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

[If you are receiving this post as a follower, it’s simply a function of housecleaning on the right sidebar, and not new material…][well, some was added extemporaneous, in transit from there to here)…..

[August 2013, removed from “There’s No Excuse” Gravatar widget (text))

Basic Principles:

As a woman and a mother, and a domestic violence survivor (the marriage was violent; the family court experience was worse — and without closure) I am as angry and distressed as anyone else might be. There has been devastating, and what’s worse, completely unnecessary, loss to three generations of my family line, and countless others.

But . . . . .

But once I understood certain basics (which no attorney even referenced, or breathed a hint about), I choose to channel this negative energy and emotion into literally becoming a resource — understanding principles of operation and — how to look things up; to be able to prove a point not because of who agrees with it, but because with enough evidence (scope), and identifying what kinds of evidence, there really are patterns. There really is a visible structure, showing strategy and planning, to how the courts were set up.

It doesn’t happen to be favorable to individual rights that we imagine still exists — but there is an order to it, signs of “intelligent design” being played out decade by decade. So, my interest is in getting at the truth: How does it work, and why does it work like that? Whose ideas were this anyhow, and how’d they pull them off?

Can other ideas (like ones closer to the concept of individual liberty and choice, or rule of law and some sort of ethical or morality, versus rule of whoever controls the economic might, that might makes right; and laws are just decoration — icing on the cake — to keep the peasants quiet.) This can really be seen, it can also be seen in motion over time…

It takes some effort to look at the evidence; which is hard to do if the focus is on Facebook alliances, which rally next, and whose material can I reblog? In one forum I had a username: “ReadMyLips_ReadTheir990s” — that’s good advice!

So, I sort and categorize “groups” in part according to their legal status and labels, and if they’re incorporated nonprofits, I go for the tax returns. I also have a better concept of the difference (when it comes to financing) of government — versus corporations. When they are blended, accountability is at a minimum for individuals, and personnel have to be watched closer.

(more text formerly under the Gravatar. My blog represents a learning curve, and doesn’t easily summarize into a widget — as I have investigated things, and come to conclusion, I’ve seen which skills seem more important (like LOOKING IT UP and BEING AWARE OF THE CHRONO AND LARGER CONTEXT, AS SEEN BY THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THE VARIOUS COURTS).

So here is some more, regarding “AFCC”

@@@@@ Members have been, or have sought to become presiding judges over “Unified Family Courts,” (which appears to be an AFCC concept as well) or even state-level Supreme Courts (Texas, elsewhere I’m sure has at least one) and consistently, consistently as leadership in the state-level “Administrative Offices of the Courts (“AOCs”) which have influence on grants, contracts, (Federal, State, etc.) — and also entail the professions that courts refer business to (child custody, supervised visitation, lawyers, mediators, child psychiatrists, Guardians ad Litem, AND let’s not forget, as law professors, or heads of “centers” established at major law schools. As you can see the collective clout can be significant, making disorganized, or NOT collectively organized protest of abusive practices at the local level, very hard.

[[After four years of looking consistently at these matters, I have come to the conclusion that it’s basically “regionalism” in practice, that this is accomplished by certain techniques and tools; that it is intentional, and that whatever individual judges, attorneys, or evaluators may wish or intend to deliver (ethical or unethical), the system bears a clear mark of “Intelligent Design” and that design absoluuuuuuuuuutely includes removing the source of power further and further from individuals, from the local jurisdiction — and concentrating it into fewer and fewer hands.

This is also possible and tempting to those who like being high up in society and on the global playing field — because of prior consolidation of assets in the hands of the federal governments, and collectively getting the State governments (originally though of as more independent) to dance to their tune, resonate to their vibrations, and sing for their suppers.

My “Abolishing Government by Executive Order (10 Regions replacing the 50 States) page explores and tells this, with links. It’s history — it’s relevant — and it’s evident. What to do about it, people have to decide for themselves.

Anyone who has personally dealt with ongoing, dictatorial tyrant or abuser in their life, and seen the “web” of control that is set up front — and how hard it is to get away after the initial kidnapping — has a very good model for what the government is doing. Similar promises of services delivered in exchange for rights forfeited accompanies. The key thing is when you have identified, who’s truthful and who’s not — also who’s been hoodwinked and who has not — as this is so large (high, wide and deep) it’s a LOT more pleasant to focus on the “now” and managing a life without confronting the colonization of the planet (if that model makes sense) by the “corporate/government” mentality.

And to just go work for it, instead. But for those of us who have been dealing with, essentially, local “RICO” relationships affecting our own safety and immediate future (year after year), we know that fixing it piecemeal probably isn’t going to work. I also have heard some parent groups use the words “Guerilla tactics.” However, this is a war on, essentially, representative government (on government of, by, and for the “people”) which is so skilled at setting groups at each other, altering language and social mores –and doing it progressively, gradually, inexorably — I’m really not sure that guerilla anything will do more than temporarily clear a certain “enclave.” I think that understanding the “Scope of the Issues” (see post) really matters, so long as seeing it doesn’t cause one to completely lie down and give up!

A lot of the painful mental conflict surrounding the courts has to do with the illusion, or desire, to believe that there is justice, there are rights, there is “due process” in the system. However, we are now decades into the addition of the psychologists and social scientists into the courtroom, and the debates have degraded from, what are they doing there — to how can they be BETTER psychologists, custody evaluators, social scientists in the courtroom — and the debate on why is our country being run regionally by institutions that are set up and sponsored by the Government/Private Equity (Philanthropic Foundation) model such as at the Brookings Institution, or at, formerly “Manpower Development Research Corporation,” now called “MDRC” — is not taking place, because most people are either accepting these institutions — or don’t understand their impact on the courts.

I have a post upcoming on the proliferation of funded “Centers for ABC__XYZ Policy” which might explain this better.

We are being consigned to management from “on high,” and HARVARD comes up far too often, in my opinion. This seems to be resulting in a more and more passive/ helpless population, NOT when it comes to favorite causes, especially those any major (owned) media takes up — but definitely when it comes to challenging the status quo of who controls most of the wealth — and that, my friends, is shown on Comprehensive Financial Annual Reports which no one (or not enough) are reading and discussing.

It’s a REAL hard sell to even get a consistent bloc of people to start going through their local courts and find out who is involved in which corporations, or their county budget, and naming all the funds. WHY? Because once the process of dismantling one’s family, or livelihood, has begun — it is usually finished, and it takes all one’s focus to withstand.

Which was hardly an unforeseen scenario — like I keep staying, this shows signs of intelligent design. Also available to see by reading the scripts produced by the designers!!!

Fabianism, Permeation, “velvet glove” respectability to infiltrate socialism throughout society

Interesting reading — added 8/8/2013 because I simply wanted it referenced.

The Fabian Spirit, John Taylor Gatto (hey, it’s in the SEO results):

To speak of scientific management in school and society without crediting the influence of the Fabians would do great disservice to truth, but the nature of Fabianism is so complex it raises questions this essay cannot answer. To deal with the Fabians in a brief compass as I’m going to do is to deal necessarily in simplifications in order to see a little how this charming group of scholars, writers, heirs, heiresses, scientists, philosophers, bombazines, gazebos, trust-fund babies, and successful men and women of affairs became the most potent force in the creation of the modern welfare state, distributors of its characteristically dumbed-down version of schooling. Yet pointing only to this often frivolous organization’s eccentricity would be to disrespect the incredible accomplishments of Beatrice Webb and her associates, and their decisive effort on schooling. Mrs. Webb is the only woman ever deemed worthy of burial in Westminster Abbey.

---

. . .
Fabianism came into existence around the year 1884, taking its name from Roman general Fabius Cunctator8 who preserved the Roman state by defeating Hannibal, chipping away at Hannibal’s patience and will to win by avoiding combat. Darwin was the weird holy man Fabians adored, the man who gave them their principle, a theory inspirationally equal to god-theory, around which a new organization of society could be justified.

Society, after Darwin, was incontrovertibly about good breeding. That was the only true goal it had, or scientifically could have. Before Darwin, the view of historical development which fit best with Anglo/American tradition was a conception of individual rights independent of any theory of reciprocal obligations to the State; the duty of leaders was to Society, not to Government, a crucial distinction in perfect harmony with the teachings of Reformation Christianity, which extended to all believers a conception of individual duty, individual responsibility, and a free will right to decide for oneself beyond any claims of states.

The word “permeation” “gradual” and in opposition to sudden violent revolutions were the theme. This process can also be clearly seen in the increasing development of the family and conciliation courts language and ideas.

Searching (again, this is a random SEO) for other write-ups, this one mentions the universities as points of contact with “British Fabianism.” Notice ISS (Intercollegiate Socialist Society), etc.

From “Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo” by Zygmund Dobbs (who??), 1969. This is from Chapter III, “American Fabianism.” I noticed also a chapter on ““Socialism — Pseudo Science”

The permeation of the United States by British Fabian socialism proceeded primarily through the universities. The main root of Fabian “permeation” was Harvard University. Fabian socialists as well as Marxian socialists selected Harvard as the fount from which leftist ideology filtered through to other educational institutions. Later the communists borrowed from the socialists the formula of incubating revolutions through universities.(1) Among those who pioneered Fabianism in America (shortly after the formation of the Fabian Society in England in 1883) were James Harvey Robinson (Harvard, 1887), Oswald Garrison Villard (H’93), W.E.B. DuBois (H’90) and Harry Frederick Ward (H’98).

Professor Taussig and others at Harvard, allowed the Fabians to operate freely with the best of intentions. Their cloak of “respectability” permitted Fabian socialists to carry on under “harmless” colors. Fabians at Harvard and other universities were considered not as conspirators but as individuals with whom one could have amiable disagreements.

With the aid of Taussig and other economists of the American Economic Association, Webb’s essay on Socialism in England was circulated in 1889 throughout the academic world.(2) This essay was based on Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889), which formed the basic platform for the growth of extremism in England.(3) The American essay explained to its American readers that in England “Socialist lectures have lately been given in several colleges by permission of the authorities, this part of the propaganda being chiefly performed by the Fabian Society, which has a standing ‘Universities Committee.’ ”

British Fabian leaders Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease came to the United States in 1888 for a long visit to train Fabian groups in the art of socialism. Webb solidified his connection with the American Economic Association whose editorial address was at Harvard University.

Bela Hubbard in Political and Economic Structures states; “By the close of the nineteenth century they (Fabians –ed.) had made converts in the United States. Under Fabian influence and guidance, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society was founded in New York City, in 1905.”(4) During this same period the Rand School of Social Science was formed by Fabian Socialists and became the New York headquarters of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society.

The pattern of operation in the I.S.S. was the same as that pursued by Fabians in England. During the first two years (1905-1907) its activity was mainly that of distributing literature and giving lectures in the universities. By January 1908, the first professional paid organizer went into action. His task was to consolidate in organizational form the results of the previous propaganda. A chapter of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society was formed in Harvard. Other chapters quickly followed in Princeton, Columbia, Barnard, New York University and University of Pennsylvania. All these chapters were organized in the first four months of 1908 at a cost of only 521 dollars.(5)

By 1914 the Harvard chapter of the I.S.S. had over 60 members. John Spargo, socialist leader, addressed as many as 250 students at Harvard in a single meeting of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society.(6)

From the same book, describing the gradual and “velvet glove” techniques of the Fabian Society:

I really exhort (encourage, recommend, etc.) reading this — because it explains in part, the unbelievably arrogant attitudes shown among the “social science administrative class” and their detached talk about how to better manage the poor, the willingness to conduct mass demonstration projects on (behavioral modification) of our (!!) work and mating, child-rearing, saving, and other habits — as if it were actually a bunch of livestock they were dealing with.

In fact, that is very much the aristocratic mindset. It’s simply switched venues; this began apparently in the late 1880s, and in London, in association with a certain American-born Scotsman. This is why, when people who are still at the “rights-based” level and thinking in those terms (as many still are, particularly in America where we are constantly reminded that we have “civil rights, human rights, we’re Independent, we have a Constitution, etc. — no matter who little of this is in evidence, and how rapidly they are being lost, or are unenforceable in court (or out of it) — are obviously going to clash with the class who believes we are not, or who are PAID by those who believe we are not.

Incredible as it may seem, the Fabian Socialist Society began with only nine members, who chose an executive committee of three. Their organizational assets consisted of thirteen shillings and seven pence. ($1.89 in current monetary value.) Mrs. Cole, a former chairman of the British Fabian Society, in her book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, boastfully labelled this group as a “seeding” body busily sowing socialist schemes throughout society and then nursing them into full bloom.

Bernard Shaw joined the Fabian Society within the first year of its formation (1884). Another recruit at this time was Sidney Webb who, along with Bernard Shaw, dominated the Fabian movement for over 40 years. After Sidney Webb’s marriage to the very wealthy Beatrice Potter (Canadian Grand Trunk Railroad fortune) both he and his wife collaborated as a unit in Fabian activities.

Shaw contrasted the difference between other radical groups and his own by repeated references to “the highly respectable Fabian Society.”(6)

He illustrates the tactic of being “highly respectable” as follows:

The Fabian Society got rid of its Anarchists and Borrovians, and presented Socialism in the form of a series of parliamentary measures, thus making it possible for an ordinary respectable religious citizen to profess socialism and belong to a Socialist Society without any suspicion of lawlessness, exactly as he might profess himself a Conservative and belong to an ordinary constitutional club.(7)

The clever artifice of feigning “respectability,” while at the same time subverting society for revolutionary purposes, is a Fabian tactic that has had phenomenal success. It gave the Fabians easy entry into government, banks, stock exchanges and universities. This policy of conscious deception allowed Fabian Socialists to have their cake and eat it too. While extremists with a franker policy were barred from ordinary social intercourse the Fabians were welcomed because they had a velvet glove approach accompanied by fine intellectual manners.

The Fabians were more realistic than the Marxian socialists. They understood that it is much easier to subvert sons, daughters and wives of the prominent and well-to-do than it is to impress the laboring classes. They also understood, that socialist movements spring from the middle and upper classes—and not from the proletariat.(8)

Shaw thus describes the social composition of the Fabians:

Now the significant thing about the particular Socialist society which I joined was that the members all belonged to the middle class. Indeed its leaders and directors belonged to what is sometimes called the upper middle class: that is, they were either professional men like myself (I had escaped from clerkdom into literature) or members of the upper division of the civil service. Several of them have since had distinguished careers without changing their opinions or leaving the Society. To their Conservative and Liberal parents and aunts and uncles fifty years ago it seemed an amazing, shocking, unheard-of thing that they should become Socialists, and also a step bound to make an end of all their chances of success in life. Really it was quite natural and inevitable. Karl Marx was not a poor laborer: he was the highly educated son of a rich Jewish lawyer. His almost equally famous colleague, Friedrich Engels, was a well-to-do employer. It was precisely because they were liberally educated, and brought up to think about how things are done instead of merely drudging at the manual labor of doing them, that these two men, like my colleagues in The Fabian Society (note, please, that we gave our society a name that could have occurred only to classically educated men), were the first to see that Capitalism was reducing their own class to the condition of a proletariat, and that the only chance of securing anything more than a slave’s share in the national income for anyone but the biggest capitalists or the cleverest professional or business men lay in a combination of all the proletarians, without distinction of class or country to put an end to capitalism by developing the communistic side of our civilization until communism became the dominant principle in society, and mere owning, profiteering, and genteel idling were disabled and discredited.(9)

A fundamental principle of Fabianism is to collect a Brain Trust as an elite class to plan and direct all of society. Shaw pointed it out succinctly:

The Fabian Society succeeded because it addressed itself to its own class in order that it might set about doing the necessary brain work of planning Socialist organization for all classes, meanwhile accepting, instead of trying to supersede, the existing political organizations which it intended to permeate with the Socialist conception of human society.(10)

The principle of the specialist, the manager, the administrator, according to the Fabians represents an elite which the Fabians say will dominate society.(11) This elite concept attracted elements from the old English nobility who had been stripped of their former elite standing. Aristocratic elements began to crop up in the Fabian Society reflecting subconscious, and sometime conscious, attempts to recoup their old power via the socialist road (examples: Betrand Russell, the third Earl Russell, Percy D’Evelyn Marks, Lord Kimberly, etc.)(12)

The policy of hiding behind the skirts of respectability did not, however, prevent the Fabians from consorting with and helping their more violent brethren in the socialist movement. In fact, the Fabians aided and abetted Russian Bolsheviks long before the revolution in 1917.

[etc.]