[May 2013 post below:]

This is a combination of what I took OUT of “Flipping Cause and Effect: AFCC Rhetoric” (“Got custody killings?  Blame it on the bad language”) post — when the website I was reviewing brought up “Jay Folberg” as Dean of USF Law.

I [“Let’s Get Honest”] have been advising parents (in particular) to figure out WHO in the lobbying, rules-of-court-changing, profession-inventing, task-force-chairing State by State Supreme Court (or thereabouts) legal/judicial powerhouses — has AFCC affiliations, or at least has drunk that Kool-Aid.  As a handle, it’s definitely an indicator. Many symptoms accompany membership. When a certain panorama of symptoms shows up (this particular post shows most of them, like idiocy**) then the diagnosis “AFCC” is probably pretty accurate, whether or not it’s on the website already as a nametag…

** “Idiocy” referring to linguistic jumps in logic and labeling that really did lead a particular professional from Southern California to blame custody-killings on bad language.  For more information (and to identify an AFCC professional’s previous involvement in a case ending (?) with the massacre of 8 people in a Seal Beach, California Hair Salon), see “footnotes” to that “Flipping Cause and Effect” post.

The confusion is innate; it is intentional, and evidently it has a strategic purpose — where there is confusion, who gets to come in and settle the conflict?

Apparently AFCC exists and was originally organized, in part as a gas-lighting (“crazymaking”) organization = a deliberate lobbying outfit for forcing linguistic change away from the criminal codes into the behavioral health language la-la land; which purpose their site admits has been “on the books” as a corporate plan (mission/goal) since the 1970s.

Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law?…We need to develop new words that will alleviate stress on the divorcing family…There is now present an opportunity for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals regarding the strengthening of the family. Lets us now start the search for the words.

Yes, “Lets us now start the search for the words” and  grope blindly away from the concept of crime as crime, or even wrong, and into the “solid” foundation of expert opinion in the field of behavioral sciences for newer, better, kinder and gentler on criminals definitions of right and wrong, and harsher, more vague and less objective definitions of relationship, or potentially, thought-crimes, for example believing that criminal conduct or repeated threats to engage in it by family members ought to actually matter in making custody decisions about minor children and that some individual civil or legal rights for adults actually remain once a family matter has been raised in the family court venue. [/LGH comment added 2014] …

[emphases mine] “The combined expertise” is not a “who.”   What’s with the bad writing, the grammar problems, and the devotion to founding heroes (that was a  Meyer Elkin quote) obviously flailing around for words that will demote the language of criminal law (or at least evict it from the family law vocabulary) and elevate the language of “the behavioral sciences”)?  If “law” and “behavioral sciences” [what’s really implied is lawyers, and behavioral scientists, the professionals in those fields, such as the ones who had joined this organization by 1975,] were the “us” in “Lets us now start the search”  then who is the “them“?   Where there is an “us” there is a “them” right?

So, is the “them” anyone who has not yet joined the self-appointed forces for language change?  And if those forces, as represented by AFCC membership and the behavioral sciences ~ law partnership, can’t (or just can’t be bothered to) speak or write straight, but are many of them sittings as justices, judges, and child psychologists/evaluators in authority over individual families — what does this lack talk mean for the designated “them” in the US/THEM equation?

Of course, the corporation now “on the books” was only registered in Illinois, currently with a Wisconsin address, in 1975, not “1963” as they claim.   Most of the claims on this site are worded to skirt the borders between truth and lies, probably to survive a challenge.   The “about/history” page (under “Legacy of Innovation and Collaboration”) begins:

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) took root in California in the spring of 1963 with the creation of the California Conciliation Courts Quarterly, the first publication to promote the interchange of ideas between California’s conciliation courts. Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, wrote…

“Took root” is a good description — it appears that a private association did indeed “take root” (illegally) under a fake name (the corporation name wasn’t filed) and using an EIN# belonging to Los Angeles County, and set up shop within a County Courthouse, around then. It was not called “The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (or “AFCC”) at the time.  The current organization by that name is not the same business entity.  Business entities are defined by their filings — and there was not a continuity of filing. If it was even similar people, but different business entity, then stating the business has been around since year 19## as if continuous, is simply dishonest.  It’s folklore, not truth-telling.  What’s more any group continuing to collect funds and donations while it does not exist (is not registered legally to report profits for tax purposes, like the rest of us) is taking advantage of the taxpayers.

For more, see Marv Bryer (or my “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption” post, or more recently, Anne Stevenson’s work in the Washington Times around AFCC operations in  the Connecticut Judiciary; cites in the sidebar, and in some blogs around May, 2012)

“Take root” is from the language of plants — for example, weeds — that once planted, grow, expand, and spread FAST, spreading networks of roots, and, above-group dissemination of seeds.    Had the “About/History” page said “incorporated” it would’ve be a lie. An accurate corporate name that could be tied to a street address, the “in California” could have been traced right from AFCC website to 111 Hill Street, in Los Angeles, i.e., a courthouse, and reveal the AFCC personnel’s established patterns of “taking root” in courthouses (and elsewhere) and linking with each other once there to further innovate and lead the “thems” in any area into some nice system changes which fit with the “out with the language of criminal law, and in with the blend of behavioral sciences” pattern.

Excerpt (slightly copyedited and clarified  9/19/2014):

The promotion of Mediation, Alternate Dispute Resolution, in the family court arena was not an accident.  It was an organized, professionally self-interested lobby among nonprofit advocacy centers, institutions (for example a law school), trade associations and their leading personalities.  

In my September 22, 2012 post While We’re There, the Northern California Mediation Center….”  I talked about this in some detail, starting with the Northern California Mediation Center (Joan Kelly), showing Secretary of State corporation records and conferences held. Copycat corporations showed up in California to take advantage of and contribute to the momentum, as they have since whenever the lobbyist voices decide another conflict-of-interest court-connected profession is needed nationwide (and internationally) to settle the conflicts and confusion started by the last ones    …

[The incorporation documents, and some of the ‘NCMC paperwork available on-line, the “Rodney Stich” factor, when reviewed, will radically re-arrange one’s understanding of what the family law system is in place for, to start with, i.e., swift and merciless asset transfers to silence and/or eliminate witnesses (along with innocent citizens) whistle-blowers on completely unrelated [to the family court and custody matters in the courts], with involvement at the highest levels of US DOJ and FBI involvement facilitating  those aviation disasters, including 9/11?]

And their function is intentionally arbitrary, sometimes overnight targeting of anyone for immediate assets-stripping, or hostage-taking of kids, “in the name of the public welfare.”  Or for repeated disruptions with the cumulative effects on any household, and on any community.

Essentially, this forced me to consider the entire court system not just as a venue of choice for individual abusive personalities to “get even” with the other spouse, and to facilitate/coverup incest, child abuse, and (secondarily) wife-beating [as the entire “Broken Courts” crowd analysis pushes] but simply as a virtually loaded weapon — but an economic, social and psychological weapon — that can be aimed at will.  There is “roadkill” but the long-term and widespread damage (generation after generation now), seems to be economic.

People are simply easier to control (1) when they’re broke and struggling for housing, and (2) when their kids are hostage to arbitrary control, not to mention (3) the family court standards diminish the criminal code itself; and replace it with a sort of “thought/relationship” crime as a standard.  Family courts are perfect for this!  That they are so perfect, is obviously intentional — not accidental.

FRIEDMAN, SLOAN, & ROSS:

I only discovered the link 3/19/2014 (on updating this post) and after one-half hour of reading it, lights, bells, and whistles are sounding internally which make sense of the continuing pattern I’d already noticed in case after case after case (an corporation after corporation) within California, and outside it — CONSISTENTLY, some of the most prominent court-reform groups are displaying signs of complete disrespect for the state-wide rules governing corporations, and governing charities which many are registered as.

And, they are getting away with it, not even a wrist slap.  I have no question HHS at the highest level is involved. I do not think we HAVE a justice system, but we are supposed to believe that we do.  I also rest my case that’s it’s worth the extra effort in checking some basic details on ANY group which is trying to run, or reform, the family, custody, divorce, AND violence prevention fields.  Particularly if a civil servant has formed the nonprofit, and a judge is on the board.  There IS a system to it!

Please read (download, save the material) on this site, throughout, and I would like to talk about this with others.  It appears that many times, a family court case may have nothing to do with the issues on the table, at all.

http://www.defraudingamerica.com/friedman_scheme.html

[Oh.  My. God.]  “Lawless and Bizarre Scheme to Halt Corruption Fighting Whistleblower

As to promoting Mediation, ….

I knew Jay Folberg had more connections than this, and looked up my previous posts on the CDRC (California Dispute Resolution Council).  CDRC became the “Unified Voice” of all these dispute resolution professionals — unbelievable how they stepped into line once it (apparently) became clear someone was going to help them set up a nice pyramid? scheme using public funds, as satellites to the county courthouses, etc.

This has links to two earlier September, 2012 posts (herein), some more AFCC newsletters (1993, 1997– put also as links on the side) and I learned that William and Flora Hewett Foundation have been very nicely supportive of AFCC and CDRC.

I also learned that these guys figured someone was going to sue them, because they planned ahead for liability insurance for the profession. All in all, it’s a very interesting set of information which demonstrates how private lobbying happens, regarding and within the court systems.   It shows the use of the nonprofits (and foundations, whether private, or large ones funding nonprofits), coalitions of nonprofits conferencing together — all that — it shows how they get their business accomplished.

Public service may be a collateral side-effect, but I doubt is the primary purpose. These are people who have invented and protected their own profession, with advance planning. AFCC professionals ARE involved, and you have to look at some tax returns. Tell a friend…. Thanks! 

The promotion of Mediation, Alternate Dispute Resolution, etc. — in the family court arena — was not an accident.  It was an organized lobby.  I talked about this in some detail, starting with the Northern California Mediation Center (Joan Kelly) — and I show corporation records and conferences; including how many copycat incorporations showed up when, in California, to take advantage of and contribute to (you decide) the momentum — Sept. 2012 post, here.  While We’re There, the Northern California Mediation Center….”   I wrote, underneath its website, and above its state nonprofit filing (where it’s “DELINQUENT”)

(http://www.ncmc-mediate.org/joan.html)

This is a beautifully tailored website to a California Nonprofit that doesn’t just DO business with the family courts, it’s helping direct that business and has personnel (at least currently) that are part of it. They have talked about themselves more than adequately, so it’s time to take a closer look as a consumer.  FYI, a “Consumer” is someone who financially support the (national) family courts, not just individual clients.  If you’re contributing to the economics of the country through taxes (wages, sales, etc.) — that’s you.  Gotcha, right?  Basically anyone not in this system is pretty well contributing to it — and its expansion; where does the money come to pay for the trainings, the salaries, and the services?”

Jay Folberg

Also — the topic here is citing Jay Folberg as promoting a certain bill.

I am showing that he might as well be “Mr. Mediation” and “Mr. ADR,” — he’s not “just” a dean at a law school. He is highly committed to, and highly positioned in, a statewide (at least) COORDINATED effort by many related organizations to show up as a UNIFIED voice and lobby for legal changes (legislation) to their benefit.

This Sept. 23, 2012 post, on this blog, explains (if you have eyes to see and are paying attention) that a central one was “California Dispute Resolution COUNCIL” (lobbying group), but there also was an “INSTITUTE” (which is a private foundation, has an EIN#, but shows no articles of incorporation, and perhaps as a PRIVATE foundation, doesn’t have to show the public where its money is coming from), CDRI.

A review of that post shows that this Institute has been dissolved as a “charity.”

I’ve looked up its EIN# and posted the tax returns here — clearly it’s low-profile.  IF you look at the year labeled 2002, you can see:

1.  Robert Barrett was Exec Director for a salary of $40,000 (HALF-TIME/20 hrs/week);, and in 2003, about $12,000

2.  Joan B. Kelly (see first link, she’s influential in promoting mediation, obviously — see first post, Northern California Mediation Center) is also on the board, as are Jay Folberg and two others.  The address is USF Law School, and a William and Flora Hewett Foundation gave the Foundation (this insitute) $225,000 for its purpose.

It did some administrative work for CDRC (the “unified voice” to promote ADR and mediation at the legislative level) and CDRC — a nonprofit — shared its mailing list with the institute for conference invites. A  conference was held in 2002 at Loyola Law School.

William and Flora Hewett Foundation also has been sponsoring AFCC:

• $175K three- year grant (AFCC newsletter Fall 1993, Vol 12 No.4.  A good read!
• and again, $150K three-year continuation grant (Winter 1997, Vol. 16 No. 1)

Side note:  AFCC Street address at this time was 329 West Wilson St., Madison, Wisconsin.  Photos of Hillary Rodham Clinton at a (related) “Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth.”  You should see the logos of who is sponsoring this one, including it says UN Population Fund, Bar Associations from Canada, and “Moose, the Family Fraternity” formed in 1888 (women’s, in 1913) and which claims among its famous members, both Presidents Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Earl Warren, Evan Bayh (Indiana) and quite a few more “lodge members.”  Interesting…

(Personal:  around this time…. The year 2002 was a significant one for me — it’s when our “asses” as a family were hauled into family court, and the first stop we made, practically, was with a court-appointed mediator.  One of my children (still pre-teen, but intelligent and observant) characterized (him) as “just wanting to know which parent to blame.”  I have NEVER had a different mediator since, though I attempted to, when our children were stolen — but was rebuffed by the courts…..There were NO known lobbying groups, institutes, or nonprofits representing MY interests as a domestic violence survivor who needed continued protection in order to continue supporting the household….)

So here is the California Dispute Resolution INSTITUTE (a private foundation?) which supports the California Dispute Resolution COUNCIL (a nonprofit) which represented the “unified voice” of these professionals in Congress.

Your query: ( Organization Name: , State: , Zip: , EIN: 330751684 , Fiscal Year: )

8 documents matched. 8 documents displayed.*** Click on the column headers to sort.  The org. name is a link to the return.

(Click on return; Notice “Statements 7, 8, 9 & 10” at end, as referenced on the return page 6 (Part IX-A):  Direct Charitable Activities. I’ll put them in a table, here, from the  2003 (= final; it was terminating) return):

[**In May 2013, the “foundationcenter.org” database was showing more results.  Now, 2014, when one searches, only the last 3 results of any organization will be displayed, no matter how many are in the database.]

[Table format dissolved below, see Form 990PF Section IX-A.]

Here were this private foundation’s managers, for the 2002 return, all listed with the identical addresses; only the first person (Mr. Barrett) was paid anything, and it was the equivalent of $80K annual (but as he worked 20 hrs a week, it was $40K).  They also spent $69K on other employees, and $31K on occupancy (?)

.

• Robert Barrett,
• Joan B. Kelly
• Jay Folberg
• Cynthia Spears
• Dana Curtis
• Gerald T. McLaughlin
• Burt Nanus
• Ernest E. Uwazie
• Jay Welsh

(2014 additions), looking at some of the individuals, starting with Jay Folberg:

Jay Folberg @ JAMS

Jay Folberg, Esq., former Dean at the University of San Francisco School of Law, has resolved complex disputes on a wide variety of subjects. Considered one of the founders of ADR practice with decades of experience as a mediator and arbitrator, he is particularly skilled at getting to the heart of multifaceted issues and dealing with the human factors that create obstacles to settlement.

Jay Folberg at UCSFCA.edu acknowledging his AFCC and Family Law Connections.  Also notice the Oregon connection (strong AFCC contingent up there as well):

Professor Emeritus H. Jay Folberg has authored many articles and books on dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation, and family law. Folberg was the dean of the USF School of Law from 1989 to 1999. He has served as chairman of the Association of American Law Schools Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, president of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, chairman of the Oregon State Bar Family Law Section, and president of the Academy of Family Mediators. In 1998, Folberg was appointed by the chief justice of the California Supreme Court as chair of a state wide task force on alternative dispute resolution and in 2001 to chair the Judicial Council’s Blue Ribbon Panel on arbitration ethics. He was honored in 2003 with the Judicial Council’s Bernard Witkin Amicus Curiae Award “for his leadership in the field of alternative dispute resolution and his outstanding contributions to the California courts.” Folberg now serves as a mediator and arbitrator with JAMS and is executive director of the JAMS Foundation.

Two other AFCC notables (Ann Milne and Peter Salem) all edit and update (2004) a 1988 book with Folberg:

Building on the success of their groundbreaking 1988 Divorce Mediation, Folberg et al. now present the latest state-of-the-art, comprehensive resource on family and divorce mediation. Paving the way for the field to establish its own distinct discipline and academic tradition, this authoritative volume offers chapters contributed by leading mediation researchers, trainers,…more

Hardcover, 588 pages

Published May 12th 2004 by The Guilford Press (first published May 20th 1988)

This 1994 paper shows us that there was a move for Civil Justice reform in 1990 (tested in a Northern California District) for ‘ENE” (Early Neutral Evaluation).  It looks like a scholarly article, and in the case of imminent welfare reform, is relevant to custody matters in particular.

BOB BARRETT @ Mediate.com.  CDRC named an award after him.

Bob Barrett was the founding president of the California Dispute Resolution Council in 1994 and served on its board until 1999. In 1997 he was asked to assume the presidency of CDRI, helping to develop its agenda of program and research activities and to attract grant and other funding; he became its part-time executive director on March 1, 2000.  From 1992 until 2000, Bob was a member of the Board of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR); he received its Distinguished Service award in 1995. He has written many articles about dispute resolution and has been an adjunct professor at Stanford University, the University of California at Santa Cruz Extension, and Pepperdine University. Bob was an elected trustee of the Las Lomitas Elementary School District from 1988 until 1996.

CDRI Board Member Gerald McLaughlin

Gerald McLaughlin, former dean of Loyola Law School; I’m guessing that’s not a current photo…

GERALD T. MCLAUGHLIN, former dean of Loyola Law School, was born in 1941 in New York City. He earned his BA degree from Fordham College and graduated New York University Law School where he was managing editor of the Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. After teaching at the University of Connecticut, Fordham and Brooklyn Law Schools, he became dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, where he currently serves as dean emeritus and professor of law. He has lectured and written extensively in the field of commercial law.

In 2005, Dean McLaughlin coached a Loyola Law School team who won the VIS (East) International Arbitration Competition held in Hong Kong.

[[He appears to be writing novels now…]]

Joan B. Kelly

Joan B. Kelly is a topic unto herself, one of the-most quoted AFCC professionals (in lieu of thinking for themselves) alongside Judith Wallerstein (d. 2012), and etc.    AFCC is also good for authors, and publications, as this Yale grad goes to show.  Divorce, child custody and parenting is something you can write on, forever…. I guess.  In case we haven’t “GOT” that the juicy center of AFCC is, was, and will continue to be “mediation” (and some funky inconsistent, state-skipping incorporation habits, plus accessing federal grants, courts, and changing the justice system over to the behavioral health model, etc.), this should go a ways towards understanding that.  I have other posts on this, so – -not now…

Dr. Kelly is a clinical psychologist, researcher, teacher, and consultant, who was a Founder and

Executive Director of the Northern California Mediation Center from 1981-1999. * * *

Dr. Kelly received her Ph.D. from Yale University. Since 1970, her research, clinical, and teaching career has focused on research in children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, divorce mediation, applications of child development research to custody and access decision-making, and Parenting Coordination. She has more than 100 publications in these areas of interest…

 (<=more recent image?)

She has pretty much got ONE theme (can you spell “parental alienation”) and publications list shows some of the associated authors.

(Street address is 175 N. Redwood Drive, San Rafael — right around the corner from Marin Covenant Church @ 195 N. Redwood Dr.; interesting).

{{**LGH comment added 11/2014 in hindsight. TIMING MATTERS! which is to say, of a certain California nonprofit organization. I was recently reminded that mediation in custody and visitation cases became MANDATORY in California (the first state in the nation for which it did) in 1981.

Separately, federal Access/Visitation law ((as I recall –check sources — a provision underneath the Family Support Act, which in 1975 kick-started a more serious child support enforcement apparatus,targeted mostly towards fathers was passed about 1984, but not funded until 1988, with more significant funding nationwide generated in 1996. In the DC area (Maryland? as I recall), the Children’s Rights Council (“CRCkids.org”), with David Levy, Esq. and, per Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net), Jessica Pearson (highly involved with AFCC AND the Denver-based Center for Policy Research (“CPR”), also an about 1981 nonprofit) being a CRC co-founder…Thus organizations in California, East Coast and MidWest (Denver) with similar interests but diverse functions, have overlapping personnel. CRC is an acknowledged fathers’ rights group and was involved in lobbying for and running access/visitation centers on behalf of divorced fathers, i.e., “The Best Parent is Both Parents.” Timing matters; these were coordinated efforts intentionally split up into different states.}}

UNbelievable — I just looked again (seeing as it’s marked delinquent) and have pdf’d the Charitable Details.  For people not used to looking at these, California Trusts (charities, like this) are supposed to file ANNUALLY — both their IRS 990s and a state form called “RRF” which tells people like (you and me) whether or not the group is (or is not) taking government funding.

JoanBKelly’s NorthernCalMediatnCtr AbominableFilingHistory,CharDetails (EIN3942768875) [Click to see that the “RRF received” date for several years in a row is “18 Dec. 2008“

Apparently this group (and possibly CDRC?) thinks it’s some kind of JOKE?  In 2004, they earned a certain amount, and filed (7 months late).  In 2005, 06, 07, and 08, revenues continued to increase — but they didn’t submit their records until December 2008 for those years… (December would be, 8 months after the annual deadline, which is 4.5 months after the end of their fiscal year.  Here, fiscal years appear to be the calendar year, so their tax returns (and filings with the California OAG, Office of Attorney General (who is over these matters) should happen by April 15th of the next year.

Per their RRF for year 2004, when they just stopped reporting for, well, four years, they WERE taking funding (locally), and also noted that their Executive Director was paid (from the nonprofit) about, well:

Line 1: Contracts, loans, leases or other financial transactions between the organization and any other officers

The Executive Director,** a key employee, was compensated $33,280 for services performed as Executive Director and $41,260 for mediation and collaborative divorce services. As of December 31, 2004, $16,060 is payable to the Executive Director for services performed during 2004. Since NCMC’s financial statements are on cash basis, the $?6,060 was not reflected as contractor fees expense and payable as of December 31, 2004. ..

Line 6: Government Funding

During the year, NCMC received funding from: County of Marin – Office of the Administrator Mark J. Riesenfeld, County Administrator Lisa DeCarlo – Administrative Analyst…

[**that year, as current, Nancy J. Foster]

In 2005 (the year they ceased filing with the State of California until late 2008), their (late) filings (RRFs) show they:  MOVED to the current address; and continue to show that their “Executive Director” is a “Key Employee” and being paid (a lot in two types of designations) and as they are “Cash Basis” what she was owed for other years, is not reflected in their financial statements.

Having started out like this, they then finally filed for previous years in mid-December 2008, and ALMOST (not quite) filed on time for year 2008 itself (May 2009), then for Year 2009 — when the ASSETS quadrupled (approx:  $11K to $45K) and their REVENUES almost increased by $100K ($217.7K to $305.5K) — they didn’t attach a tax return (990)).

Program Service Accomplishments (Year, 2006):

IN 2006, NCMC PROVIDED ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES TO 106 CLIENTS. OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED, 77% WERE FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION, 10% FOR BUSINESS MEDIATION, 5% FOR DISPUTE CONSULTATION, AND 8% FOR COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE.

ADDITIONALLY, NCMC PROVIDED TRAININGS FOR 60 PEOPLE IN THREE SEPARATE WORKSHOPS, INCLUDING ESSENTIALS OF MEDIATION, DIVORCE MEDIATION, FUNDAMENTALS OF FAMILY LAW FOR MEDIATORS.

NCMC ALSO PROVIDED TRAINING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 131 PEOPLE BY CO-SPONSORING FOUR SEPARATE WORKSHOPS INCLUDING “DIVORCE AND DYING,” “IS THE LAW THE ELEPHANT IN THE COLLABORATIVE ROOM?”, “INTERDISCIPILINARY TEAM DYNAMICS IN COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE,” AND “POWERFUL NON-DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION FOR COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS.” NCMC ALSO PROVIDED A BI-MONTHLY BROWN BAG LUNCH TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO 15 PEOPLE INTERESTED IN BECOMING MEDIATORS.

the “Executive Director” is Nancy J. Foster, who was paid $122K that year.

What I don’t get is, why is Marin County paying small amounts most years ($3.6K) to this organization, knowing that it wasn’t filing its charitable returns — and what do those small amounts consist of – BRIBES?

BOARD MEMBERS consistently including “Isolina Ricci” (Joan B. Kelly’s name isn’t showing up).  Isolina Ricci is AFCC, her book (Mom’s House Dad’s House) is being marketed all over the country, through family court venues (along with required parenting education classes) AND Isolina Ricci has also been involved with the California AOC/CFCC – in other words, she has a connection to the part of government dealing with the types of grants which would be funding these activities…..

Regardless of this Ms. Nancy J. Foster (JD, UMichigan School of Law) charges $400 an hour.  The website is very basic, and doesn’t say a whole lot.

This gets “more than” interesting when I looked up the incorporator — just one person, Joel A. Shawn, Esq. of “Friedman, Shawn, Sloan & Ross.” (1981) filing.  Because the California OAG site doesn’t display previous to 2000 or so (and nothing previous to about 2004 is even showing on this nonprofit), I see no mention of Dr. Kelly – although I’m sure the paperwork on file.

the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CENTER

(in San Rafael, just north of San Francisco) was registered as a corporation by ONE lawyer, Joel A. Shawn, of

FRIEDMAN, SLOAN, SHAWN & ROSS

As it reads on the articles of incorporation (which do not mention any directors, just the registration agent, as uploaded to this charitable registration database:

The name and address in this state of the corporation’s initial agent for the service of process is:

JOEL A. SHAWN, ESQ. Friedman, Shawn, Sloan & Ross 407 Sansome St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111

[signed July 7, 1981]

Here, uploaded, see for yourself:  NCMC, July 7, 1981 Articles Incorp (2pp,no %22ByLaws%22 shown)

Listing showing another group at this address (acknowledged, 23 years later….):

Self-Help for the Elderly
407 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415/677.7600
http://www.selfhelpelderly.org  [actually they also show now @ 731 Sansome]…

However, I didn’t find much on Joel A. Shawn, Esq. (at least at quick search), but as to that law firm —

MINUS the name “Shawn” – look at this description calling it an FBI-CIA front law firm in San Francisco and tied to 9/11. (I have NO idea til reading what that’s about, but let’s call it, ODD).   I must note that the man who shows as the incorporator of “Northern California Mediation Center,” Mr. Shawn, is NOT showing as a partner in the following report, which the google search on the first law firm’s name, produced, i.e.

FRIEDMAN, SLOAN, & ROSS

I only discovered the link 3/19/2014 (on updating this post) and after one-half hour of reading it, lights, bells, and whistles are sounding internally which make sense of the continuing pattern I’d already noticed in case after case after case (an corporation after corporation) within California, and outside it — CONSISTENTLY, some of the most prominent court-reform groups are displaying signs of complete disrespect for the state-wide rules governing corporations, and governing charities which many are registered as.

And, they are getting away with it, not even a wristslap.  I have no question HHS at the highest level is involved.   I do not think we HAVE a justice system, but we are supposed to believe that we do.  I also rest my case that’s it’s worth the extra effort in checking some basic details on ANY group which is trying to run, or reform, the family, custody, divorce, AND violence prevention fields.  Particularly if a civil servant has formed the nonprofit, and a judge is on the board.  There IS a system to it!

Please read (download, save the material) on this site, throughout, and I would like to talk about this with others.  Many times, a family court case may have nothing to do with the issues on the table, at all.

http://www.defraudingamerica.com/friedman_scheme.html

[Oh.  My. God.]  “Lawless and Bizarre Scheme to Halt Corruption Fighting Whistleblower“

[all emphases — font-changes; color, bold, italics, size, etc. in this passage, are mine…]

Start of Series of Sham Lawsuits 
Starting with a Bizarre Legal Action

The first of a continuing series of legal actions that severely hindered the exposure of ongoing corrupt activities started out with a  sham legal action that allowed California judges to immediately deny access to the assets that funded the corruption exposing activities. Eventually, evidence of a powerful force in government—the personnel in the U.S. Department of Justice—could be seen.

The bizarre lawsuit filed by the CIA-FBI-front law firm in San Francisco, Friedman, Sloan and Ross; and their lawyers, was filed under the California Family Law Act and claimed that their client in Texas was married to Stich; that she wanted a divorce; and wanted half of all his assets that were allegedly community property.

There were glaring problems with that scheme. These included, for instance:

The parties were legally divorced in a joint divorce action occurring in 1966, 16 years earlier, that terminated the marriage and all related issues.

After looking at this some more (obviously the subject matter is very disturbing), I found In Re Marriage of Stich — and learned that the 1996 divorce judgment he’s referring to  means, when after they’d separated in Colorado, and he’d moved to Oklahoma (her to Texas) (IF I can keep the geography straight) this man ran down to Mexico JUST long enough to get his divorce, claiming there was no community property and without reference to spousal support.  Here’s the link, an appeal hover the cursor, for what it’s worth…. ‘In re: Marriage of Stich:  169 Cal.App.3d 64’.  [1985] Commentary includes that he went through three lawyers “faster than a famous major baseball league went through managers,” and then attempted to fire (get recused) the judges:

[7] The evidence includes several possible grounds for successful challenge of the validity of the divorce. Rodney acknowledges that Emma’s “appearance” in the Mexican proceedings was by power of attorney. She claims that she signed “divorce papers” under pressure and at a time when she was distraught. This raises the possibility of undue influence or duress and brings into question the validity of the Mexican court’s jurisdiction over her.

Rodney also contends that prior to the divorce Emma voluntarily executed quitclaims in favor of him on numerous parcels of real property. She states that she does not remember signing any deeds, or even knowing what a “quitclaim” was. This suggests that an issue at trial will be whether the deeds were obtained during the marriage by fraud or undue influence. (Boeseke v. Boeseke (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 848, 852 [63 Cal.Rptr. 651]; Civ. Code, ?? 158 (repealed, now ? 5103), 2228, 2235.) fn. 3

Rodney admitted he rented an apartment in Mexico no more than two months before the Mexican court issued the divorce decree, and that he moved back to his Oklahoma residence the month after. At the time of the Mexican proceedings he held substantial real property in California. In spite [169 Cal.App.3d 73] of these holdings, however, the Mexican decree stated there was no community property and made no provision for child or spousal support. Public policy may not permit recognition of a foreign divorce decree if the divorce was obtained in a foreign country in order to evade the laws of this state. (Scott v. Scott (1958) 51 Cal.2d 249, 256 [331 P.2d 641].) Thus, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that it was reasonably probable that Emma would succeed in challenging the validity of the Mexican divorce at trial.

Anyhow, continuing:

That 1966 divorce judgment had since been entered as a local judgment in the states of Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, and California.

Under dozens of California and federal statutes and controlling judicial decisions, including decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, each and every one of those judgments had to be recognized.

All of Stich’s assets had been acquired after the 1966 divorce, and were outside of the jurisdiction of the California judges—even if a marriage still existed—which it did not.

The Texas resident being used in the scheme had been buying and selling real estate in Texas, declaring herself divorced. She continued to declare herself divorced after the sham divorce action was filed.

Under California statutes, California judges lacked personal jurisdiction under the Family Law Act over the parties, on the basis of any of the existing divorce judgments—including the California judgment.

Under California statutes, California judges lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Stich’s properties on the basic that the assets were acquired after the 1965 separation and 1966 judgment.

All of these dozens of absolute legal prohibitions to the sham lawsuit had to be known to the lawyers and law firm. For the lawsuit to even proceed beyond the first hearing, where their absence of personal and subject matter jurisdiction was raised, and then to continue for six years, despite these issues being raised, required the cooperation of dozens of California judges in the Superior Courts; the California Court of Appeals; and the California Supreme Court. The only judge that did not go along with the scheme was California Supreme Court Judge Stanley Mosk, but his objection was nullified by the other California Supreme Court judges. Eventually, even the California Attorney General was implicated

Throughout the six years of destructive orders by the California judges, the judges charged Stich with being a vexatious litigant when  he exercised the clearly stated appellate remedies; charged Stich with thousands of dollars in fines for exercising his constitutional rights of objecting to lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and acting in clear violations of massive number of state and federal laws. Once, California judges sentenced Stich to county jail.

For such enormous and blatant violations to repeatedly occur, and inflict great and irreparable personal and financial harm required a powerful force in government—at the federal level.

And subsequent legal filings indicated that it would be the two main and powerful groups at risk from Stich’s exposure of the corruption that he documented: They would be personnel in control of the U.S. Department of Justice, federal judges, and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These gross violations violated multiple federal protections, for which there were multiple federal causes of actions available. Every attempt to exercise these remedies was repeatedly blocked by federal judges at the district court level, the federal appellate judges—and eventually by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Individually and as a group—in an obvious conspiracy to halt the exposure of high-level corruption, became enablers tin the continuation of the corruption and in the years of resulting national harm, and the periodic catastrophic events enabled by the culture of corruption. These enablers of great tragedies included, for instance, the following:

The CIA-FBI-front, the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, and their attorneys.

The California judges, locally at Fairfield, California, and in the California Court of Appeals, and the California Supreme Court—followed by the California Attorney General and California Department of Justice.

Federal judges, and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. (www.defraudingamerica.com/supreme_court_justices_complicity.)

Other lawyers joined the scheme.

In the end, all of Stich’s ten million in assets were taken and the funds distributed among the attorneys and law firms, Stich spent six months in federal prison, four weeks of which were in solitary confinement—and worldwide harm that could have been avoided—occurred. The “butterfly effect.”

I won’t name names, but among the (grapevine) there is a lot of putting one party’s name on some asset (whether real estate, cars, or businesses) without that party even knowing about it.  In other words, husbands have somehow put their wives’ (divorcing) name on some property as a lien-holder in an attempt to not hide assets, but get them involved with it, or to reduce child support, etc.  I don’t know about the other way round (powerful women putting their ex- or divorced husband’s wives’ names on some assets without their knowledge).  In Stich’s case, he said his long-ex-wife was used as a “straw man.”  There can also be situations where neither involved party knows their name was being used.

Rodney Stich was not a “disgruntled litigant” and this does not appear to be about who raises the kids or who pays alimony.  He sounds like a federal agent attempting to save lives.

From this site (which ONLY my curiosity about the strange filing behavior (and why they’d not gotten even a single “late/delinquency” notice from the California State level — not based on size, but based on the known involvement of this particular group within the FAMILY LAW ADVOCACY/COMMUNITY, for which California Judicial Council (since 2000 or so) HAS HAD AN ENTIRE BUREAUCRACY ON THE SUBJECT MATTER — CALLED THE CENTER FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN IN THE COURTS (AOC/CFCC)

You have to see the rest of the site to understand the work Mr. Stich had been involved in at the time, and that he was attempting to report internal and judicial corruption in an entirely different area, as a federal agent — and that’s in the aviation industry.  Continue reading that page, and understand that TWO areas under which property can more easily be seized, including in retaliation against whistleblowers, are Probate and Divorce.   Stich’s assets were being used to fund reporting of the coverups and the corruption resulting in tragic and preventable airline deaths, up to and including the hijacked airlines involved in 9/11!

This seems to confirm my understanding that the family law system (not just the “marriage/fatherhood” grants aspects of it) was indeed set up primarily (and NOT for any of the commonly promoted reasons) for the purposes of racketeering — within and around the courts.  It is a tool with which to whip even the most determined whistleblower (on ANY topic) into cowed submission, or if not, simply poverty/homelessness.

The COROLLARY of this (if true), is that anyone who is attempting to “FiX the family courts through “Training Judges” (or training anyone else) is either (1) delusional (the most positive interpretation) or (2) in on it.  Right now several of the players in the Fix the Courts crowd come not just from Northern California (where it seems Stich had several properties) but at least Center for Judicial Excellence comes right from Marin County/ San Rafael (where NCMC itself now is).  The likelihood of CJE and its board, and Ms. Kathleen Russell NOT knowing about these matters is, in my opinion, zilch.  Therefore I’m not going with the “delusional” interpretation on any of the involved associations, who are making waves among the advocacy (“protective parents”) crowd over time, and as I speak.

continuing from the same post, called: “Lawless and Bizarre Scheme to Halt The Corruption-Fighting Whistleblower“

the [browser/website] window frame reads, “Lawyers as enablers of catastrophic airline disasters and terrorist acts.” He didn’t say ALL lawyers, but does name plenty.

Details

The above massive corruption among America’s major groups in government enabled te corruption and the resulting consequence to continue. Among the most publicized were the hijackings of four airliners on September 11, 2001. By their documented misconduct, they became enablers to, on one day alone, the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. They escape facing the consequences of their acts because their very many other enablers, most in powerful positions.

That first of many legal actions to seize the assets that funded the attempts to expose the corruption related to an ongoing series of airline disasters was filed under one of the two provisions of law that permits judicial seizure of assets. These two provisions are probate−when a person dies; and another being a divorce action in which judges seize assets on the claim that they are community property. In this case, Rodney Stich was not dead, so that was not suitable. The second scenario would be a divorce action and seizure of assets for court distribution to the other member of the divorce in community property states. But Stich had been divorced for nearly 20 years,

The parties had been legally divorced in a bilateral divorce proceeding since 1966 and that divorce judgment had been entered as a local judgment in the states of Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, Nevada, and California. Both parties had been declaring themselves as divorced during this entire proceeding in various legal filings, including real estate purchases and sales. Federal and state laws required that any of these judgments be recognized.

The Friedman lawyers used a prior wife (Emma Stich, Duncanville, Texas) as a “straw man,” claiming in California courts that the Texas resident wanted a divorce and division of alleged community properties. the CIA-FBI-front law firm started plundering Stich’s assets that funded his exposure activities.

---

California Judges Protected the Scheme,
Becoming Enablers to Great Tragedies

California judges rendered orders at the request of the CIA-front law firm for six years, whichviolated large numbers of state and federal laws. Further, under clear California statutes, the California judges lacked personal jurisdiction over Stich, and subject matter jurisdiction over his separate properties, under the Family Law Act when there is a prior divorce judgment.

Compounding their misconduct, whenever Stich exercised any of the many procedural due process rights clearly stated in state and federal law, California judges labeled the exercise of these defense rights as frivolous acts. Unfortunately, these tactics would have catastrophic consequences seemingly far remote from the Solano County courts.

These legal and judicial acts eventually stripped Stich of his life assets, converting him from a multi-millionaire to a state of poverty. The actions in the California courts went from 1982 to 1988, and then shifted to the federal courts, where the seizure and liquidation of Stich’s assets were completed in 1998. Eventually, his corporate assets were seized and liquidated.

These legal and judicial obstruction of justice tactics enabled the corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices to continue, which also continued the resulting airline disasters and harm to national interests from other corruption that Stich later learned from the large numbers of other former government agents who came to him after hearing of his activities via the books he wrote and the hundreds of radio and television appearances.

---

Participants in a Conspiracy Obstructing Justice

The repeated corrupt acts by dozens of lawyers, law firms, and California judges met the legal definition of a conspiracy and a conspiracy and a  racketeering enterprise.

---

Conspiracy of Lawyers and Law Firms Expanded

The scheme initiated by the San Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross, and theirlawyers were then joined by other lawyers and law firms, and continued until 2005.

The first of this group was a government-related law firm in South Carolina, using a possible wife murderer as a plaintiff in a sham lawsuit against the former federal agent. That scheme was commenced after the lawyers had seen the consequences of the prior legal attacks on9/11. Those four terrorist attacks were made possible primarily by the corruption that the former federal agent sought to expose and halt, and the series of obstruction-of-justice tactics used to prevent the public from learning of these matters. A sampling of pages addressing these enablers of great disasters include for instance:

The corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices that was responsible for the conditions that enabled a 50-year history of prior preventable airline disasters.

The corrupt culture of employees within the Department of Justice, that the former federal agent sought to report.

The cover-ups by people responsible for the nation’s check and balances.

The long series of sham lawsuits by lawyers, that were then followed by heavy involvement of California and federal judges, knowingly hindered the reporting and halting of the ongoing deadly corruption.

---

All of the lawyers were aware of the prior deadly consequences in a long series of preventable aviation disasters made possible by the corruption that former federal agent Rodney Stichsought to expose. They knew that their series of sham lawsuits were adversely affecting and halting the exposure and correction of these series problems.

The lawyers joining the scheme at a later stage knew of the very early consequences, and then knew of the criminal activities in other areas affecting major national issues—and by then saw the consequences from the cover-up schemes of the first group of lawyers: a series of preventable but successful terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 hijackings.

Just a printout (21pp) showing that Friedman, Sloan & Ross were involved in family law, lien on community property during a divorce, etc.  Included because it gives a quick HISTORY (going back to 1849!) of how “community property” worked for the wives, while married, in 1872, 1917, 1935, 1975 changes — and how for the most part while married, husbands controlled, and wife had little interest in it, except in expectation of surviving either spouse death, or a divorce.  Just for a point of reference, that’s all.  RE- NCMC FriedmanSloan&Ross in 1991 Family Law, re Attys Fees, Community Property “Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 26 [283 Cal. Rptr. 584, 812 P.2d 931] — Volume 54-Cal.3d-CaliCaseLaw …Justia”

That case was cited as recently as January 2014 in another divorce action (involving a pre-nup and family business; the wife was trying to get help and cited it).  Another (1995) reference to this case (which Friedman, Sloan & Ross, I THINK, lost) makes it clear that the Community Property factor (California is a Community Property marriage state) is such:

A California case had held that the community cannot be bound by a mortgage or other conveyance executed by only one spouse. Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, 289 Cal. Rptr. 584 (Cal. 1991). The wife here argued that this case turns Droeger on its head by permitting a spouse, by sole action, to encumber the property by a judgment lien. The appeals court really has no response to that argument except to say that the result is compelled by statute.

Rodney Stich

 

 

Rodney Stich was a navy pilot during the Second World War. After the war Stich worked as an airline captain on domestic and international flights. Later he became an inspector-investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

 

Since 1962 Stitch has campaigned against government corruption. In his books Unfriendly Skies and Defrauding America he describes and documents massive government misconduct.

 

Rodney Stich has also appeared as a guest and expert on over 2500 radio and television shows in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Holland.

 

(1) Rodney Stich, Defrauding America (2001)

A United Boeing 737 crashed into a Chicago residential area (December 8, 1972) during an approach, killing everyone on board, including the wife of Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt. She was reportedly carrying money to silence Watergate witnesses, and carried papers implicating President Richard Nixon in the coverup. A Chicago public-interest group, know as the Citizens Committee believed that Justice Department personnel played a role in the crash of United flight 553, and that they wanted key individuals on flight 553 exterminated. Twelve of the people who boarded United Flight 553 had something in common relating to questionable Justice Department and Watergate activities.

There had been a gas pipeline lobbyist meeting as part of the American Bar Association in Washington, D.C., conducted by Roger Morea. Among the lobbyists attending were attorneys for the Northern Natural Gas Company of Omaha; attorneys for Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company; and the president of the Federal Land Bank in Omaha. The Citizens Committee portrayed these people as a group determined to blow the lid off the Watergate case.

 

Rodney Stich has spent over 50 years in aviation. He started as a navy pilot and instructor in World War II. After the war, he became an airline pilot flying in domestic and international operations. In the 1960s he was an inspector and investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), during which time he was responsible for air safety at several major airlines. These duties included conducting flight checks of airline pilots, issuing government ratings so they could fly that particular aircraft, checking for safety problems, making safety recommendations, and anything else involving air safety.The experiences and knowledge that he acquired in the aviation area broadened to include other government agencies and branches of government, expanding what he learned as an insider to areas in which most of the public is totally uninformed.As an FAA inspector he witnessed a major air disaster in his area of safety responsibilities an average of one major air disaster every six months, showing the consequences of the air safety misconduct that he and other inspectors sought to report and correct.In attempting to report and correct these accident-causing problems, he came up against big government, and fought it head-on. This led to discovery of even more misconduct, not only in the areas relating to airline crashes, but in other areas, such as misconduct by people in control of the CIA, Justice Department, and other federal agencies and branches of government.His aggressiveness in fighting government misconduct brought him into other areas of government corruption. He became friends with, and acquired as confidants during the past ten years, a large number of former CIA and other deep-cover operatives who provided him with information and documents about government misconduct that enlarged upon what he had already discovered as a federal and then a private investigator.

The areas of government misconduct in which Stich is proficient and/or an expert include:

• Any area of air safety, including any air disaster during the past 40 years; internal FAA problems that caused or made possible past air disasters; politics of air safety; coverup by FAA and NTSB personnel, and other areas.
• A broad area of government misconduct that has and continues to inflict great harm upon the United States and upon individual Americans.
• Focusing on a particular branch of government misconduct, including for instance:
• • The fraudulent war on drugs, the drugging of America by people in control of the CIA and other government entities, the coverup by government and non-government checks and balances.
  • Corruption within the Justice Department, which Stich first discovered as a federal inspector. This includes repeated coverups and obstruction of justice including many areas (aviation and related air disasters; October Surprise; Iran-Contra and the heavy drug trafficking that was a major part of it; pattern of CIA drug trafficking; retaliation against whistleblowers and concerned citizens seeking to report these crimes, and more).
  • Problems faced by active concerned citizens, whistleblowers against government corruption, CIA operatives who try to expose the corruption.
  • Steps taken by the author to expose the corruption, and the price that he paid for his David versus Goliath actions.
  • And more.

A sample of his attempts to halt the harm inflicted by corrupt government:

• While an FAA inspector-investigator, acting as a self-appointed special prosecutor, forcing a four month long hearing upon the FAA while he was a federal investigator, introducing evidence to support his charges of corruption related to a series of fatal airline crashes.
• Circumventing Justice Department block by appearing before a federal grand jury in Denver seeking to produce evidence of criminal acts related to a series of recent airline crashes.
• Filing federal actions in the U.S. district courts seeking to expose the federal corruption that he and other inspectors and CIA whistleblowers had uncovered.

I have spoken (before knowing anything about the above website, or case, or having noticed much about WHO incorporated the NCMC above, and I do not recall having noticed that their charitable filing history was, in a word, “odd.”  Like some other groups from the same general area (Marin County, Sonoma County, San Rafael — in other words, just north of San Francisco Bay Area)…   He’s essentially saying that the greatest threat to Americans is terrorism — but not from foreign soil, but rather from the three branches of government. DefraudingAmerica and DruggingAmerica (war on drugs).  Others have said similar things (C.A. Fitts).  That said, you still don’t run down to Mexico long enough to get a divorce, and come back (although it’s been done)

The phrase “JURISDICTION GRAB” and creating courts and laws that grab what would otherwise be under a different jurisdiction, by subject matter, or by political jurisdiction– is a big deal, and I have come to understand that the family courts serve to grab this jurisdiction, and the UNIFIED family courts, even more so.

Separately (as I noticed on my 9/23/2012 blogpost), CDRC (Calif. Dispute Resolution COUNCIL) is a lobbying group to protect ADR interests — as it says on its own website.  Also note, it WAS still around, apparently (different years shown here).

nam

For a general idea how popular the concept of “Dispute Resolution” is, or was (See “Status” and years corporations were formed, before they were Dissolved or Suspended or  Became Inactive, in California (63 records show up):

http://www.cdrc.net/about-cdrc/who-we-are/
There’s no question they are an industry (the ADR industry) lobbying group:

CDRC IS THE VOICE FOR ADR IN CALIFORNIA

The California Dispute Resolution Council is unquestionably the most influential ADR organization in the State of California – perhaps in the nation – when it comes to politics and the judiciary.

QUESTION:  if so, why has it not maintained its corporation (or charity) status in the state of California, then?

CDRC’s mission is to: Develop, support, and influence legislation and public policies promoting effective and accessible conflict resolution services; promote high standards of conduct for Dispute Resolution neutrals; and, provide a forum for building consensus and implementing principles and policies affecting the practice of dispute resolution.

CDRC advocates for ADR.

Simply, CDRC exists to uphold the integrity of alternative dispute resolution processes and to protect the livelihoods of the individuals and businesses engaged in delivering ADR services to their respective communities.

With a broad constituency that encompasses the entire ADR community coupled with a well-respected, full-time lobbyist, the CDRC is uniquely positioned.  Not only is the CDRC able to effectively evaluate matters impacting the ADR industry, but we also manifest the capacity to effectively act.

CDRC insures the integrity of ADR.

Since our founding in 1992, the CDRC has reviewed and weighed in on more than 500 pieces of proposed legislation.  Further, the organization has written Amicus briefs and has been influential in numerous seminal ADR-related cases including Foxgate, Rojas, Simmons, Armendariz, Eisendrath and many others.  Finally, the CDRC has historically been quite effective as an industry watchdog,

Whenever they were “founded,” their incorporation date in California was March 10th, 1994

---

(more info on the HISTORY page is very illuminating) — a decision was made to, for the mutual self-interests, to let ONE voice be their communal lobbyist and spokesperson.

http://www.cdrc.net/about-cdrc/history-of-cdrc/

[[Membership benefits leads to — get this — a company offering Liability Insurance to Mediators, ADR professionals — and Parent Coordinators!  I also see this same group (as I recall) is a sponsor (or at least advertising) in the 2013 AFCC conference upcoming in Los Angeles at the end of this month!]]

CDRC members can apply for arbitrator and mediator professional liability insurance from Complete Equities Markets, Inc. Click on the Applications tab and select “the CDRC”. **

[[Click on the “associations” page to see who else is offering liability insurance for the various practices listed – it includes AFCC, CDRC, and Parent Education Programs, plus an assortment of Mediation Associations!)**

As an Affiliated Organization of the American Institute of Mediation, which is an organization for the training of mediators, CDRC members are entitled to a 10% discount for all AIM courses, books, materials, and other items in the AIM bookstore.

CDRC is the help you need to protect ADR and your ADR business.

Participate by becoming a CDRC Member today! (broken link, there).

Please also notice (Possibly because it is strictly a professional advocacy membership organization), this influential (so they say) group  is as a California CHARITY, “Exempt.”

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type CALIFORNIA DISPUTE RESOLUTION COUNCIL EX545710 Charity Exempt – Active PASADENA CA Charity Registration Charity 1

Paul Dubow (registered agent, per corporate filing, above):

Paul Dubow  [Click to see mugshot]

Phone: 415.xxx.xxxx

Email:   xxxx@aol.com

Paul Dubow is a full time arbitrator and mediator. His office is in San Francisco and he specializes in commercial, insurance, securities, and employment matters. He spent 30 years as director of litigation at Dean Witter Reynolds, during which period he tried approximately 125 arbitration cases as well as a number of bench and jury trials in various parts of the country. He has been an arbitrator since 1975 and a mediator since 1994 and became a full time ADR practitioner in 2001. He has arbitrated over 150 cases and has mediated in excess of 300 matters.

He has been a member of the CDRC board since 2003, was president in 2008. and now is chair of the Legislative Committee.

[And as president, oversaw the dissolution of CDRC as a corporation AND registered Trust, now that they are up and running so nicely?]

He is the former co-chair of the Arbitration Committees of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section and Contra Costa County Bar Association. He is also a member of the College of Commercial Arbitrators, and a founder of and past president of the Mediation Society of San Francisco. He was a member of the Judicial Council working group that promulgated the rules for mediators in court annexed mediations and the working group that created the initial draft of the Employment Rules of the American Arbitration Association and was chair and vice chair of the State Bar Task Force on Complex Litigation. He is also the author of the ADR section of the annual update of California law for both the State Bar Litigation and Business Law Sections and a member of the editorial boards of California Litigation Magazine and the Securities Arbitration Commentator.

[$400/hour plus fixed fee….]  Recent article, he still seems to be highly respected

It was dissolved in 2008, and the last address shown (760 Market Street #3516, San Francisco) was in this building, a short distance from the SF Museum of Modern Art, near Union Square and a lot of Jewelry Stores (currently owned by “Thor Equities” out of New York, for what it’s worth.  I was just curious!  Nice digs! (below, right)).

**in fact, here’s that list of groups which have affiliated with liability insurance providers for their professions!  I wonder if the GAL in Lackawanna County, PA had some!

Extra detail.  OK, Digression:  Green font, below.  I just like to know what’s up…

(FROM LINK http://www.cemins.com/mediators.html COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS, INC. (Illinois address listed).
“Click on the association below to open and print the application. After printing the application please complete and mail to Betsy Thomas at the address at the bottom of this page.”

(Dropdown menu has active links for the following):
ABA/Section for Dispute Resolution
Assn. of Family & Conciliation Courts
Parent Coordinator *** (check it out, seems to be generic)
CA Dispute Resolution Council
FL Academy of Prof. Mediators
ID Mediation Association
The Mediation Assn of Colorado
Mediation Info. and Resource Center
Mediators without Borders®
National Academy of Arbitrators
National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals
National Arbitration Forum, LLC
NJ Assn. of Professional Mediators
NYS Council on Divorce Mediation
OR Mediation Association
Parent Educator Program  (***check it out, seems to be generic).
Southern CA Mediation Association
TX Association of Mediators
VA Mediation Network
WA Mediation Association

Cute, huh?
I went (quickly enough) to Illinois Corp & LLC Search and found several names — and under (click on detail) the Lake Zurich one, literally dozens of INACTIVE as well as dozens of ACTIVE names.  Among the first was ACR Insurance Services, about #12 was “AFCC Insurance Services, also CDRC Insurance Services (you name it….).  Does it sound to you as though those starting to promote ADR, ACR, Mediation, (Parenting Coordination), etc. — anticipated they might be sued for malpractice or damages?  This organization seems to have been formed on 12/22/1998, although one of the names below shows much earlier, different address (might be different company).

Entity Type File Number Corporation/LLC Name
CORP ASE 60264716 COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS
CORP OLD 49628641 COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS, INC.
CORP MST 60264716 COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS, INC.
CORP ASE 60264716 COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS INSURANCE AGENCY
CORP ASE 60264716 COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.
CORP OLD 52892597 COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The 2nd row (“OLD” above shows it’s now ? called EDMUND, but the “OLD” name was — Complete Equity Markets, Inc.  This corp was filed in 1970, shows registered Agent William M. Walsh (street address a Meghan Walsh) — so some corporate nameswitching is going on here):

[[CORP 49628641, above, FORMERLY (“OLD” Complete Equity markets, Inc.” is now called “Edmund” (changes in 2001 & 2005 as below]]
Old Corp Name 04/26/1999 – COMPLETE EQUITY MARKETS, INC.
10/05/2001 – EDMUND, INC.
01/06/2005 – EDMUND INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.

Whereas the bottom row (FILE# 52892597) shows a Delaware-based corporation (similar name, with “International” idea) was formed in 1982, also William M. Walsh involved, got a namechange, and had its status revoked in 2009).

Not that we needed to know ALL that detail, except that someone had the forethought to both lobby for the cause (ADR) and start collecting INSURANCE from involved members, which I’m sure were invested in something (possibly real estate, securities — who knows — i.e., “equity” sounds like real estate to me….).

This california CORPORATION was formed, it says, in March, 1994, with a street address in “Glendora, CA” and a registered agent in San Francisco.

Entity Name: CALIFORNIA DISPUTE RESOLUTION COUNCIL
Entity Number: C1832983
Date Filed: 03/10/1994
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1430 S GRAND AVE STE 256
Entity City, State, Zip: GLENDORA CA 91740
Agent for Service of Process: PAUL DUBOW
Agent Address: 88 KING ST STE 318
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107

Looking up the Charitable Status at CA OAG website, I find that Corporation “1832983” is listed as “exempt” “Mutual Benefit,” which means that the public doesn’t get to read its tax returns — apparently it doesn’t have to publish what 501(c)3s might have to…. (see above).

Apparently CDRC has not been informed that it no longer exists.  In 2012, another President was elected, per PRWeb

Douglas E. Noll has been selected to be the 2012 President of the California Dispute Resolution Council (CDRC). The California Dispute Resolution Council is the primary voice for peacemaking professionals and community practitioners in California.

“Because CDRC oversees the Alternative Dispute Resolution, which dominates the resolution of California lawsuits, many special interests want to limit it, expand, change, or gain exemptions, depending upon their perceived best interests. CDRC has a reputation for integrity, honesty, and knowledge, and its opinion is heard and support sought by legislators. The CDRC is also influential in national trends and policy making involving Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Noll explains.

“It is an honor to be selected to preside over this council for the year, and is part of my ongoing mission to present peacemaking options in all areas of conflict, statewide, nationally, and internationally as a consultant,”

…

About Doug Noll
Douglas Noll is recognized as one of the top mediators in America because he integrates science, spirituality, skill, and honor emotional landscapes through a method that resolves conflicts without violence, lawsuits, or other adversarial behaviors. As a professional mediator, peacemaker, and author, Douglas Noll is committed to teaching the principles of achieving peace through nonviolent or adversarial methods. Transitioning from a trial lawyer to professional mediator and peacemaker offered a personal and professional journey towards studying and learning the psychology, neurobiology, and emotional dogmatic attachments that can create or prevent peaceful solutions in politics, on the battlefield, in business enterprise, and in the homes of families. ”

(basically from a Media site listed on the PRWeb release notice)

• Online Course Developed by Award Winning Lawyer Douglas Noll is Approved for California Continuing Education Credits for Lawyers

If a blog viewer got this far and has any answers to this question, please comment (with the answer!  Thanks.  What bothers me is the lack of articles of incorporation (because CDRC shows as “dissolved”) available readily on-line, no “RRF” forms during the 8 years it was operating legally within my state, not to mention the ensuing 6 years it’s apparently been operating (no officers are paid, no salaries, no revenues, no nothing in the meantime?) IL-legally (pending another explanation), and the last IRS tax return shown is 2010 (above).  It doesn’t show up, by EIN# at IRS Select Exempt Check (at all); on the other hand, it was a possibly not one of those “qualifies for tax-deductible contributions” organizations.  But, does it sound like the organization is affecting MAJOR litigation and the courts?  I’d have to say, YES.  Therefore, as a member of the public, I’d like to see the financials.  Period!!