FUND-a-Mentals of Conciliation Court: Who Holds the Keys to the Vault / See the Matrix
Continued from “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund. (Cal. Family Conciliation Code Section 1852)
In a dutiful effort to shorten my posts, I split this one in half. Because, it’s time to review How Federal Law Grants matches previously-pushed-through Conciliation Law. Federal Money, County-State money (through fees) + Rights to Judge the Case (State Conciliation Codes enable by-county, in-the-opinion-of-the-presiding-judge set up of these specialized courts).
We have already established that “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund,” and that under Public Health and other “fees-for-service” (marriage certficates, dissolution certificates, etc.) certain of those fees get deposited into this fund. Brilliant advance planning to set this up.
As in California, I imagine this is true for most 50 states. I also now know where to look this specific fund in California (hence also in other states) up, and how much was in it for a specific year. The same source also details what types of funds (including plenty relating to the courts, and child support etc.) are held in bank accounts OUTSIDE the State Treasury.
But this post is about how CONCILIATION LAW was crafted to grab jurisdiction of cases to order the exact things which Access and Visitation Funding Federal Grants (under the Social Security Act, PRWORA) as of 1996 set in place funding for, and the exact situation that groups like the Children’s Rights Council, the (eventual) National Fatherhood Initiative, and others were already wanting — mandatory mediation, joint custody, order services — we’ll standardize and regulate the services, too…
“See the Matrix.”
Many distraught parents love to, with their leadership as they have been taught, complain (endlessly) about the family courts promoting “parental alienation” and recommend, hire some professionals to train the bad judges out of believing in parental alienation (Barry Goldstein, BMCC, The Leadership Council, CPPA, MOLC, and others).
Simultaneously, “to the contrary” are those who believe parental alienation is so bad it should be punished by completely removing the child/ren from the offending (alienating) parent. How that is not itself alienation beats me — but either way, I can prove (and have on this blog, will again on this post) that a primary organization pushing parental alienation theory through the courts is indeed AFCC (see the early newsletters in my Vital Links at bottom of page), and that this was planned as far back as the 1980s, if not further. In the next post, we can connect the dots easily through a federal site.
ALWAYS Note the Nonprofits!!
Remember: people belong to more than one nonprofit at a time. Using Nonprofits is a key technique.
When you have one nonprofit that contains people running courts (administrative), judges over the courts, including specialized conciliation courts, attorneys, and psychologists — and that one ALSO has nonprofits of judges, nonprofits of psychologists, and the all-pervasive nonprofits of attorneys (State, county, local bar associations), and even (see 1983/84 newsletters) a nonprofit called “The National Center for State Courts” which itself manages several subsidiary nonprofits — and NCSC became “Secretariat” (they decided to help support the systems and administration) of the AFCC — I think we have a rather powerful network of organizations, and we have a collaborative agenda. For the most part, John Q and Jane Doe are not in on the collaboration; they will be either subject to it, or funding it through income taxes, etc. and through filing for certificates of marriage, divorce, court fees etc.
Behind the nonprofits — and this needs to be stated LOUD and CLEAR, are The Rockefeller, the Carnegie, the Rhodes, or the Ford Foundation (although some of their personnel are funded by those, and other foundations) but they still should be scrutinized as they are getting laws passed that affect (hurt) all of us. In order of influence, the Foundations drive, the matrix of nonprofits enable (both need each other) and help muddy the picture for the public such that we think we still have moderately representative government, or the potential for it without confronting the private funding.
Why Can’t Some “See the Matrix”?
For one, it requires conceptual thinking, a REAL challenge when your kids are about to be stolen, or just have been (or molested, or are being), or your life is at risk. For another, certain groups of professionals whose kids and lives are NOT at risk, or at such great and immediate risk, and who are not at risk of being homeless from month to month if something goes south on a court case — make sure to self-censor key elements of the picture that might make US less dependent on THEM for insight, for finances, and for a voice (i.e., a press presence).
If the anti-PAS people had their heads screwed on straight, they’d shut up, look it up, look at some of these indicators, and quit yelling about how we still really NEED “forensic clinical psychologists” (or psychiatrists) involved in kids lives — just better trained ones. They refuse to instead, talk about how this network set it up [[That was “Mothers of Lost Children Indiana” re-blogging Barry Goldstein’s “Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?” from a “Time’s Up!” blog, and (hover cursor) my comment/rant (in moderation). They ALWAYS leave out the “nonprofit” influence factor and how the funding works.
I can’t run around behind all of these groups on comments fields; there’s an instinctive desire to believe that if something is posted by a professional, it’s more credible. That’s often untrue, inversely so. The professionals have a professional mindset. People who set up the matrix, and operate it, have a, the professionals are OUR agents mindset, apparently. Meanwhile, society has been set up and schooled to respect professionals more than their own insight, observation, or opinion. Not all the time, but in a pinch.
The cooperation and coordination to set this (abusive) system up does exist.
I’m not a genius — I’m just persistent and eventually figured out which analyses to reject, leaving more logical ones.
The well-oiled strategy to get those grants legislated (federal), get Conciliation Code enacted (state), grab jurisdiction of the individual custody cases based on their category AND the opinion of particular presiding judges (i.e., their opinion that they should set up Conciliation proceedings) (county) took some time, but all in all, was just too easy to pull off.
Next post spells this out from the code, and from an “Action Transmittal” (1999) summarizing the history of Access & Visitation grants, which help fund the programs that the Conciliation Court Judge is going to order parents (and kids) to attend. The code simply tells us.
The same Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), in California is, as we speak (2012) under scrutiny and having its dirty laundry aired for being a bloated bureaucracy, a fiefdom, and having a “culture of control” (per the trial court judges, which is like the pot calling the kettle black; see Los Angeles County….)… It’s bloated largely because of the funds flowing to it to administer these programs and turn what would otherwise be a divorce, into a decade long procedure requiring all kinds of professional treatments for a whole family.
In short, what we call and think of as “government” (and so tend to obey, in general) has been Previously Outsourced and Privatized. Collectively, we have only ourselves to blame for not paying attention and continuing to actually trust government, rather restructuring our eyes to either clearing our own schedules to KEEP our eyes on it — or restructuring government so these loopholes are closed. Of course, those who would rather we DON’T pay close attention are partly responsible for setting up economic situations that expand welfare and impoverish people, and have roadkill in the name of reducing welfare, helping families and stopping child abuse.
What Difference does it make? The difference between life and death, too often
Genelle Conway-Allen, Fairfield California
Last Friday morning, in Fairfield California, a young girl, age 13, seventh grader, was found nude and dead in a park. She had been last seen, apparently, stepping off a school bus, or crossing an intersection…
Why was this beautiful young woman in foster care to start with, and why did she have to die in this horrible manner before she even grew up? Why weren’t foster parents, the girl, others, drilling home that you walk home with at least one other companion, and making it happen? Not too far back, a young California woman Sierra LaMar disappeared walking TO a school bus in an early early morning. She has not been found, but her suspected kidnapper and killer is being held (presumed innocent til proven guilty, let’s remember) His father is a convicted child molester, starting with a child at about age 5, whose own wife testified against him, “years of abuse.” . . . . . .
“Fairfield Police remain Tight-Lipped about Teen Girls’ Murder.”(Genelle Conway-Allen)The DOJ (the Feds) are involved in investigating this one. I know nothing about the case, but one of this beautiful just-barely-a teen’s photos looks like of one of my own daughters. My daughters could’ve ended up as easily in foster care as in their father’s care (he later abandoned them, without telling me or the courts….). Why was this girl in foster care?
Foster care is another business the federal courts are supporting through grants to the states, as they do “access and visitation.” Now that Conciliation Code is in place throughout the land, they are working to standardize “Unified Family Courts” (dependency with custody) which is the same idea — subject matter jurisdiction grab (dependency law and custody) along with the related federal resources, under a single judge, for a more “holistic” handling of family problems. …..
This court grabs domestic violence cases, it has the jurisdiction to when the courts are in place in any county. Conciliation Court is where domestic violence can be reframed as a family affair, a relationship problem. …. This can so wreck an innocent spouse or parent that their lives are dismantled, and children might be ordered into foster care (another threat). It is where batterers and child-rapists, when they exist, can have a heyday with their victims, and for years. Perhaps Genelle came from such a family, who knows, which then put her into foster care. (I do not know this case)….
But, would it not be worth your while to take a look at these codes? And another insight into why GOOD parents are losing custody of their kids sometimes to abusers, or why children, or why sometimes a parent, goes missing during exchanges?
If this is the face of a completely centralized (policy set via Washington, D.C. + private interests) society, then I want a different version, and I want to see this in process before the end of MY life, and for my young adult FEMALE children’s sake. Let’s get some more people to look at how this came to pass!
(See next post).
Using California for an example, in this post I review how it was done — this broad trail of breadcrumbs is not fully paved, but has many key elements — Private interests, organized as nonprofits staffed in good part by public employees (i.e., judges, or administrative heads of courts), strategized nationwide (internationally, at this point) to: pass laws to set up demonstrations (test sites) of the intended program, evaluate the same programs, push for more funding, get the funding, and administer the funding. The entire operation was a screenplay — it was a pre-planned (for the most part) agenda, but sold as responding to circumstances, and needs-based. It was mobilized with speed because the networked nonprofits collaborated on the issues and then lobbied to legislate them into place. Setting up a nonprofit also helps set up funding (Whether membership sales of material, taking donations, and writing off expenses — or billing it on a public payroll as “education” or “training.”….) It is possible to name names and organizations — but the power comes through the system, not the individuals in it — and that’s where advocacy groups are constantly missing the mark, as well as distraught parents. It ain’t local – it’s national and international in scope and in intent.
While we are earning are wages, these same are planning yet more demonstrations (there is no end in site). Really, it’s stunning in execution, although it only differs from racketeering, or organized crime in that government itself says what’s crime and what’s not. And it’s not about to call itself “organized crime” because per se it’s government that determines what is and is not “crime.”
As it’s said, “See the Matrix” applies here…. See next post:
It’s about power, and part of power is financing. So we need to look at things like jurisdiction, and funding. If this is understood, the confusion about why judges that, under family law, should see a “rebuttable presumption against custody going to batters” can perfectly legally get around that, and leave people who don’t read this law not only distraught, but seriously confused.
Did the Domestic Violence Industry tell us about this? NO!! Did the Crisis in the Courts Crowd Basically No. Did individuals? YES (how does one spell “C.I.N.D.Y. R.O.S.S.”)? And now I’m telling you again, that people who do not report on this must, and in some cases identifiably do, have a definite reason for not doing so, and probably ought to be boycotted. They’re directing mothers, as baying bloodhounds on the wrong scent. Unlike in a real fox hunt, they will never catch the prey, and I have to deduce, don’t really want to. In that aspect, it’s all about the bloody racket and “glory” of the fox hunt, the thrill of the chase and being seen in full color with their colleagues. In other words, it’s a sport (and, a business).
This is immediately apparent once one gets a look at the corporate records, tax returns, grants, and the history of the setup. It takes a bit to get a feel for it, but as the same language and jargon is shared among the industry, and same personnel referenced (like in any well-rehearsed cult), it really isn’t that hard to pick up the scent. It’s about changing the language, changing the practice, changing the laws to accommodate the new paradigm — adn this is intentional. What was wrong with the paradigm of having a consistent set of criminal codes which are NOT in direct conflict with family codes diminishing the crime? Well, I suppose there’d be fewer crazy and confused people around, and a clear standard, fewer homicides, and less need for the psychoanalysts, psychologists, child psychiatrists, and other social science researchers.
Go take your domestic violence talk and evidence in front of a conciliation court judge –while the kids are still young, and there’s probably (by now) joint legal custody — see how far it gets you.
Maybe it would be wiser to figure out which counties in the state already have conciliation codes and make sure no more get them.
See next post for the code itself.