Someone got this Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.1.)
APPARENTLY, most people are convinced they can’t keep up with investigative bloggers because the investigation skills are either not there, not being consistently exercised, or because the people that need this most are struggling to handle their own court disasters and are pressed for time — and economically.
**Note: expanded a section after publishing, re: connection between certain protective mothers advocacy speakers, their related nonprofits, the NACC, and billing problems in Connecticut,
Could you put together information like this? Would you have? Have you before?
Whether or not, here is an example of what COULD be done, so let’s cut to the chase. What’s up next? More complaining and sarcastic commentary?
Admittedly, it’s not easy. It requires a commitment of time and energy and a focus that says, I’m not going down other dead-end paths. Most of us aren’t independently wealthy, and the type of investigative blogging MOST needed are from individuals with a vital interest in the truth, but who are NOT actual stakeholders in organizations whose very essence depends on a stream of distressed or disgruntled parents. As parents are almost never listed as “stakeholders,” I also say, this should normally be at the minimum, parents who’ve been exposed to the courts, and/or have personally experienced some of the critical issues that drive parents in front of the courts.
But a subset of this group has to be people who have not lost their minds and/or been recruited into some advocacy group with characteristics a cult-like as the groups we need to report on! And unfortunately, there are a lot of recruiters out there. A sound-minded individual will want proof and not be satisifed with fast, easy or shallow answers.
However, another reason they “can’t” keep up is just an “I won’t” or “I don’t feel like,” or any other number of excuses.
Some would rather sit on comments fields, or sit back and let others do the work, and boo or cheer them, as well as boo or cheer the local judges, or local judges’ ideas, and look for a group to join on-line. So what, really, ask yourself, is the excuse for cheering on good investigative bloggers — but failing to imitate what they do?
“Time’s Up!” for those excuses.
Sure we all have natural talents, mindsets, and skillsets. But — what are you doing with yours?
Too many excuses are no longer valid excuses. Some people tenacity to investigate because they choose to investigate year after year.
Burnout is a real factor; and part of the burnout factor is, year after year the same basic information is falling on deaf ears, as the programs coursing through the courts and funded federally are picking up substantial speed of incorporation, and expansion. They have a serious momentum that is unlikely to be stopped by even a few EXCELLENT investigative reports IF the response to those reports doesn’t result in further strategic, and intelligent NONviolent action by those who read them. I would like to know what’s the excuse for not understanding the basic “schema” in 2013 of a group that’s crowing about what it’s going to do in the NEXT 50 years (after having lied about when they started, which wasn’t 1963…).
I blogged broke and distraught and made a decision to do something about my own ignorance on how the courts, and their funding works. I also made a conscious decision that hanging out to read the same information be recirculated among groups — wasn’t worth the time. At every point in time we make thousands of decisions too prioritize one behavior over another — and one source of information over another.
In doing this work, we have to be more honest about our own previous shortcomings and blind spots — and fix them. And we also should insist — a constant issue in any “advocacy” or reform matters — that the leadership we are following are teaching us their skillsets and are honest — rather than are USING our misery and distress for private purposes.
Time’s a problem? Then why not look for, and take, the most direct approach
What better way to screen for truth than to get, up-front — a quick, basic, assessment of any corporation, or group calling itself an association’s financials?
Although there are THOUSANDS of such groups, as their are thousands of county-level family (and conciliation) courts around — sooner or later it only makes sense to figure out the scope of the task (approximately — and usually it will turn out to be larger. Too bad — keep adjusting and deciding). The problem with corporations in the courthouse is, if you don’t know what to look for — how can you follow them? Another way might be to look at the county financing more carefully, i.e., from the center outwards. Either approach — no person getting involved should remain at the same level of understanding for long — like for even a MONTH! When you and your associates are remaining at the same level of understanding for years — then you need to find new, and better friends, or go it alone, become a resource, and figure out how to connect others that already made that decision.
Get out that mirror and keep it handy…
We have to look at how did we (the public, who come through the courts AND fund them) get so over-exposed (vulnerable) to the point where as individuals, our work lives cannot cease or we’re homeless, while public employees (who those work lives support, quite well — including with public pension retirements) have the ability to fly around to conferences, strategize how to create market-niche professions for controlling normal working families (low-income, middle-class), and set up systems to launder money through the courts.
Or how the [theoretically they exist) honest ethical judicial, custody-evaluator, and court-appointed attorney colleagues in the courts who ARE ethical and honest,** really wanted to, but haven’t been able to monitor or restrain systems of laundering money which originated as wages paid to the public. (The “haven’t been able to” must include “aren’t going to blow the whistle,” or “didn’t bother to find out.”) And/or ROI (returns on investment) from previous money extracted from the public through previous generations of income taxes. That last statement makes more sense for people who will think in “macro” and historical terms about finances, which is an acquired skill driven, usually, by curiosity, and rejecting the ridiculous while looking for the logical. Sometimes the outlandish or upsetting proves to be logical, while the “commonsense” status quo is itself the most ridiculous. It all depends on what lens (perspective) is used to look at the situation.
**That’s actually an unproven theory, but for sake of argument, let’s assume some are. However the fact is, most people have a self-interest to protect their professions, which includes their colleagues, and not completely dismantle a source of income, plus pension, almost guarantees they’re not going to put their jobs on the line to “out” a comrade, unless it becomes clear the ship is going down. As to AFCC per se — it’s not reasonable to believe that MOST judges (etc.) are aware of its existence; ergo most of them haven’t investigated its corporate validity from state to state. The deeper issues here is balance of power, and systems; not personalities of judges.
RE: Recognizing and Reporting the Flora and Flora of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter
I only intersected the Connecticut AFCC situation while in progress on an intended series simply documenting the “Association for Family and Conciliation Courts” — and every existing chapter, plus who is, and has been, on the boards (of state chapters). There has to be a systematic expose.
Connecticut’s Chapter Conference showed up, and someone was on their tails (gathering evidence) and was published on the matter.
The number of people actually following actively this topic appears to be so small that they know to contact each other with new “finds, even though strands of investigation have been going on for at least two decades (1993-2013). As AFCC itself likes to hearken back to 1963 (which isn’t true, but a ballpark), if there are people pre-1993 investigating the existence of this group, I’d like to know who, and where. For one, the internet didn’t really take off in the 1960s and 1970s (for commoners, that is), so how would they have known? Subscribe to multiple state associations of lawyers and psychologists? Figure out somehow that a “family court review” existed, who was co-sponsoring it, and manage to subscribe to issues? Figure out the organization existed (hard to do as it didn’t maintain incorporation consistently, and when challenged on that, tends to find another state to incorporate in), how critical it was to keep tabs on, and subscribe to newsletter?
AFCC and friends (associates, as it says, “professionals”) are already established, entrenched in the court and social services systems across the United States, and some other countries; they know how to quickly spread word on “what the latest program” while carefully maintaining (profits from) previous ones; and continue working on new standards, and is hard to keep up with, incorporating (or but not always registering as required with the state level nonprofit), and from there, looking very official, attracting enough attention to get laws passed to favor themselves. I.e., the car is in motion.
This article is reverberating, properly, around the networked blogs and private emails (probably also facebook and Twitter, not to mention the conservative (or conservative-watching) viewership of the Washington Times.
Media (Who Owns it, the Technology Platform) Counts! — Who is The Washington Times?
The Washington Times has an entire surreal story itself. It needs to be related further to the family courts. I am working on this, although see already “***About This Blog” and some posts around the theme of “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut.”
(“John Solomon, the editor brought in from the Post with what he thought was a mandate to make the Times more respectable, disappeared without comment weeks ago, leaving senior editors — many of whom he had hired — largely in the dark, amid a complete overhaul of management and far-reaching staff cuts. By the end of Wednesday, managing editors David Jones (print) and Jeffrey Birnbaum (digital), along with assistant managing editor Barbara Slavin, no longer had their jobs.“) Then Solomon apparently disappeared. (A newspaper’s surreal dismantling 12/31/2009 Michael Calderone in “Politico”).
About a week later: Jan 4, 2010, by Erik Wemple, “Washington Times lashes back at its Former Editor”
. . .who had filed a lawsuit for breach of contract, after which it came out he was working without a contract — he’d wanted a cut of the revenues written into his contract. He also didn’t appreciate being forced to attend Unification church ceremonies. However, Unification church members (top-ranking executives at the paper) apparently were also being fired, possibly mirroring “family squabbles” — a script played rather large, as the Moon family does span the globe, not to mention had plans to rule the same as the True Parents. This plan would surely eradicate godless communism; all one needs is strong leadership (see Bush, Hitler, et al.)…. The WT was allegedly for sale in 2010 after a number of purges (deep cuts) in staff and leadership. As of September 2012, they are down to one of the True Parents, and last I heard, for the first time, the WT has a non-church member CEO and President. There several dozen links (to news) on the WT over @ http://www.rickross.com/groups/moonie.html. I am aware of this because the same church has some direct connections to “family court matters.” Although almost incredulous on learning this, when I considered it – it made a whole lot of sense on the experiences people have been having within the courts.
In short, the Media is the Massage; the pipelines and platforms on which anything substantial is delivered — like information — are going to affect the contents. It’s good to be aware of them, in general.
In this recent WT context, it seems even more amazing that Anne Stevenson’s piece was published…And we should remain aware that mainstream media (in fact any communication media) is NOT just a neutral pipeline of facts — there is always a business model involved (it takes money to support the technology and maintain circulation; see advertisers…); it takes staff (usually lots of them) and what we read is a product of what happens before it’s published, including editing, select and reject stories and articles, according to the newspaper’s slant.
When articles of this quality on this topic get published, those people who understand the significance often stop what we’re doing and seek to amplify (magnify) the point, usually in the comments fields.
I would’ve but (see last post), I can’t. I cannot get a single comment published, no matter how short, under which username or from which platform. Judging by this experience, and the still low number comments showing, I believe there’s active censorship (NOT just “technical issues”) by the Washington Time; though at what level, I DNK. I twice asked for resolution of any technical issues (if that was the cause), also on behalf of one else who may have been affected by the courts — and may not have high-tech or high-quality computer device to comment from. This (very unpleasant) experience again reminded me that it’s not someone else’s job to audit public use of public funds — it’s our job, and that MSM is not the forum to make the most significant difference in the system.
We should recognize and support, as here, excellent writing and investigation on courthouse corporations (or lack thereof). Funky or unethical practices within the state-level judiciary absolutely affect the entire state, and anyone exposing impropriety this well absolutely should be supported, applauded, and reposted.*
HOWEVER, that’s still no excuse for sitting on the sidelines without a change of attitude AND behavior.
**Oops, I forgot — the Washington Times doesn’t allow that. Well, traffic should be driven to the site and people should indicate their interest by commenting.
Oops, I forgot — apparently some can and some cannot comment.
Therefore I suggest we,** FIRST develop skills to investigate, the vocabulary to express it (as opposed to the vocabulary of “the experience sucks,” which apparently most people already have), ditch vocabulary which has us running in mental circles of disbelief, and accept vocabulary which MIGHT lead to new, actionable information.
(**That is, we who don’t like courts being used for incorporating business for cronies at public expense and to prolong public distress. Clearly some people like this or at least have rationalized this, and some if aware of it don’t care.”)
As I brought up (5/23/2013 2:39PDT comment), some are “Shining the Light” on the pain and suffering — when they could’ve been shining it on the conflicts of interest, funding, and corporations instead, without diminishing the pain and suffering angle — just doing something about it!!
Also, in the same comments on the WP editorial post supporting the BMCC and quoting an “Eileen King,” I noticed that she’d switched associations. Formerly she was “Justice for Children,” but now (and as a conference speaker) in “Child Justice, Inc.” Naturally, I looked up the new organization, found it (quickly) as related to a rather influential (when it comes to GALs for kids) firm First Star, which had come to my attention while following the situation in Lackanna County, PA. Paying attention to details often pays off, as it turns out that First Star (D.C.), Children’s Advocacy Institute? (San Diego) and the “NACC” (a nonprofit which got $600K of HHS funding to help set up “child welfare law” as a certified speciality, grant labeled “Adoption Opportunities.”). NACC is immensely significant and overlaps highly with AFCC.
So, I commented on Eileen’s new friends, or at least labeling, and which was responded to by a direct brush-off (by Eileen, who I have never met, and vice versa) and two or three other followers (who hadn’t met me either). Clearly I must be an “outsider,” perhaps I was a “plant.” The whole exchange (about 4 comments on one thread) are also here: WP comments field, “SystemicAnalysis”
(my) Comment, 5/13/2013: 5:01pm PTD
Rebuttals, 7:04pm 5/14 and followup. Notice 7 people “liked” the brush-off, someone believes I must not be a “protective mothers” (cf. California Protective Parents Association, “Protective Mothers’ Allliance, etc.) because “they tend to also not sound so analytical.” and how I’m not supposed to “air this” (air what — a leader’s dishonesty?) because they are “finally getting heard,” [[i.e., press is more important than truth in leadership…]] my argument makes little sense (but there is no rebuttal or correction: Why not?). Then the namecalling and corresponding “likes.” Anyone — at all — could’ve checked their facts, or checked the facts; instead the tribal response kicked in. I posted the evidence (no likes, of course, and no response) after which the comments were closed.)
First Star is now operating as “First Star Foundation” in California, I see. Looking up its street address, I see a $4 million mansion, and British film director “Peter Helms.” Firststar.org shows itself to be a “Children’s Rights” Organization, i.e., a program CAIV says, “we stand up for child welfare rhetoric espoused in government…” This page acknowledges the CAI connection and cites a special report (which is where I learned of the connection), including “A Child’s Right to Counsel” (links to the 157pg pdf. Note p. 9 says that Massachusetts and Connecticut rated over 100% (positive) for having altered their practices since publication of this. (Compare and contrast with former GAL Maureen Murphy & Max Liberti…) From p. 12ff (as if it wasn’t already clear), “NACC” is cited and pointed to favorably; i.e., being in foster care creates a “special right” to representation, but the foster care system is overloaded and needs more attorneys to protect the children, and of course they need proper training and certification.
p. 41 of this SPECIAL REPORT (a nationwide legal report card on the field by the producers), in giving Connecticut it’s A+, specifically mentions: “CONNECTICUT HAS DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION”
This agency made some negative news — running up the largest deficit of any agency by June 2011, such that it was folded into the Public Defenders Office!
Agency That Represents Parents In Child-Protection Cases Is Abolished
State Public Defenders’ Office To Absorb Cases
Private Lawyers Owed $2.4 Million
June 20, 2011|By JOSH KOVNER, email@example.com
HARTFORD – — The state agency that pays private lawyers to represent poor parents and children in child-protection cases has run up such a gaping deficit and owes the lawyers so much money that the agency has been abolished; its work will be folded into the public defenders’ office starting July 1.
Nearly 200 private lawyers are owed as much as $2.4 million by the Commission on Child Protection – which had overspent its budget by $3.8 million at one point late last year. That was the largest deficit, by percent of budget, of any agency of state government.
Signorelli, who improved training at the agency and raised the hourly rate that lawyers could charge, said caseloads have risen and the office didn’t have enough money to pay the lawyers for the time they were putting in.
“We asked for $13.8 million from the legislature and got $11.6. At the same time, lawyers were billing us for more hours per case than ever before. We had to institute caps, but there wasn’t enough time to address the deficit,” Signorelli said.
Asked if the lawyers were billing excessively, Signorelli said, “No.The hours were consistent with standards and caseload studies we did.”
The appropriations committee had questioned the need for 196 contract lawyers.
Susan Storey, the state’s chief public defender, said the lawyers will be paid for the work they did.
Interesting!! More printouts at bottom of next post: This agency came up in Ms. Stevenson’s investigation, as I recall. Here’s a 2nd year of operations agency report, and an informed eye can see it is basically pushing NACC programming, including thousands of dollars ($20K and $40K) respectively for contract attorneys to be flown to attend NACC “and other” conferences, setting up a “child welfare law office” (which apepars to be the NACC CLOP model, that’s Childrens Law Office Project) and insisting that private attorneys use a time and billing software, modified, called “K.I.D.S.” (r) which, if I remember it right, is being sold by NACC! [[Actually, I see it’s from a Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) nonprofit, “KidsVoice.” The software, it says, is in use in: “Connecticut, Colorado, Louisiana, and Travis County (Austin), Texas.”
Here are some August, 2006 minutes from a meeting indicating just how hard Carolyn Signorelli is dutifully trying to turn this commission into an outpost of NACC. It has to be read, to be believed… Keep in mind, as we have been saying, much money is in the training…that is often public money. She wants to send attorneys to the NACC conference, have them get the materials and come back and do presentations; discussions about how to give NACC-certified attorneys higher pay, discussion about NACC? considering Connecticut one of its three pilot sites. NITA (another association/nonprofit) is also mentioned.
You will also notice (in the minutes) Ms. Signorelli pushing for training at NITA (National Institute of Trial Advocacy) a major nonprofit sponsoring trainings in Boulder, Colorado, it says, formed in 1971. Major participation from around the country. Not that training, or NITA isn’t beneficial, or worthwhile (even at public expense?) — however, just of note: Signorelli is listed as Program Director and “Faculty” 2012-2013. Is that conflict of interest? Become head of an agency formed by law ca. 2005, and immediately start referring trainings and moving the whole agency over to a model pre-determined (strategized) by national nonprofits with a specific agenda?
Given that the “Commission on Child Protection” outspent itself so scandalously (per that “Courant” piece, above) it was re-folded? back into the Public Defenders’ Office the next year, I have to note that the Public Defender Services Commission has on it a “Msgr.” As this indicates (sorry), a religion, I looked up “Msgr. William A. Genuario [[24 years on the Commission?]]” and let’s put it this way — Do the search (specify Connecticut) and see what comes up. this is who is helping defend people accused of child abuse…
Two Clergymen who hid abuse still working (David Tefner, 2009), “Among the thousands of documents released last week by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport were depositions and other papers that revealed the involvement of former Bishops Walter Curtis and Edward Egan in the cover-up of alleged sexual abuse of children by priests in the diocese.
But the documents also detail how two senior diocesan prelates, Monsignors William Genuario and Laurence Bronkiewicz, reviewed sex abuse complaints against priests and gave orders to move them around. Both men remain active in the diocese and hold senior positions. Genuario is currently head of the diocese’s tribunal, a court where people can bring petitions to adjudicate issues involving their rights or status. Bronkiewicz is pastor of St. Mary’s Church in Ridgefield, one of the wealthiest parishes in the diocese.
Commentary from SNAPSurvivors” forum of Michael Powell, attending a funeral of his sister where Genuario gave homily. He stands up, with photos of his siblings, and states they were victims of priest molestation” (mpowell dated Jan 2008 re: a 2004 service). You can see a timeline from Bishop-Accountability.org of lawsuits in Connecticut, and that in 1997, Genuario was deposed. His deposition appears to be on-line, but is slow to load.
My shorthand summary of it in the comments field looked oddball and was quickly rejected. However, it has a foundation in fact. Always check the facts!
Consider: Many of the mothers attending BMCC are noncustodial specifically because of AFCC-related policies, and fatherhood promotion through federal grants. NACC and AFCC are definitely related, and some of their personnel were closely related to a Pennsylvania County Courthouse (Lackawanna) that suffered an FBI raid, and eventually charges of tax evasion were leveled at the GAL in question. A judge, a parent coordinator, and a GAL were presenting together. I can therefore see why someone under the FirstStar umbrella who is addressed noncustodial mothers might not want word to get out that some of the associations with include groups that helped make them noncustodial to start with.
This is not exactly rocket science to realize, which MAY be why I wasn’t supposed to, as a stranger, come mention “First Star” in connection with Eileen King’s “Child Justice, Inc.”
No “likes” (naturally) and no responses to the evidence. There’s hardly a good answer to evidence, other than trying to distract people from it, confuse the issue, or ignore it. When groups have leaders that are above criticism and not held to a standard of honesty, then those groups get inbred, and resist outside information.
Hopefully this demonstrates the problem bloggers like Anne, Cindy Ross, earlier Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net), Marvin Bryer (Los Angeles) AND a number of other parents with him, attorneys (formerly) like Richard Fine, and certain others face not just from the situation itself, but also from groups that have adopted names and “persona” that indicate they are “Friends” simply because they name a problem, or have appealing labels with the word “Child” or “Justice” in them. It should take more than that to win anyone’s allegiance, even time…
My Washington Post comment was about supervised visitation, in Los Angeles, long ago AND now; The Washington Times full-length article with links to exhibits, by Ms. Stevenson, focuses in part about payments [as to services billed to parents or state) for psychological evaluations and conferences/training for professionals that do business in the courts in Connecticut.
Both reference conflicts of interests, court employees sitting on boards of nonprofits that do business involving public funds (i.e., conflicts of interest) and failure to stay incorporated while doing so.
This is a certain style of reporting and angle of approach that entails going for uncommonly known facts, assembling them, and reporting on them. While the article mentions the distress of a parent at not seeing (his, this time) children, it focuses on the finances and demonstrates, if you have eyes to see, how to go get information on these finances.
By contrast, Shine the Light on the Plight talk almost unilaterally tries to stifle such discussions among the ranks (and in comments fields). This collective silence happens at conferences, by omission (collective) on mailings, by failure to teach the skills of lookups (‘just leave it to the experts’) and by discouragement of criticism (including pointing out falsehoods, or close to it) by leadership as not collaborative or somehow disloyal.
If the tone of “Shine the light” reporting has changed at all in recent years, it appears to have changed only because extensive blogging, and some overlap of individuals who blog (I’m not the only one) among membership or attendance at a conference or so. Meanwhile, they are still engaged in shutting out conflicting viewpoints, while seeking further collaboration (behind mothers’ backs) with groups who don’t have (mothers’) best interests at heart, in addition to having a collective silence and dimssing the relevance of the money laundering, and federal grants factor.
This style of reporting also broadcasts to entrenched powers (‘not to worry, we won’t uncover your dirty laundry, and have others who try to under self-censoring crowd control…’). In my opinion, it has many character of a very public circus (“pay no attention to the Executive Producers, behind the curtain.”)
Again, it’s time to re-evaluate where we stand (or should I say SIT?), and change behavior. Quit focusing on who to applaud (good guys versus the bad guys) and re-examine the chosen labeling system. Develop some depth, not just resonance from repeating the same information year after year, revealing lack of growth in understanding…
People need to take the time to figure out HOW to understand and communicate this type of information about the court systems. There is a collective duty to preserve freedom, which requires not just work — but intelligent effort. To make intelligent effort, the public has to do a serious “check up from the neck up” about “How can this be?” and then get answers, AND (next step) figure out personally where you stand regarding them.
There is entirely too much willingness to complain and join groups — and not enough strategy. I quit support groups that will not talk about strategy, even if they are in the middle of a custody battlefield. What are the options? Treading water? Calling for help? Swimming this way — or that? Hunkering down and ignoring the larger currents, and just managing one’s own life and case (many of us have tried this already, to learn we are up against something larger than the individual). Where is that energy going to go?
If you don’t have the economic blueprint, in my opinion, you don’t have the scope of the issues, and might be working off a false hope for “tinkering” with or adjusting a system that is fundamentally, in its essence, “off.” The economic blueprint, accompanied by a valid history of system development, is closer to the essence of any system.
And we need to understand this; yesterday (in my opinion) and care about it.
Subconsciously, as a society, we are busy, distracted, and conditioned to respect major media (MSM) journalism as the most authoritative, and alternate views (unless they are our “thing”) suspicious. We are also less than subtly conditioned to respect degreed professionals (“the cult of the experts”) more than our own judgment and to bond with groups of professionals when we may have been disempowered, or feeling frail, etc. — ourselves.
The situation demands more people who will investigate! Who, if they don’t have the skills, will acquire them; which apart from brain injury or your fingers are broken, is primarily “heart”
I have no respect for people who are social media experts and competent on reblogging, tweeting, reposting — and do it completely without discrimination or critical judgment. Get out the mirror, and ask WHY is this reporting so rare?
And (we) will have to organize outside showing up to comment on the rare well-written mainstream media pieces hoping to inform the public, although nothing wrong with this — except, it’s not a good teaching platform. Occasionally rare investigative pieces on this same topic have appeared in print before, or BRIEFLY gotten attention in other states. While on-line networks of mothers and fathers have continued, and are remarkable, and very often are aware — they have not obtained the clout their work deserves.
People who have the clout (the wealth or skillsets to continually obtain press coverage, and the freedom of motion, perhaps resources, to do “the conference circuit” naturally do not adequately communicate to those who do NOT (because they may be active parents of young children, original or new families, dealing with the courts, or they may have been economically devastated by the courts, and are simply broke) ABOUT the tax and other perks of being on the conference circuit.
So, if people WANT to understand the flow of money, information, and influence and power from the, “been screwed by it” angle — then they are going to have to start considering how government interacts with the private sector. Government itself is also the biggest player IN the private sector because it manages huge amounts of money given it upfront, decades ago, and has been investing that money (picking winners and losers in the corporate field, and using the tax code (even when it’s done legally) to strategic advantage.