’t really enlarge one’s understanding.  

Mental bridges are built from the known to the unknown, that’s how we learn.   It seems innate to the human mind — we are creatures that are highly labeling and interpretive.  Through media and generations of wars, training, religion, schooling (abuse, displacements, etc.) — we have been encouraged to band together under group labels and follow the language of the leaders (or “tribes”)– even to the death, as it may be.

Anyone in the arts (whatever kind) understands, at some level that they are portraying things which can’t be said in dry, categorical terms, nearly as effectively.   These arts (whether formal, or part of a society) associate people in certain modes, and bond them together in common experiences or understandings of things that cannot be said in words.  Words themselves are also really symbols.

But what when the matter to be communicated consists of numbers, dollars, and evanescent forms of currency spanning decades of human history (and across the continents) — how to characterize “the big picture” when even huge computers can’t agree on the data?

Paleolithic art magazine   BIRTH OF SYMBOLIC THOUGHT Licia Filingeri

The emergence of the ability to symbolize, as regards our species, is an event of the utmost importance.

The symbol, material or abstract entity that refers to another entity, allows, even in absence of verbal language, knowledge and information sharing in an enlarged sphere of individuals, and therefore assumes the role of modulator of the same associative life. …

Today we know that understanding the meaning is not only localized in the neocortex; channels processing verbal and nonverbal are equally important …

We know that categorization, prerequisite of conceptualization, is mental operation very efficient to organize thoughts, as a facilitator recording, retention, and return of processing complex information …

The framework in which this process is inscribed consists, from the beginning, in the need of a social organization and communication, which also involves management of emotions. …

According to Henshilwood {{referring to Middle Stone Age findings in South Africa, i.e., ca. 70,000 years old}}, “Symbolic thinking means that people are using something to mean something else. The tools do not have to have only a practical purpose. And the ocher might be used to decorate their equipment, perhaps themselves. That is a symbol of something else, which we don’t understand. But it suggests that these people must have had articulate speech to conceive and communicate such symbolism.” (New York Times, december 2, 2001).

WE NEED VALID ANALOGIES OR SYMBOLS FOR SURVIVAL.  The Giant Squid that lives in the depths and finally got tangled with some curious and smart scientists with long lines, baits and hooks, as the articles below show, one lost parts of itself, another one died in the struggle.  They probably have met their match, should the fishermen with superior technology (despite the amazing squid anatomy) be hostile and unrestrained.  So, how about should the United States Government with its vastly superior technology and hooks, lines, and baits (given that it is an eating machine, at least revenue-wise), and the ability to regenerate tentacles (having more than eight), including tentacles that continue some activity after they’re severed,  turn more than predatory, but go rogue and unrestrained?

Try on the paradigms for size, I mean them to help; just teaching tools, that’s all.  There are about 3 below before the main meal — the Audit..

  • If the squid analogy fits, wear it.

(woman with a squid on her head ;man with squid on head  {must click on links to see the 1st and 3rd pictures} Note suckers turned outward/flanking warrior figure with squid FOR a head.  For some reason this squid creature can be terrifying, even though some cultures also eat them…)

  • (Actually, if the squid analogy keeps you on alert, then squirm free, and start squirting out warnings to others in your food category about the danger


  • Or, if you’re a cold-blooded s.o.b., don’t — set 0thers up for bait and find another place to swim…  This is what several nonprofit DV agencies do..  or set up shop working for one of the portions of the anatomy of this beast. After all, so long as it’s not YOU, right?

    • Or,  “evolve.” Sprout more limbs yourself, and alert others of your food category of the dangers.   Why were you swimming near that thing anyhow?  Find another food source or environment to live in.  Or organize the Lilliputians to catch it sleeping and snare it on something.   Do SOMETHING because this is not really a physically finite organization — it appears to be ever-expanding (who knows the limits) so long as more victims are being born somewhere in the food chain, it will continue to live, mince, digest, excrete, swim, etc.  Reproduce, presumably….
  • If the sculpture reference gets you thinking, Think.

  • Note: If the “Our Broken Family Courts” analogy makes sense to you as a parent with kids in a custody contest, get help; you’ve just been “suckered.”  Your affective just took over the controls of the cognitive and is in the drivers seat, which was no accident…WHO sold you that line of thinking? (see below, for some who did).

NB:  this sector appeals to a certain kind of mothers and a certain kind of divorce or separation involving abuse and/or domestic violence.  There’s already a “fatherhood sector” marketing to a certain kind of fathers, and then there’s these professionals here who by now KNOW but refuse to show and tell; they are also predatorial in behaviors, and promoting themselves along with the problem.   See my post in early 2011, “What Rhetoric Are You?”  This isn’t Mother, Father, or Mediator-speak.  It’s a new set of language promoting a new profession, with a profession of conscience, but not enough to expose the grants, welfare diversions, or extent of the giant squid issue.

(Speakers at the “Our Broken Family Courts Conference” (see below, orange background tables) already have the  behavioral health/forensic psychology paradigm squid in their brains (or at least in their language) — have you been stung by this species*? If as a non-custodial or challenged-custody (mother) you now believe you’re really one of them or vice versa,  you have been.   After injection of language, the economic/analysis alert sector of one’s thinking is disabled, making for easier prey & recruiting…It could happen to anyone seeking for emotional validation, shelter, or a warm shoulder to tell one’s story, don’t feel bad – but do wake up! The antitoxin usually comes in the form of reading some 990s, or a basic business analysis, etc.)

Either way — help!   Do some oceanic exploration– read the reports of those who tried to plumb the depths (USGAO) and admit they fell short — and then for some real fun/d go look at at the collective assets & special funds/CAFRs.  See if you can interpret the signs of the times.

Diagrammed, nice and neat:

Giant squid have eight arms but use their two long feeding tentacles to seize prey.

Nice and neat, and not too frightening in this static view….

But in Its Habitat, the elements of its anatomy are a little less distinct, particularly if one is the food.  If you were prey (and survived an attack), you might know know the various parts until it was too late.

(I TOLD you this was an analogy for government, right?…)

For example (in a mature specimen, which this below wasn’t) the foot-wide eyes able to detect certain luminescence of prey that deep.

giant squid

For the first time, scientists have captured images of a live giant squid–the largest invertebrate in the worldin its natural, deep-sea environment. The digital pictures not only show how Architeuthis attacks its prey, but suggest that the animal is more aggressive than previously thought .

(“I told you this was an analogy for government, right?”)

. For years, scientists have tried to spy on the colossal squid using different techniques, including observing from remote controlled submarines and strapping cameras to sperm whales, which are known to feed on the giant invertebrates. But they have always come up short. Zoologist Tsunemi Kubodera of the National Science Museum and Kyoichi Mori of the Ogasawara Whale Watching Association, both in Tokyo, Japan, finally triumphed in the deep ocean waters off the coast of the Ogasawara Islands, an archipelago 1,000 kilometers south of Japan. (Tracy Staedter, Scientific American.  Photo ca. 2004) {{i.e., they baited the hook and dragged it up…}}

The Problem with the Courts:

People are getting chewed up by parts of this system.  Some are losing their homes, or lives.  Most of us are also feeding it financially, and by simple virtue of working in, or having a business, in this country.

Although already feeding this dangerous animal, by media also, and politicians, we are constantly being bombarded by “public debt, fiscal debt, US debt” — and under-informed of the depth, range, and giant hulk of governmental assets, in its natural habitat and in action. A look at the list of government entities and their statements of collective net worth (CAFRs) will bring up a haul of a different kind.

It may not be entertaining reading, however, it is one thing to keep straight, if you’re, say, a medium-sized squids.  Species similarity aside, the giant squid feeds on others of its own kind (smaller breeds).

Imagine if you were aware of, and witnessed, say, large dogs doing this, naturally.  Would you be so enamored of your nice, tail-wagging, slurping large dogs because it also can heard sheep, catch a frisbee, (guard your home) or occasionally win a “best of show”?  ….

Read on…

Seeing & Sensing the Situation:

This is the digital, information age, and the economy – and increasingly, the justice systems — are global, and the training setting them up is conference and technology-based.

Yet the connections between this courthouse and a variety of federal, state, local grants, private nonprofit trade associations and the nonprofit/for-profit combination of contractors involved in the increasingly “unified” and One-Stop-Shop Justice Centers — are tricky to grasp without the larger context.  To what shall we compare them?  Is there anything in real (animate) life to which they may be compared?

Reaction, in the courts, once netted:

So instead of understanding the ocean and creatures from the deep, people once snared thrash around, fish out of water, or live beings with tentacles drawing them inexorably towards the central beak, in preparation for being mincemeat for its strange digestive system (the esophagus goes through the center of the brain….), instead get hung up on the personality of their judges, or their custody evaluators, or talk about how powerful their “ex” might be (in some cases), or complain that the  squid isn’t playing by the rules it which bait the prey into believing it represents “justice.”

Their “ex” is rarely that powerful — in the larger scope– more likely swimming with the flow instead of against it.    Moreover, there are deep waters in government operations, of which courts are part.

Then some of “us” (humans) want to act on that by complaining about it, or calling for an audit.  Or starting an initiative, assigning a task force, or holding a hearing. (especially if helps the nonprofits or corporations attached to the loud complaints).

But as we can see — if we look — even the GAO can’t audit the USA.  And who’d pay for it?  Because who IS government anyhow?

What this tells me:  Parents (and bystanders) strung out in the court systems don’t see the forest for the trees.   They sense a personal “hell,” or may grasp several strands of reason and logic and even weave them together in a media campaign good enough to form a nonprofit — but this doesn’t synthesize the whole in a sensible enough way to change things.  And thrashing around in groups, they become literally a “bait ball” of fish attracting predators from both above, AND below, and making the neighborhood more dangerous.  There are some photographs of this in action (search the web)…

People who don’t have a clear grasp of the details AND context of certain institutions, or movements, are subject to being, well– food for them.  After enough of this, those left start to develop some survival skills.  After change of attitude, and the decision to acquire better survival skills, the question is a matter of time and a matter of  how to get free, once hooked (or one one of our family is hooked!) — because unlike these squid, we don’t have 8 arms,  and even people with eight kids don’t normally like to sacrifice one of them, and shouldn’t.

TO ANALYZE GOVERNMENT, THE CAFRs are, at least in print, like that diagram of a squid above. They have segments showing which sections of the anatomy of government (which FUNDS) are for which purposes.  There are ways to lay it all out to examine.

To comprehend what it is and relate that to something IN ITS NATURAL HABIT IN MOTION, we must do.  Both are important.  In this post, I have a GAO report (at the bottom) but have spent most of the time going into detail on the symbolism (choice of symbols) to relate something we don’t yet understand to something we do.  It’s in the relating unknown to known, the light comes on (so to speak).  The “Aha!” and what this means to my future.

CAFR’s at a single glance (esp. to the novice) are not exactly a clear mental image. Even if it becomes clear through intense observations, there’s the hurdle of how do you conceptualize $2,000,000 (millions) versus $2,000,000,000 (billions) versus $2,000,000,000,000 (trillions) of revenues versus expenses in a world when most people have no idea how many government agencies are sitting around anyhow collecting and disbursing anyhow??  And who may be lucky to have a monthly net income of $2,000 for a family of three?  

Then multiply that by the variety of sources inbound and sources out-go and get a mental image you can act on which tells you how Government (if it can be defined) behaves and what protective, or pro-active behaviors to take:  whether adaptation or relocation, or finding a LARGE school of fish and heading towards its center, sacrificing the outer edges.

FOR EXAMPLE, from this Audit, as to the IRS:

From the USGAO report below, (Appendix I, p. 221, after all the disclaimers of issuing an opinion and discussions of material weaknesses, etc.), on the Comptroller’s audit of the IRS

 We also separately audited the financial statements of certain federal entities and federal agency components including the following:

• We audited and expressed an unqualified opinion on the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) fiscal years 2011 and 2010 financial statements.25  In fiscal years 2011 and 2010, IRS collected about $2.4 trillion and $2.3 trillion, respectively, in tax payments and paid about $416 billion and $467 billion, respectively, in refunds to taxpayers. For fiscal year 2011, we continued to report material weaknesses that resulted in ineffective internal control over financial reporting . .

(A # right after sentences is a footnote)..

Could you from that mentally deduce about what percent the IRS over-collected and that this means, collectively, taxpaying entities (Note:  Could be persons or corps) overpaid — by over four hundred billion?   And what this signifies, collectively when the profit (whether interest income or, more likely, investments) went to the government versus the taxpayers in the meantime?  Money isn’t just stagnant, and large pools of money tend to do something other than just sit still — they generally speaking (if gov’t has them) are invested in something — or at a minimum, earning interest.

And, what is $416 billion to $2.4 trillion, and what’s it to me?  And, having that in mind, could you having read that paragraph remember it til you ran across the section (several pages later) which talks about “hundreds of billions of dollars” of discrepancies between…

Further, there continue to be** hundreds of billions of dollars of unreconciled differences between the General Fund of the U.S. Government and federal entity trading partners related to appropriation and other intragovernmental transactions. The ability to reconcile such transactions is hampered because only some of the General Fund of the U.S. Government is reported in the Department of the Treasury’s financial statements.

What’s a “federal entity trading partner?”
What’s an “unreconciled difference”?  What relationship do “federal entity trading partners” have to each other and both of them to the “General Fund of the U.S.Government?
 **”there continue to be” means it’s been an ongoing condition to have hundreds of billions of $$ unreconciled… Now THAT’s interesting…  is the brain on overload yet (I hope not).

We audited and expressed an unqualified opinion on the Schedules of Federal Debt managed by Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.26 For these 2 fiscal years, the Schedules reported (1) approximately $10.1 trillion (2011) and $9.0 trillion (2010) of federal debt held by the public;27

Interesting, much of the GAO audit is disclaiming an opinion, but when it comes to the Treasury’s Bureau of Public Debt, their opinion is UNqualified (i.e., that BPD documented its stuff).

Of course it’s always “the public stuck” with the debt (besides providing the revenues) which the “government” has to collect from it:   But,  who is “the public” here?  It has a footnote 27.  If it were self-evident, no one would need a footnote.

And, well, that footnote says, the PUBLIC here, in the context of an audit on the USA FEDERAL government, actually includes other governments than the federal — that one HQ’d in Washington, D.C.  Footnote 27… (I enlarged to make a point).  And corps. …. By “individuals” I don’t know exactly what’s referenced.  An individual could be a citizen or not.

27The public holding federal debt is comprised of individuals, corporations, state and local governments, the Federal Reserve Banks, foreign governments, and central banks.

This reminds us that the federal government (commonly thought of as “The USA”) (although this audit is only of one of its three branches, the Executive….) is itself a lending corporation, gathering, and redistributing center  to (a,b,c,d,e above) including “state and local governments, FOREIGN governments and Federal Reserve Banks. …and “central banks”  {of which countries?} ??).

So the imagery here has to encompass that ‘government” is not just one big blob but a lot more like an organism with a circulatory system, and vales, meters, and pumps throughout the organism.   Hence my squid analogy.  So, then, this is a snapshot of how it thinks of itself, and which says, “well, I can’t tell for sure, parts are doing well (from my point of view) and other parts, I can’t tell, because the sensors (nerves) to that part of my body are a little numb, pinched, or deceiving HQ….  I mean, think about it!

As I’ve been emphasizing:  Courts are only a part of Government which is a specialized form of Business.  The context of their operation is a public/private partnership.  Government & nonprofit trade association & nonprofit service delivery, aided by collected, centralized wealth — a lot of in the form of the Social Security Act’s various titles, which I laid out (as of 1935) several posts earlier.   This money is collected, then distributed according to various formula and rules, not that they’re followed.

“Family Courts” are not federal courts, although so much of their funding comes from the feds they might as well be….

There are some who say what we call “The United States of America” is, literally, a corporation, not a country.  I’m not prepared to fully explain or document that it literally is a Corporation making rules and operating completely outside them (although I’m of the opinion, given the history of the District of Columbia, etc.).  However, this is what United States Code, Title 28 (on the Judiciary, obviously) says:

USC : Title 28 – JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (@ Legal Information Institute)





§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

So,  I hope this post alerts us to what is swimming around the same ocean of humanity (and technology) with the rest of us (defined as, if you’re looking at this blog and are a human being).  In the ocean and out of it, in real life, the general idea is to stay alive, and (for moral reasons) not be used as bait for others by further elongating the centralized squid.  And of course, not to get chewed up (eaten) or hang out in the feeding grounds.  Sooner or later the small fry will be eaten up and it’ll be time for the mid-sized fish.

_ _ _ _ _ _

For example, Google chose “The Thinker” to celebrate what in USA is Veteran’s Day.  go figure.  It’s been having some strange symbols recently.  The Thinker was a figure from Dante’s Inferno originally intended to be sitting over “The Gates of Hell.” See it right below the top trio (right column)?

(This “gates of hell” analogy still seems an appropriate responsive/affective analogy, for the “family court system, ”  from the point of view of its clients.   I imagine others share the sentiment).  Parents have been observed shaking in fear (or anger), or in shock going in, and coming out, of those doors.  In my “Who Bought My Kids?” blog, e.g., it shows  young Florida  mother who got knocked unconscious (and seriously injured) right in front of a judge, in his chambers.   Previously, he didn’t believe the risk level and had turned her down on restraining orders.  I guess it made “a believer” out of him, but meanwhile, it fractured her jaw, etc.  (The issue at hand was child support, someone didn’t want to pay it). So, I‘d call that situation hellish all round, and if the point is to characterize it and get an emotional reaction, that analogy works…

The Thinker, (alone, and sitting over “The Gates of Hell”)

The Thinker(Wikipedia):Rodin was born in 1840 into a working-class family in Paris, the second child of Marie Cheffer and Jean-Baptiste Rodin, who was a police department clerk. He was largely self-educated,[4] and began to draw at age ten. Between ages 14 and 17, Rodin attended the Petite École, a school specializing in art and mathematics, where he studied drawing and painting….Sculpturally, Rodin possessed a unique ability to model a complex, turbulent, deeply pocketed surface in clay. Many of his most notable sculptures were roundly criticized during his lifetime. They clashed with the predominant figure sculpture tradition, in which works were decorative, formulaic, or highly thematic.Rodin’s most original work departed from traditional themes of mythology and allegory, modeled the human body with realism,** and celebrated individual character and physicality. Rodin was sensitive to the controversy surrounding his work, but refused to change his style. Successive works brought increasing favor from the government and the artistic community.From the unexpected realism of his first major figure – inspired by his 1875 trip to Italy – to the unconventional memorials whose commissions he later sought, Rodin’s reputation grew, such that he became the preeminent French sculptor of his time. By 1900, he was a world-renowned artist. Wealthy private clients sought Rodin’s work after his World’s Fair exhibit. For example, a Japanese patron,Matsukata Kojiro, paid for some of Rodin’s best castings, including “The Gates of Hell.”[3]

Auguste Rodin<br>La Porte de l'Enfer<br>© Musée Rodin - Photo : Jean de Calan

AUGUSTE RODIN (1840-1917)


1880-circa 1890 Bronze H. 635 cm ; W. 400 cm ; D. 85 cm S.1304

Cast made by Fonderie Alexis Rudier in 1928 for the museum collections.

The Gates of Hell occupied a unique place in Rodin’s oeuvre [“work”]. Working feverishly on this project for several years, he created over 200 figures and groups that formed a breeding ground* for ideas which he drew on for the rest of his working life. Having hoped to exhibit hisGates at the 1889 Exposition Universelle, but probably too busy to finish them, the sculptor stopped working on them circa 1890.

He did, however, express his desire to complete them on several occasions. In 1900, he decided to finally unveil them at his first solo exhibition in Paris. But they were shown in a fragmentary state, since he had given up the idea of mounting the figures that stood out the most – the individual figures cast separately from the main structure – because he thought they produced too strong an effect of contrast with the background. In 1907, The Gates almost saw the day in a luxury bronze and marble version to be erected in the Musée du Luxembourg, which housed works purchased by the French state from contemporary artists.

Not until 1917 did Léonce Bénédite, the Musée Rodin’s first curator, manage to persuade the sculptor to allow him to reconstruct his masterpiece in order to have it cast in bronze. Rodin died before seeing the result of all these long years of effort.

{{Note: sculptures and groups of figures as breeding grounds for ideas.}}
Funny, looks like he just missed (by dying) the end of some real hell in the form of World War I…

For one, sculpture doesn’t move as fast as living animals….

It expresses ideas (so do clearinghouses a.k.a. websites and media campaigns, and their language/s) . . . which ideas, acted on, affect others.  But sculpture itself [well, this kind anyhow] doesn’t move; it is installed; inanimate. When you’re looking at it, it’s finite.  You see it.

OTHERS choose (for the courts segment) THE “BROKEN FAMILY COURTS” analogy.  This system alleges they have fallen from Paradise (so to speak), were intact and functional at some point in time — but experienced a “breaking” — by some vandals, I guess.   That’s effective if you are one of the fixers selling a fix — which, sadly, many people are.   I said what I had to on this issue last April, when I ran across a March, 2012 conference of this title (while hunting down something else).

Complimentary admission to a timely and provocative conference cosponsored by the NAPPP & the Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Foundation, featuring renowned authorities, including (with more to be announced)

(Click on logo above to link or below to read my immediate response, on seeing the conference:

Notes on Broken Courts and the Experts who want to Fix Them

i.e, I took the time to look up this Foundation, the NAPP, Nicholas Cummings and some of his nonprofits, and in general, what they were about. that’s called self-education and valuable, fruitful, and enjoyable. I incorporated it into a growing database about “how things developed in the USA,” particularly about the various ways of popularizing psychology and the variety of guru’s in the field.).

Mr. Cummings thought creatively as a businessman about the future of his colleagues in the profession of psychology, and (through prior, I’d have to say, earned, wealth) helped set up professional schools for clinical psychologists to get their Ph.D.’s. He used to work for Kaiser Permanente, is thinking in terms of preserving the money behind the profession of his fellow psychologists.

The people who say the courts are broken are the fixers, and they play as an allied group of experts to an emotionally receptive audience in those who feel betrayed, lost, traumatized, angry and “what happened around here?” which is good for business if you are in the business of advertising the problem along with the solution (hire better experts, like us….).


  • If the courts are broken, that would make sense.
  • If the courts are, however, NOT broken, that would be like pouring money down the drain.

However, what the courts “are” depends on one’s point of view.  Understanding them as the business model they are accommodates the different points of view:  The courts are part of government; government is a business and operations through contracts with other business.  The question I had — why are DV experts hanging out with psychologists, when the former know the latter are reframing abuse as a mental health issue, including promoting “parental alienation syndrome” throughout the land?  Are the DV experts and crisis in the courts (the “Fix the Courts”) crowd a little dense?

I don’t think so.  Some of their acolytes are, but these aren’t.  Business is business, and here it shows up a little later (predictably, from an alert about ain’t it great we have some more support for understanding how broken the courts are?

The Cummings Foundation mailed a comprehensive report about the family court crisis to all members of Congress, every state’s Governor and Chief Justice, and thousands of law schools and forensic psychologists around the country.***The report highlights the analysis of the U.S. family courts’ systemic flaws as presented by several esteemed lawyers, judges, psychologists and other experts who participated at the Cummings Foundation’s “Our Broken Family Court System” conference in Phoenix,Arizona March 2011 (I BELIEVE that was 2012)http://thecummingsfoundation.org/landing/broken-family-courts-initiative

….Wow, someone has a little spare funds for photocopying….

***How about domestic violence agencies?  How about putting some of this into the hands of the affected parents?   Am I supposed to believe the Cummings Foundation is clueless about the AFCC, the CRC, the NACC and friends, and about welfare?  C’mon now !!!    !!!!

I guess all the financially devastated parents fighting to see their kids again can hop on down to their local legislator’s office and ask for a free copy.

This is so predictable it’s almost painful….

A brief illustration of where this all has been going, from the start – including from people who could easily talk about the AFCC, welfare diversions, and how the child support system has been converted into fatherhood promotion, how block grants to the states are sailing ships into the Bermuda Triangle of Missing Corporations & Grants, while setting up any number of trademarked products for sale to the public at its own expense.. . … But that would reflect badly on the above esteemed experts, and their professions, wouldn’t it! I’ll try and bite my tongue on this one, I know several of the players and their habitats, and breeding grounds:

Notice the logo (scales) and nice branding (color scheme).  Several groups are going to be tag-teaming along with the Cummings Foundation, which already has some momentum (and resources).

Broken Family Courts Initiative

In honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health has launched a national initiative and Congressional advocacy campaign to address systemic failures in the U.S. family courts that are placing tens-of-thousands of children in harm’s way each year.

The goal of the Cummings Foundation’s initiative is to develop policy solutions at the federal level that will address the crisis in a meaningful way. To ensure that our nation’s top elected officials are made aware of the deep, systemic flaws that are harming more than 58,000 children per year in America’s family courts,** the Foundation has just mailed a comprehensive report about the crisis to all members of Congress, every state’s Governor and Chief Justice, and thousands of law schools and forensic psychologists around the country. The report highlights our analysis of the U.S. family courts’ systemic flaws as presented by several esteemed lawyers, judges, psychologists and other experts who participated at the Cummings Foundation’s “Our Broken Family Court System” conference in Phoenix, Arizona last March.

See below for more information about the Cummings Foundation’s Broken Family Courts Initiative.

Cummings Foundation Broken Family Courts Initiative Highlighted on Fox 11 News (Los Angeles)
Read the Press Release
Initiative FAQs
Learn more about The Cummings Foundation.

These experts will never “tell” on where their less-trained colleagues are getting paid from…. which includes federal grants.

I have to bite my tongue here.  However, the “tell” is “58,000 children per year” which is a signal of “The Leadership Council.”  Somehow, year after year, this figure never changes.  It’s probably very, very low (and probably intentionally so).

Pulling in Domestic Violence Awareness Month is simply an industry term (DV is an industry and some of its representatives were at the conference last March).  The intention to develop “POLICY SOLUTIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL” ignores that fact that the feds already have a policy operating through the courts (for profit).   The “system flaws” etc. is a “Crisis in the Courts” term, from Center for Judicial Excellence et al., including California Protective Parents Association.

“BROKEN” — 4x; “systemic flaws ” or some version of it (“failure”) — several x.

The information here calls it a “comprehensive report” but in the next click (see “FAQs” etc.) it becomes a BOOK.   If you click on the “Initiative,” after the initial advertising (it’s called “Branding”) and introduction to Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings (which someone should read — and see their business background, they’re smart!) —

3. What inspired the Cummings Foundation’s interest in the family court crisis?A: Nick and Dorothy are part of the unfortunate segment of American society that became personally mired in the family court system, or what they refer to as “Family Court Hell.”Nick became both shamed and chagrined by his own profession’s involvement in a system that far too frequently places children into the custody of a parent who is physically or sexually abusing a child, so he and his wife decided to work toward solutions that will better protect children of divorce.

Sure, they had a late-in-life emotional conversion and repentance and want to cry out? And not to cry out against injustice — but against lack of professional ethics among a profession he’s worked a lifetime and contributed quite a bit of wealth to guarantee a future for.  And this profession thrives on forensic evaluation of child abuse cases…which are the mainstream — the jugular– of the family court custody disputes, being reframed by the same type or professionals as “high-conflict” (not abusive, of course).

If you believe this, you are not a reader, not even quick background checks, and will believe anything.  Even if the Cummings did have a really bad Family Court Hell — what sector of the family?  

  • Marv Byer from Los Angeles area, had a family court hell (his daughter) too, but it resulted in his work getting publicized on the web — not just to selected professionals and legislators, and then sold as part of a coalition of professionals!
  • And these findings are a lot closer to the truth of the court operations, too!   His narratives (in the 1990s) also interacts and intersects with people like John Silva (Silva v. Garcetti) and Richard Fine; the “powers that be” in on way want that information publicized!  Which can be seen by how Richard Fine was treated (disbarred, and tossed in jail, solitary, for 18 months!!!)  His attorneys’ fees also, I heard, won honestly, were not paid.  Ca. 2009.  MOST of the DV industry — and the coalitions — won’t touch this one with a ten-foot pole.
  • Here is a good example of some of his work tracking corporations — the Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation.  Obviously, the man (I’m presuming this represent Mr. Byer, though I’m not sure) is not talking forensic psychology-speak, but corporate-economic-trustee-bondholder-taxpayerspeak.
  • Here’s just a segment — and you can see an entirely different line of reasoning at work, and his speaking is a LOT more closer to the talk in the US GAO than is the conference talk about behavioral health.
August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others,drop us a line.These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4).{{my note — not as 501(c)3’s easier to look at the books of…}}They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.  

{{that means someone else put up the funds, and they put up the collateral/the security — what’s the collateral What does a 501(c)4 called the “LACCC” have as legitimate “security”??}}

{{by “Calif. Dept. of Corps” — I think he means the Secretary of State.}}

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements.

While here, I again looked up (at the SOS cite for California) the words “los angeles county courthouse corporation” and got nothing existing now — but you can see how often ones were formed…. for the purpose of raising money and doing business (commerce) in California….  You can see that in 68, 71, 74, and finally 84 corporations were founded, and none are now active….

Results of search for ” LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE CORPORATION ” returned 4entity records.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

NOTHING SHOWS UNDER PUBLIC DISCLOSURES SITE:  Apparently these were not public traded corporations…

The Publicly Traded Disclosure Search allows you to search for all publicly traded corporations that have filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement with the Secretary of State, search based on information contained in a specific statement and view abstracts of reported information. There is no fee associated with this search.
Specific reporting requirements for publicly traded corporations can be found in Corporations Code sections1502.1 and 2117.1 and in the instructions to the Corporate Disclosure Statement (PDF file). To search for any corporation registered with the Secretary of State, please use the California Business Search.

I respect Nicholas (“Nick”?? familiar terms, eh:  “Nick and Dorothy” to participants, like a Mom & Pop store) have an amazing legacy.  Unfortunately, I am opposed to behavioral-healthicizing the courts:

Behavioral Health Conferences

Sure, just take it on faith (there does appear to be a daughters’ divorce, but a lot of similarity between this couple and the rest of us can be seen by finding out about his professional life, and their tight-knit family foundation’s history as well.

Without some ability to manipulate symbols or metaphors, and understand the parallels, one lives in a disjunct, disconnected (and upredictable) world.  Language itself is a symbol, but it points to experience  outside the symbol.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Symbols can come from literature & sculpture, but today’s is GIANT SQUID from nature, even more impressive for one reason– it’s real, observable, not imaginary.  

Most of us cannot “visualize” the huge extent and amount of data numerically — and sticking up database after database (or even graphs) doesn’t give a grasp of the lifestyle, habits, breeding & feeding grounds, characteristics (SIZE), and specialized anatomy of what we in mythological terms call “GOVERNMENT” without knowing (WTF*) that means.

That’s one reason it’s so powerful and successful, can grow so fast, and in short, has many characteristics of the Giant Squid.  

So, Holy Squid!, yeah, I think the analogy applies.

So yeah re: this squid; I’ve studied at the specimens — in words, charts, bait, entrapment, where they live, what they do, and what prey looks like after it’s been through the process of seeking help, justice, enforcement, protection, etc. –  for many years now, and thanks to the marvel of electronic communications, my information is not limited to only this locale or only my case.

I’ve also been snared repeatedly and in getting free, had to sever valuable parts of my life, limiting mobility and power, and people don’t sprout parts back as fast as squid, or (apparently) government and its initiatives.

From (fairly old — 2006) National Geographic News.

Photo in the News: Giant Squid Captured,  Filmed for First Time

Giant squid photo

December 22, 2006—Like pulling a shadow from the darkness, researchers in Japan have captured and filmed a live giant squid—likely for the first time—shedding new light on the famously elusive creatures.

Tsunemi Kubodera, a scientist with Japan’s National Science Museum, caught the 24-foot (7-meter) animal earlier this month near the island of Chichijima, some 600 miles (960 kilometers) southeast of Tokyo (seeJapan map).

His team snared the animal using a line baited with small squid and shot video of the russet-colored giant as it was hauled to the surface.

The squid, a young female, “put up quite a fight” as the team attempted to bring it aboard, Kudobera told the Associated Press, and the animal died from injuries sustained during the capture.

Giant squid, the world’s largest invertebrates, are thought to reach sizes up to 60 feet (18 meters), but because they live at such great ocean depths they have never been studied in the wild.

How nice of them, in an attempt to study them live, killing the animal, thereby reducing the giant squid population by one female’s future offspring…

Holy Squid! Photos Offer First Glimpse of Live Deep-Sea Giant

James Owen
for National Geographic News

September 27, 2005
Yeah, holy squid, for real!

The animal—which measures roughly 25 feet (8 meters) long—was photographed 2,950 feet (900 meters) beneath the North Pacific Ocean. Japanese scientists attracted the squid toward cameras attached to a baited fishing line.

The scientists say they snapped more than 500 images of the massive cephalopod before it broke free after snagging itself on a hook. They also recovered one of the giant squid’s two longest tentacles, which severed during its struggle.

The photo sequence, taken off Japan’s Ogasawara Islands in September 2004, shows the squid homing in on the baited line and enveloping it in “a ball of tentacles.”

Now perhaps some of the parents around may understand why I chose this analogy.  Ever walked into an office, or a courtroom, for a hearing (or help) on ONE matter, and find out you were just baited into a permanent, years-long struggle, during which pieces of your life may be severed?  Or, if you managed to change one part of it, the other ones broke free and retreated to the depths again?

Architeuthis appears to be a much more active predator than previously suspected, using its elongated feeding tentacles to strike and tangle prey,” the researchers write.

They add that the squid was found feeding at depths where no light penetrates even during the day.

From the Smithsonian Institute :

Giant squid have eight arms but use their two long feeding tentacles to seize prey.
What an amazing predator: with foot-wide eyes and a donut-shaped brain, able to snatch things pretty danged far away, pull it in towards destruction;  and suckers all along all of its eight arms, to be sliced & diced up into tiny pieces by the beak (guess the esophagus isn’t that large), and behind that, more the “radula,”  like a tongue only covered with rows of teeth.    With EIGHT arms, I guess the animal can survive the loss of an arm.
The head holds eyes the size of dinner plates — the largest in the animal kingdom. At 1 foot (30 centimeters) in diameter, these huge eyes absorb more light than their smaller counterparts would, allowing the squid to glimpse bioluminescent prey — or sight predators lurking — in the dark.”
It also has a funnel underneath propulsion using the existing environment (i.e., water), ink for concealment, and (it says) laying eggs.  Kind of reminds you of multi-purpose anatomy on humans..


How long does it take to grow so big? Unlike mammals, including people, and many fish species, cephalopods grow very quickly and die after a short life. Evidence from statoliths (a small mineralized mass that helps squid balance), which accumulate “growth rings” and can be used to measure age, suggests that giant squid live no more than five yearswhich means each squid must grow incredibly quickly to reach 30 feet in just a few years! To grow at such a rate, giant squid must live in areas of the ocean where there is an abundant supply of food to provide enough energy.”

Food/Feeding:  What do they eat?

But what do giant squids eat? Although scientists have not witnessed a giant squid feeding, they have cut open the stomachs of squids washed up on beaches to see what they had eaten recently. Giant squid mostly eat deep water fishes and other squids — including other giant squids.

Hopefully by now, someone has picked up on why I am comparing the business of “government” to a wild predator that is rarely observed in action, has a short growth curve, and eats its own — etc.    This wouldn’t be complete with, how do they “spawn”? (the reproductive cycle.  
Again, we saw yesterday (light-green background box on a post) how the City Council of City of Industry, California spawned a few authorities that started doing business (very good business, apparently), and baiting foreign trade from afar (Asian in particular) with its duty-free zone that is physically in Los Angeles County, California.
So the squid analogy isn’t complete unless we talk about how such short-lived animals reproduce.  Here’s part of the description, reminding us that it STILL takes two to tango, even among strange, larger, predators. Doesn’t sound like there’s much emotional contact, just enough for the magic of life to start.  There are parallels in the corporate world (maybe where they got some of their ideas from, who knows?):  All this from the Smithsonian site:

Once the male finds a female — whether it happens by chance or by following a chemical signal is unknown — the male injects sperm packets directly into the female’s arms. 

The rest of the story from here is mostly guesswork. The sperm could travel through her arms to fertilize the eggs internally. But researchers suspect that the arm-shot of spermatophores triggers the female squid’s ovaries to release eggs bound together with jelly, which she holds in her arms. Then the sperm sense the eggs nearby and migrate in that direction to fertilize the eggs.

Females then release millions of tiny, transparent fertilized eggs into the water in a jellied clump called an egg mass. Most are quickly snatched up as food by other marine animals. But a few survive — and within a few years, they become giant marine predators.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(essentially a business, but without the transparency and accountability public-traded corporations give their own shareholders (or else risk conviction for fraud, etc.) on the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission; keeping in mind that a Security to someone who holds (or sells/buys it) could be a home — it is a liability, it is a DEBT — to someone else.
Corporations who do this, have to file their statements.  The government’s many funds (not just the ones relating to their governmental activities — but proprietary and fiduciary funds (I listed 91 the USA holds yesterday; also consider the Federal Employee Pension funds, etc.) — that can be invested all over the place, and are.   This, besides doing commerce with so many businesses, is another way our government literally invests in other corporations, and in other governments.  If you want a look at it in action, get a hold of a financial statement on a retirement fund of any category of civil employee.  The money comes from both employer and employee, is pooled centrally, and is invested to bring an ROI.

I haven’t got time to analyze narrate and teach what could be understood, with a little diligence, by reading. I am the person with the red flag, waving it, saying “LOOK HERE” and squawking about the issues, in an eccentric and wordy manner, and (if I’m lucky) with a few graphics or background-color changes.

Systems — of any sort — have basic operating principles. So does government.  Anyone who wants justice from it should be looking carefully (internet access really does help) at its characteristics, and pay attention to changes over time. And quit reciting the same old “stats” while most situations are always dynamic, changing, and growing.

So I decided to simply post the contents of this GAO Auditor’s report (featured on recent posts) and let you see for yourself.

United States Government Accountability Office’s statements about the Executive Branch of the United States Government (including 35 federal entities)

 I want us to see what an auditor’s report has to say on the highest unit of government in the USA, as of 2011, I guess:

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
The President (i.e., President Obama…, i.e., of the United States of America)
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives

The Secretary of the Treasuryin coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is required to annually submit financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and the Congress.  GAO is required to audit these statements.1 **

…….An audit of financial statements and a corporation (or government) is one thing; the financial statements themselves, another.  Just for the record, this is the AUDIT.



Well, that’s enough for now!

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

December 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: