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

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery (1997)

File this Article under “What a Difference One Person can Make, if that person: Has Guts, Will Obtain Evidence, Look at Evidence, Come to Logical Conclusion regarding Evidence Obtained AND Publicize It! Includes Marv Bryer’s discoveries, especially in the mid- to late 1990s.

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.   Also in this (fairly short) post:

Also in this post:

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

[in ANTISHYSTER http://www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4, p. 51ff]

1997 interview with Marv Bryer.
[I ASK READERS: ] Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it?  If Yes, and If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember?

---

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.

Underneath this, I also pointed out that (for example, in California) the shifting of literally trial courts, to the state level away from the local, AND of the workforce (county employees) of the courts to become instead trial court employees — moves the entire power structure up to the state level — but under Administration (“AOC”).  What does this mean?  How about shifting the bureaucracy of court operations up to the State level, where it’s harder to sue (see “immunity”).  It also centralizes power and control — and for this matter, I have not note that “AFCC” is very active at the state level under this particular Judicial Council’s AOC.

Table is repeated below:

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.      Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.

That 221 page document should be read– it shows the centralization and expansion of control in the administrative sector.

See Large Yellow Inset Box below this opening text (which I added May, 2013), and take it from there. Check back from time to time (I may later pull that opening text into a separate place).. Please trust me [OK, just consider — check it out against other evidence] that the next link is one of THE most important ones any person in a custody battle (male or female) should be reading, and thinking about.. Very few sources will focus on this when it comes to “reforming the courts” “protecting children” or in short, any good and noble cause such as might be the topic of an federally funded (or private nonprofit) initiative.

This post is PRIMARILY to promote this ONE link. It’s a 1997 interview of a grandfather witnessing his daughter’s custody battle, I believe in Los Angeles. You don’t get much more relevant and central than what’s happening in the Los Angeles County Courthouse. This is where the “Conference of Conciliation Courts” began and, in a real way, a good deal of the entire system we have today (although definitely national and international alliances were involved early on). It says:

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.
He got (from the bank — not through FOIA, which can be forestalled more easily) the records of all Donations from the County Bar — to the Superior Court. The County Bar was an Association — and I have another post about Bar Associations, because the topic is so vital.

Judges have immunity for what they do on the bench — but Bar Associations do not. If there is a conspiracy between bench and bar…He is not talking “they just don’t understand” (custody matter) — but words relating to the handling of money: fraud, grand larceny, racketeering; in other words, taking money for funds that don’t exist — then the angle of approach is getting the evidence and understanding the pattern in those areas..

…But it’ s my daughter’s case that’s so unique here, it’s what we uncovered involving a ju- dicial slush fund and the Continuing Legal Education for lawyers program (which I believe is nationwide).

In other words, if there’ s a scheme in California where a group of Los An- geles judges extort money from the pub- lic in return for favorable verdicts, then there’s a strong probability that a simi- larschememayexistinothercitiesand states across the nation. Then, y our story is significant because it may provide evidence of systemic judicial cor- ruption across the USA. And more importantly, you seem to have found a strat- egy to overcome judicial immunity.

I’m investigating an area where they have absolutely no imm unity – their associations. They can’t claim immunity because an association can be sued. 

In other words, if a single judge commits unlawful acts from the bench, he can easily hide behind his personal immunity. But if it can be shown that that judge is working in association with other judges, then just like a conspirac y, there is not only no collective immunity, there’s no personal imm unity either?

Exactly. The y have immunity for wha t they do individually inside a cour t, but what they do outside — taking bribes and collectively setting up cases in their associa tions they have no immunity whatsoever because their “corpora tions” or associations have no immunity. Tha t’s an exciting insight and I’d lik e everyone in the USA to join me in a cru- sade to get our country back

…They don’t want to review evidence in- volving the money-laundering scheme. In fact, there are boxes of checks back to 1962 involving the judges and the court that the distr ict attorney doesn’ t dare touch because once he touches he has to investigate

I was looking through copies of three years of bank statements you sent. Most of them are from the Bank of America for the “LA Superior Court Judges’ Association”. How did you get hold of the documentation?

That’s a heck of a story and a lot of people are still shaking their heads on how I did it. The courts can’t even believe it. I used common law. A case called Copley Press v. Superior Court from San Diego around 1992. …

By using common law to argue the public has a right to know — certain information cannot be kept confidential. When you deal with the court you can’ t file a Freedom Of Information Act or even certain kinds of public record act requests. But under common law you certainly can make those requests and that’s exactly what I’ve done.

With no cost to me, I first asked the bank for a list of the donations from the county bar to the Superior Court of Los Angeles. They got a little shook up and battled me for one month but finally

gave it to me. However, they only gave me the fronts of checks. So I subpoe- naed the backs of the checks deposited into the American International Bank — from there I followed the money trail (which is w hat we all have to do whether we’r e dealing with the Democratic Na- tional Party, the GOP, or anything where there’s illegal money).

W hat’ s the signif icance of the back of the check compared to the front? For example, if the front of a check says it’s g oing to the “L.A. Judges’ Associa- tion,” why do we want to see the check’s back?

===>>>Fraud. What they’ve done is created aliases on the fronts of the checks where the checks are made out to a fund which does not even exist (it a ppears to be a court of law). Some of the checks I have are made out to “Family Court Services Special Fund” — but there is no such fund. But the backs of the checks show the money in one instance deposited to the “Judges’ Miscellaneous Expense Fund”. <<<=== !!!

We have a state law called State Penal Code 530 — when you take money under assumed character it’s a felony and any money over $400 is tantamount to grand theft larceny — State Penal Code 487. We’re looking at major crime.

You’re doing outstanding work.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the right to come on your show because I’m having a hard time in Calif ornia get- ting my word out to the public.

This approach and information runs completely contrary to any and just about ALL the advocacy efforts in any number of advocacy groups  and shows MOST of them for who and what they truly are: self-serving collaborators who have intentionally engaged in a virtual “media blackout” on the economic angle to the courts. That last comment was not made lightly; it was made from a place of both observation, a good deal of personal acquaintance, networking — AND lookups. (Like most of my opinion, I no longer “take it on faith” but administer a “show me the money!” as well as often watch a group’s actions and affiliations develop over time).

After reviewing a mutually self-congratulating self-promoting group of individuals (and their nonprofits — the ones I could locate in time and space, that is) I decided that needs to be a separate post.

The True/False — Relevant/Irrelevant Factor

It is just about as important to know who is NOT telling you truth they have already been told, and rejected, than to know the truth itself. It saves time — and time often means life in these situations. The clock is always ticking fast while children are growing up, and abuse is a factor. I look forward to publishing that post.

---

. . . . . (text deleted, separate post on supervised visitation) . . .

So: The Federal Government has the Funds. (See “CAFRs/income tax, investment on returns, eminent domain, etc.). The DOJ/OVW (formerly headed up by a family court judge, Susan B. Carbon, courtesy Pres. Obama, in 2009) administers millions of $ of federal grants — and the grantees are sometimes PUBLIC officials’ NONPROFIT associations. Those nonprofits, obviously (if legitimate) have budgets — income, expenses, revenue, depreciation. Often they have employees, and conference, etc. expenses; including travel, hotel, publications (which they then sell) and help influence policy to create professions. The public funds this unknowingly, more than half the time, and the DOJ/OIG — when it gets around to sample audits — doesn’t appear to have teeth, although no doubt all employees and materials for the audits are also public expenses.

Apparently no one gives a crap about the taxpayer in all of this. That’s what we give for giving the US Government too much money, too much privacy (freedom of operation), too much of “the benefit of the doubt” when anything in the public’s welfare is on the agenda — and not enough FOIA requests or, as it was noted back in 1997 — Common Law Discovery involving bank accounts, bar associations, and superior courts.

Just an Idea:

Here’s how we could stop, or at least reduce! domestic violence, including homicides, and child abuse, including molestation, and AVOID inducing life-long trauma and related disabilities (physical and psychological), especially against women and boys and girls, at least when it’s already come from men who can’t be trusted without supervised visitation to see their own children. And that is: Separation. There’s a standard. If someone cannot meet the standard of “don’t assault” or “don’t molest”– then they don’t visit. I believe men and women are fast learners when they choose to.

Here’s how — instead — the public employees and those on the federal grants faucet chose instead to “stop” it: Form hybrid centralized courts where the language of “right and wrong” is altered to the language of collectivism: the “family.” Create specialized “problem-solving” practices, courts, procedures, and finally laws mandating the same — to handle “domestic violence (which is a misdemeanor or felony under civil or penal codes) to persuade EVERYONE involved it’s not dangerous, it’s just a dispute, and anyone who disagrees will be diagnosed with a “conflict” disorder (or PAS), forced into therapy, and made a public example of. They will be marginalized and deprived of basic human rights. The public will be made co-conspirators by funding it, and incited to get angry at the marginalized and dissidents for becoming a burden to society.

Just another idea:

Another way to have fewer pissed-off fathers around [possibly reducing the violence]] is quit stealing their dollars to start with! by shutting down any, and all, money-laundering and otherwise financial fraud — in the public sector, specifically the JUDICIAL sector. This would also definitely slow down epidemic of burgeoning mental health industry, which profits from more and more social trauma and turmoil.

One reason I added the Supervised Visitation (section) above is that in the Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption article below — one of the topics is payment for the trainings to become such a provider. (actually I see it’s re: CLE seminars — but elsewhere on this same topic, Bryer did note the trainings. I’ll find & link to it, of you can search “Judges Slush Fund, Insight Magazine” and probably find it.

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery 1997 interview with Marv Bryer. Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it? If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember? Show me in some comments that, as an adult (college grad, high school grad, parent, non parent) you can understand the basic commentary here: What did the person interviewed do? How did he (it’s a he, FYI), obtain evidence? What type of evidence did he find, and from whom ? Was it obtained under “FOIA” requests? What conclusions did he draw about what he found? What type of programs were involved in the bribing of a judges (answer can be a few words, one word, or even an acronym). Does this material have anything (at all) to do with whether or not individual judges, custody evaluators, or attorneys, such as GALs, can or cannot recognize a crafty smart abuser as dangerous to children, or whether they have sat through enough specialized training to tell the good guys from the dangerous guys? (Pls. answer yes, or no). __________________________________________ Note: Guts without Good information is commendable, but not so useful.

Speaking of “guts,” see also Richard Fine, who in 2009 spent 18 months in coercive solitary confinement, largely in retaliation for exposing systems of bribes paid to the judges through the county, child support withheld improperly at the DA’s level, and in general demanding that the judicial system follow its own rules. Did I mention, they also disbarred him and granted the judges retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for taking this form of bribe?

Many parents have spent time in jail, probably retaliatory, through the custody system for failing to pay up, on contempt of some order, and I know at least one case where a mother was jailed because a daughter refused to visit an abusive father. After 30 days, the daughter relented, and for the sake of her Mom, made the visits (Oconto County, Wisconsin). You wouldn’t believe how many ways there are to put parents in jail if they don’t succumb to prior threats and intimidation, or extortion, nicely and without “high conflict.”

However, how many of them have spent 18 months in solitary confinement like Mr. Fine (who was released, age 70, as I heard it, on Yom Kippur by a retiring judge)?  Yet, not only was this under-reported by the people complaining about custody courts, but what he exposed at considerable trouble, has also been largely ignored by the same, who are busy correcting the training, education, and professional standards of professional niches which (in my opinion) have no business in the courts to start with.

The message behind that incarceration was “don’t mess with our money, and our systems.”

For more information, although it’s probably a little longer, read through and see links at the text underneath my Gravatar. I have been at this for several years now (investigative blogging and reporting) and have a sense of where things are coming from based on a number of factors, and language used in the reporting.

May you prosper and be in health, and may solid information and appropriate language to understand these “family court matters” help your soul also do better, at least than it may have been perceiving “there’s a problem,” but not seeing clearly its causes. This is like trying to figure out why the equation “4 + 5” is consistently producing a “3” in court decisions, without even figuring out (and going to look for) the missing elements of the equation, and understanding that the “formula” is closer to “4 + 5 + ?? = 3 and that the “??” has to be some combination that looks more like “4 + 5 + -6 = 3.. It’s illogical And then to continue doing so AFTER others have previously published this. Perhaps if one’s associates are not mentioning that there might be some missing information (rather than trying harder and harder to deal with only the 4+5 elements to make them add up to “9,” we’ll never get that the formula, or even closer to it.

No one said it was going to be easy — but this is important stuff!

Another question: What’s the difference between a “Family” court and a “Conciliation” court? And why are so many programs in the courts being pre-planned by membership of a private nonprofit association which (eventually — after people started pestering it to get its own EIN# and quit hiding and evading taxes under the County’s EIN#) called “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” which previously was a “Conference of Conciliation Courts”?

What does that mean, legally?

How many states did this happen in — has it happened yet in your area?

Law was passed in Arizona, it says, in 1962: Conciliation Services of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County was established in 1962 after the Arizona Legislature enacted Conciliation Services law (ARS 25-381). Conciliation Services offers: Conciliation Counseling for parties contemplating divorce. Mediation of Legal Decision Making and parenting time plans for families of divorce, post-divorce or in paternity actions. Evaluation Services to the court when parents are unable to agree upon a parenting plan. Parent Information Program provides information to divorcing parents, or parents involved in other domestic relations actions, concerning what their children may be experiencing during this emotionally difficult period. High Conflict Resolution Class designed specifically for high conflict parents. Premarital Underage Counseling for persons under the age of sixteen contemplating marriage. (see choices on left margin of site)

Apparently High Conflict is Bad. Treatment to eliminate conflict between parents can be accomplished by a court-ordered class (only $50). Sure, yeah — and I have a great deal for you on some land under the Brooklyn Bridge.

Perhaps if enough generations are taught through authoritarian and arbitrary K-12 (thereafter?) and authoritarian courts that “conflict” is bad, and “high conflict” is even worse, enough of us will be submissive and gullible to forget the resemblance between these systems and flat-out slave-hood. Serfdom.

Even the California Judges fighting their own AOC call it the fight over “fiefdoms!”

From May, 2012 (part of an ongoing power struggle from California’s Trial Court Judges — with 58 counties, we have the largest court system in the country — and the Judicial Council with its Administrative Office of the Courts. In 1997, a Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act (I believe) centralized the funding; there have been scandals, shut downs, stepd0wns, new leadership, and a group of judges formed their own association to protest perceived centralization.

Written up here in “CourthouseNews.com” (an excellent source of who’s suing whom nationwide, well-edited, by the way.  Search Back issues on “Administrative Office of the Courts” or “California Judicial Council” and learn about their “trials and tribulations”)”

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized.       Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.      Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.

(This document is actually good reading or skimming, even for those not living in California, but who have similar AOC’s.  It talks about increasing centralization of control, expansion (MAJOR) of staff and offices, and with it, financing.  Most important (see a flowchart/organizational diagram on p. 47, at the bottom (left, viewed properly) is “Center for Families and Children in the Courts” — see also pp. 81ff which describes this “Center.”

This segment processes a lot of grants which go to influence our custody decisions.  For example, Access/Visitation funding, and many others.

I’m resisting the temptation to lay it out here, but if you hover cursor, it can be seen.  Increasing centralization.  Why is this important?  Because, for one, many AFCC personnel are at the pinnacle of power, handling the grants, and affecting the mandatory mediation, education, curriculum, promising practices, etc.  — for the courts which deal with children, juveniles, and families.  CENTRALIZATION in THE FINANCING & EXECUTIVE HANDS of JUDICIAL matters:

Here’s the first page (page 81) of description from that report, with some comments from me:

Division Description The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts. The Statewide Office of Family Court Serviceswas created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships. (para mine..  That sounds great, right?  However, this is where the grants, including fatherhood/marriage promotion, etc. grants come in, and engaging more PRIVATE groups (nonprofit organizations) as influences in what happens in the “family court services programs” which are not themselves even the family courts — but programs initiated or started by the courts.) The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts. Why this is significant:  First of all, the AOC is an administrative center to serve justice (the Judicial Council), not private interest.  however, the National Center for State Courts is — again, a private, nonprofit formed long ago, and I just learned recently that, pretty early on, it became affiliated with (became the “secretariat” for, i.e., started serving the private interests of….) the “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”  See links to its 1983 or thereafter newsletters, on my “Vital Links” section of blogroll.  the announcement was made to AFCC membership– not to the public — back then.  This gave increased PRIVATE INTERESTS more influence and control of the judicial sector of our nation’s court system. (Se also an 1983 AFCC newsletter Vol2#2🙂 (from my “Vital Info-Links”) 1983 AFCC Newsltr (Vol2#1) shows NCSC as “Secretariat” (national services), grants, personnel, related associations. On p. 5, above (right before the announcement of AFCC’s having gotten NCSC as Secretariat to help them, and around all kinds of news of conferences, materials for sales, new services being offered to Conciliation Courts that some of its (AFCC’s) membership have set up — i.e., when NJ got a legislative ruling to set up a Family Court, help from AFCC members from Los Angeles (Hugh McIsaac) and Connecticut (Tim Salius) helped.) — anyone can see where why “Richard Gardner” (PAS) theory got into the judicial brains:  he was a keynote speaker at a 1982 San Diego conference run by the Conciliation Courts which this group was working since 1962 to set up….) (if inset doesn’t display, pls. just browse the newsletter.  a full-page description of the NCSC follows, which I have copied below): The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states. From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts . The division’s major functional areas are court services, legal services, financial assistance and administration, education, research and information for decision making. These functional areas have remained the same since the division was founded. However, some changes to program content and operations have occurred. For example, in 2002 capacity to support issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking was increased when the federally funded Violence Against Women Education Project (VAWEP) was transferred to this division from the AOC Education Division as a result of a change in state funding. In addition to providing court consultation, technical assistance, publications, judicial education and mandatory education for mediators, evaluators, and administrators, CFCC staffed the council’s Domestic Violence Practice and Procedures Task Force. In 2009 CFCC received a federal Recovery Act grant to fund promising practices in local courts and to conduct a needs assessment of court responses to domestic violence for Native Americans.

 

From the 1983 AFCC newsletter link in table above — this describes the NCSC, and mentions another group merged into it, plus I notice the focus on Mental Health towards the bottom:

“In 1981, the National Center’s Board of Directors authorized the founding of the Institute on Mental Disability and the Law as a unit within the National Center; it will be a focal point for continuing the work done by the National Center in this important area.”

So we should be able to see what the private organization NCSC has to in common with the private organization AFCC and its focus on behavioral health psychology, psychotherapy and psychoanalyzing, particularly of children or adults who report abuse.  (see feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler, “Women & Madness,” etc.  This was a major source of help to the organization AFCC which is responsible for having lobbied so hard at first to get mandatory mediation (membership includes those providing mediation services,a nd training for it), or Conciliation Law, or Parent Coordinator laws, or High-Conflict Courts, or etc. etc.   This coincides with the development of groups beginning to confront the issues of battered women, and follows the enabling of no-fault divorce in California.  Timing hardly coincidental, in my opinion….

Remembering — assuming you read the first link here, Marv Bryer 1997 interview — I am not aware of ANYONE “outing” the system of slush-funding of such operations through MCLE and other trainings, prior to 1997 — it goes all the way back to 1962, in California and in at least Arizona here:

Superior Court >Family Court >Services >Conciliation Services

Conciliation Services: High Conflict Resolution Class
The High Conflict Resolution Class (HCR) is a single four-hour class taught at the court designed specifically for parents in high conflict. Because research has shown that parental conflict is harmful to children, the class will address specific strategies that parents can use to reduce their conflict and the negative impact it has on their children along with research on what is behind these conflicts.

The HCR class differs from the standard “parent education” classes in that there must be an order from the court directing one or both of the parties to attend. With that order, each parent is automatically sent a notice to appear for a class at a specific date, time, and location. Parents are required to attend separate classes. If there are questions about the class or a need to reschedule the class the number to call is 602-506-6124.

A $50.00 fee is required to attend the class. Payment may be made at the Clerk of Superior Court Filing/Service counters. A fee deferral or waiver may be requested at the time payment is made. Payment may also be made by credit card over the telephone by calling (602) 506-7036. Payment must be made 5 days prior to the class date. You are required to bring a receipt for payment, a signed fee deferral or waiver, or a confirmation number of telephonic payment with you to class.

Don’t you Get it Yet? The Money is Made in the Trainings!

[[comments added 5/20/2013, next two paragraphs]]

The idea behind Conciliation Courts, already specialized courts lobbied for by activist judges, was to bring on the Counseling and Training for Private Profit as a “Public Service” and [originally, paid at the County level?) in part through Federal Grants to the States] at the Public Expense.. and that was just the beginning

Marv Byer’s piece, above, shows what was done with at least SOME of the checks provided for training to become a court-appointed SOMEONE — they were written out to nonexistent business entitites // funds! and deposited somewhere else. Hence the question about a “judicial slush fund.”

The Training [of Parents, of Supervised Visitation Providers, and/or CLE classes, etc.] is where the money is made, I guess in some situations it can be written off as expenses, AND it can be easily laundered because almost no one (in the public sphere) is paying attention, or even has a CLUE of the overall system.

There are other ways, but through public (civil servants — judges, court-appointed attorneys, GALs, etc.) sitting on privately run nonprofits taking contracts with the courts (previously strategized for setup through certain trade groups “incorporated” (formed for the purpose) years ago.

Whatever they say they are doing, the processes in place create ongoing revenue streams, and ongoing clients (some of them legitimately needing help, after going through the dissociative and insane procedures set up by the same groups!!) who really might be classified as “insane” — from trying to make sense of the insane system!

Some people are very smart about how specific, trademarked, narrow (as to its ideas base) and formulaic LANGUAGE can be used to sell programs.  This is just “spin” or Public Relations.  Situations observed can be labeled according to criminal or civil code, generally speaking, as a crime, or as some form of tort. I’m no attorney, but it doesn’t take too much analysis to realize that crimes and torts are a little more clearly defined than “mental hygiene” let alone social science-based terms.

Sheer Genius:  Planned Linguistic Anomalies makes Judgment Completely Arbitrary, provoking sometimes Confusion, sometimes Anger, Sometimes Indignation and Outrage, and sometimes Post Traumatic Distresss (shell-shock) from the Courts themselves.  This self-perpetuating scenario is now, and always was, a fantastic (if completely immoral) business plan. 

Bringing the wealth future, safety, and jurisdiction of individuals who might have otherwise had legitimate, prosecutable causes of action under Criminal or Civil (breach of contract, etc.) Codes — under the jursidction of “Family Law” to start with, and, within Family Law, under to previously strategized (not in front of hte public, but in prviate conferences by private trade organizations — and we now have the names, and early newsletters, and some of the dates and states of incorporation (or lack thereof), as well as incorporators, etc.) — of these ogranizations.

EITHER GET SOME ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING

Or, GO INTO EITHER “DYSFUNCTION” OR “DENY & DISSOCIATE” MODE — which is the last thing needed for target populations.

Information overload — leading to confusion, paralysis, or other strong emotions over the human rights violations which are now intrinsic to the family court system, and in short to government as we know it these days.

However, it is not necessary to either stay passive about changing the course of things we don’t like, nor is it necessary to, while worked up and ready to act — to let one’s passion or outrage be used by others to drive one either over a cliff to mass destruction (like buffalo, or lemmings, or the famous “herd of swine” were driven over a cliff when Jesus threw a “legion” of spirits out of a man plagued by them.

It’s 2013 and in ONE month, the public funding program generally called “welfare,” is up for re-authorization. Historically, it was AFDC, then TANF (1996), then DRA (2005?) then ARRA (2009?), then Claims Resolution Act (2010). I’m sure another wonderful name will be made up for the “block grants to states” that free up millions of dollars to be lost in the cracks, while blending private and public money, religion and state, to support PhD’s in social sciences, marriage and relationship education, and a HOST of “forensic psychiatrists” (or psychologists, who are always trying to get even with the psychiatrists, particularly when it comes to the ability to prescribe Rx, i.e., they really like to be “psychopharmacologists”) which are treating the symptoms of all kinds of child and adult horrific abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.) that no one cares to really stop.

Processes are designed to produce certain results.  In this realm of family court, we have a literally, Conciliation Court taking jurisdiction over Matters defined in parts of Family Law itself as “Domestic Violence” and in parts of the Criminal Code (some being nearly the same category as “Crimes Against the Person”) as Crimes Against Decency and Public Morals (particularly relating to children).  Clearly these crimes continue to be committed around the country — so how can we reconcile ourselves to the fact that they are?  Do judges just not “get” this and hence need someone to teach them?  It seems to me that one obvious result will be widespread cognitive dissonance through conflict of mutually exclusive rhetoric (language) to describe the exact same situation, by the exact same individuals — i.e. certain incidents.

Why should criminals and victims of the same crimes be forced to engage in “reconciliation” services through Conciliation Courts?  When — or more accurately — where is a crime not a crime, and who gets to decide whether it is, or whether it isn’t?

From 1983 and earlier, the nonprofit organization (notice I use this word a lot:  “Nonprofit” — it’s important!) AFCC was selling and renting tapes, curricula, video, and trainings on its version of how to think about domestic violence, including ROLE-PLAYING involving judges, mediator, and/o police officers!).  Re:  Domestic Violence — the theme is “It’s a FAMILY affair.”

As a domestic violence — lots of it — survivor, I have to disagree.  You cannot contain this type of violence within the family — it’s a public and a criminal matter; it has a way of not staying well-contained within the walls of a home, or to the family members.  Moreover, if a family becomes a group that simply covers up such domestic violence and handles it all in-house, they might as well (except for the nonprofit status) be a religious group, or a cult.  Or a gang.  What kind of group normalizes assault and battery, terroristic threats, stalking, threats to kill, and homicide — how is that a “family affair?”

Yet this is exactly what the organization in 1983, A SF Judge plus Judith Wallerstein, mediator (et al.) was promoting.

The means through which they promoted it was to form revenue-raising nonprofits in which some membership were already on the public payroll (i.e., were “civil servants”) — judges; and some were not, but wanted some business to come there way FROM the public payroll (and private as well, the parents, and operating foundations and private grants, etc.)

This puts a real unfair advantage to the public which obviously doesn’t have time to keep track of a nation of nonprofits — and all their legislators and governments as well, while supporting the same governments through their taxes, and contributions to their pension funds which are, sometimes, face it — invested right back in government itself, including debt service to money previously raised.

A related one — not paragraphed, it took me some time (and outside lookups) to “get” how relevant what he’s said here is, particularly about nonprofits being formed in public courthouses (or under public EINs) and how that enables money to be moved through the system (tax evasion, grand larceny (theft), fraud, etc.)…..

http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm#UPDATE%20-%2001/31/99.

UPDATE – 01/31/99 

We have just received an interesting request and reply from Ms. Elodie McKee, pursuing the disclosure of the same illegal funds that are prominent in the Tort Claim against the County of Los Angeles filed last September. 

Ms. McKee represents the Los Angeles Women’s Coalitition Against Lawlessness and, by letter, requested an accounting of the Tax Exempt fund known as the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association from the Honorable Judge John Ouderkirk. The registration of any Tax exempt Organization must be made available to the public under U.S.C. Title 26, Section 6104 (e), upon request by an individual. (A protection provided by Statute to protect public funds). Apparently, the Judge has hired an attorney, John J. Collins (a Governor of the State Bar of California) to deny public access to this information. As seen clearly from the notice of the State of California Tax Board, the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association has been designated as a Tax Exempt orgnization and therefore must provide this information to the public. 

The response from Judge Ouderkirk’s attorney, John Collins, shows why attorneys and judges are never placed under oath in the courtroom. They cannot be trusted.

The FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927 is registered as a Los Angeles County Federal Tax ID. Again! How can this fund be described as a private organization! This is a huge coverup.

Questions raised:

1. How much does Judge Oudenkirk have to pay John Collins for his services?

2. Has Judge Oudenkirk ruled on cases in favor of John Collins’ clients?

[etc.]

(Comments, 4/2016 during updates): In fact, I’m quoting what’s just below in that link — because it mentions a familiar organization which cites its founding date to 1963 as “Conference of Conciliation Courts.”  I will put it in fine print, but am storing it here as websites have a way of disappearing over time.  I’m amazed that “johnnypumphandle.com” is still up – perhaps because most people complaining about the courts are simply ignoring the message, it’s not considered volatile.  But, you can see that Mr. Bryer was persistent and put through a lot attempting to get the information.  What a shame that there wasn’t a consensus in the early and late 1990s to pick up this ball, run with it, and a wider reception of the undrsetanding of public’s duty to keep the public sector (government finances and funds) accountable, as well as a better comprehension of some of the liabilities of the nonprofit sector.

I have seen SIMILAR behaviors (repeated name changes, or EIN# changes with similar names) in organizations central to handling domestic violence in the family courts.  It seems to be a hallmark.

This is fine print, but you can always copy and zoom it to larger for better reading:

Filed Sep 11, 1998
September 10 1998

TORT CLAIM – AGAINST THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ACCUSED: Tyler McCauley – Assistant Auditor – County of Los Angeles
Frederick Bennett – County Counsel of Los Angeles
Amy L. K. Shek – County Counsel of Los Angeles
Henry Stewart – County Sheriff of Los Angeles
Clarence Markham – County Sheriff of Los Angeles

TIME OF ACCUSATION:
Now – Ongoing

DAMAGES: Amount to be assessed by trial by jury

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

---

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

---

I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.

I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTY.

On AUGUST 28, 1998,  the LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY arrested my former defendant for the scheme – GREGORY S. PENTONEY -. The underworld known as the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – posing for the COUNTY – has attempted to sway the case by offering PENTONEY his job back so they can get GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY for PENTONEY – and get the case dismissed. The JUDGE DALE FISCHER lowered the bail from 500,000 to 300,000 so PENTONEY can get out and confer with his old employer.

THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIES EACH CONSPIRATOR BY NAME AND DEED

TYLER McCAULEY: On October 10, 1995, Tyler McCauley became the fraud investigator for the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – on a complaint Marvin Bryer filed against ALF SCHONBACH and GREGORY PENTONEY. In the secretive investigation – Tyler McCauley discovered that PENTONEY and SCHONBACH were involved in laundering money from the LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION to the – yet another identity fraud – called the JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE FUND. All of the money was required by construction of law – to have been deposited into a court fund owned by the PEOPLE of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

Instead of turning the scheme over to the LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY – Tyler McCauley chose to give a warning to the CLERK OF THE COURT – by telling him to watch out that I was going to sue. I was never copied on the letter. In spite of the warning, the fact is that further damage had already happened. GREGORY S. PENTONEY was plundering the LOS ANGELES COUNTY TREASURY on his own scheme with a lawyer named FENTON. McCauley did not know this fact at the time.

What McCauley knew is that the JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE FUND had undergone another identity change and became – in April of 1993 – the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION. Gregory S. Pentoney had boxes of checks in his possession – and bank statements – showing the organization was laundering checks under that name in all sorts of business schemes with lawyers and psychiatrists who were fixing court cases for profit.

The scheme used EIN 95-6000927. Eventually – to cover his – you know what – Tyler McCauley and the court arranged for a phony audit. According to what I read – the COUNTY BAR selected the auditor on recommendation. The auditor skilfully hid the information about the missing EIN 95-6000927 funds. Instead, to everyone’s shock – millions were found missing in COUNTY CONDEMNATION FUNDS. Pentoney drew the wrath of the COUNTY and his office was raided by a sealed search warrant.

The DISTRICT ATTORNEY swooped up evidence – including files PENTONEY kept on me. The files include billing charges PENTONEY made on me while he falsified “Court” evidence on COURT LETTERHEAD. McCauley feigned that I was to blame for my “ambiguous” request to PENTONEY and that I refused to pay 2,000 dollars more to a government employee who was a fraud – stealing county money and lying in court records

I am holding TYLER McCAULEY directly liable for conspiracy to conceal a compounded crime – and for deliberately allowing the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION to steal money by using the COUNTY EIN  – 95-6000927.

FREDERICK BENNETT – Bennett is the lying and cheating COUNTY COUNSEL. In my daughter’s case – BENNETT lied and said checks from the COUNTY BAR were gifts to the COURT and the COUNTY. BENNETT would normally be held to the PERJURY standards – but he is the MOUTHPIECE for the underworld that l am accusing. After charging me for his research – BENNETT continued to represent judge KENNETH BLACK – head of the FAMILY COURT SERVICES – when money was laundered by his section of the COUNTY BAR. Then – when I filed my lawsuit – BRYER vs. PENTONEY – EC020659 – BENNETT modified his prior statements and now admitted the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION and the JUDGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE FUND were funds to a PRIVATE organization. That was not what BENNETT said in his testimony to an ORANGE COUNTY JUDGE – THEODORE MILLARD.

FREDERICK BENNETT is nothing more than a PAID COUNTY CROOK. He is in violation of his duty to the PUBLIC and has – through perjury and chicanery – caused damage to me and my family. He did these lies under the jurisdiction as a COUNTY lawyer.

When the CITY OF LOS ANGELES began to investigate the scheme – a city investigator named Luis Lopez was assigned the case. The jurisdiction is LAMC Chapter IV Article 4. Frederick Bennett swayed the investigation by threatening Lopez because BENNETT knew JIMMY HAHN – Lopez’s boss. Lopez was ordered to stop the investigation and shred his crime report. This issue is a major OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I know about these matters and was in communication with various city officials who I INTEND TO CALL TO THE STAND.

AMY L. K. SHEK – Is – or was – a COUNTY PAID liar – a COUNTY COUNSEL. Ms. Shek defended GREGORY S. PENTONEY in my lawsuit – EC020659 – while she had a private secret of her own money laundering to the same scheme that involved PENTONEY. AMY L. K. SHEK prepared a motion to dismiss my case. She argued that PENTONEY was a government employee with government immunity – pursuant to Gov. Code Section 822.2. What AMY L. K. SHEK FAILED TO DISCLOSE – is that HER CHECKS are laundered into the same scheme. I have seen the checks but am not able to get copies because the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES hired hatchet firm – COLLINS, COLLINS, MUIR and TRAVER – were allowed to STEAL the records – including the checks of AMY L. K. SHEK. COLLINS removed the boxes of evidence from the courthouse finance department – to protect the COUNTY’S interest in the CONCEALMENT of the theft. These checks include money laundered to send judges to COUNTRY CLUBS – to buy jewelry, etc.
[There is more at the above link….]