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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for October 29th, 2013

Parents !!! Quit Running in Fix-the-Courts Ruts! // Grow Up and Learn to LOOK UP THE CORPS running the Government (including the COURTS!)

leave a comment »

October 2013, just posting, then supplementing (including after I published it) some half-@ssed drafts that have been in the holding pen too long,….but good fodder for thought…

[[Sections salvaged from the recent wordpress-format-stripped posts on basic questions to ask of Centers, Institutes, and in general..  and by the time I took another serious look at it, supplemented. So, you have hear basically another post (added AFtER 10/30/2013 publishing) — about 14,000 words.  I still think it’s good material.  Take it in two doses if needed.



I am absolutely NOT interested in anecdotal information regarding court-cases, and trying to get these into the media — without the accompanying scaffolding to put it on.  What do you want people to focus on — that it’s bad, or, if so, HOW it’s bad — how it GOT bad, and what you want done to stop the “bad”???

If this shoe fits, wear it.  If you already know this stuff, about federally funded welfare-based designer families affecting the family court arena through primarily the child support arena (OCSE) — please teach it to others, so we can have some intelligent conversations from here on out and get the public to understand, they should quit funding child abuse, and that all these agencies supposedly handling problems A, B, C and D — usually aren’t.  We have to change, first, and quit asking of systems which systems are not going to, nor were they designed to, give us — justice, equity, reason, fairness, or when you get right down to it, a fair chance at a sane life.  Often, they don’t even protect life.  That’s NOT what they’re really there for.




See recent added page on “Social Sciencification” of America which takes us back to The Reorganization Act of 1939 and explains how social science, and continual reference to the “experts” was advised to condition and move public opinion).  In fact, if you can get through these three links (my writing) — you should be able to connect the ultimate goal of centralization of government with “What’s with all the psychological services in the courtroom?”

Psychologists are CENTRAL  to ANY fascist or colonizing, imperialist regime, and it takes that kind of regime to make them front and center to start with.  In America, especially since welfare reform paved the road to free federal money,  religious groups (both fundie and new age — today I’m looking at the “fundies” (my usage, primarily representing the degradation and hate/fear relationship with women, and evangelistic practices that, like their forebears, approve military, hierarchical and in short, almost any means justifies the end of dominating the globe for Christ, or Jesus (as viewed through the same eyes) — are heading into psychology knowing quite well that this could place them at the center of government, and at the intersection between faith-based grants and local networks, and standing to profit considerably from it.  While literally robbing from the poor (in the form of TANF diversions, at a minimum) they then hypocritically promote “marriage” as an antidote to poverty, when in fact, for some marriage is a shortcut to death and abuse, and when in fact, the marriage classes were setup and sponsored by money that otherwise was due needy families with kids involved. )

Psychologists as necessary to induce populations to engage in war, and as clean-up crew with any system whose primary drivers include violence, AND coverup (reframing) of that violence as something else, and mischaracterization of a person in need of having his, her, or their heads examined.   As someone with access to Freud’s archives has said, it’s an Assault on the Truth.  And they were censored.   Censorship is an essential glue to any such society, or regime.)

The question is not fundamentally — are these good psychologists or bad psychologists — but why should one of the easiest degrees to obtain (requires least academic intellect, and by definition requires a constant stream of  human subjects as subject matter) — be placed in the highest positions of government?  How and when did that happen?  Or dare we say, WHY?

Let’s Get Honest Top Picks (the first is a post, others are pages):

Where this hooks into the court system is economically — through funding,  and a large part, HHS funding to the states.  Welfare Reform and diversion of block grants to the states is central.

But this post focuses on particularly some programs, and peoples, flitting around the first state-wide marriage promotion diversion of TANF (welfare) surplus from needy children and the actual homes they were living in, to people who hardly need more personal profitable income, and, when you get right down to it, value being among a self-selecting crowd of hired-hands (“experts”) taking money from both public AND private hands — over either this country, its poor people, and certainly above the principles in its constitution, or the rule of law.  How that’s supposed to help anyone but themselves, your speculation is as good of mine.  Given what realm many of them came from to start with (i.e., religious) I gather they expect ALL Americans, like some of their crowd, to just “take it on faith”  “This is in your [the public’s] best interests.”

By studying specific examples, in some detail, you can see the patterns, and recognize them in practice when they show up elsewhere, which they do.

PREP, INC., the Parrotts fly to Oklahoma, and Ms. Ooms:

Just one example: that “Prep, Inc.” a for-profit by some University of Denver professors could’ve been formed, promoted, “accessorized” (see the “Family tree of “Curriculums” (sic) available:  

Ms. Ooms seems to be also “oomnipresent” in writings about Family Policy (fatherhood especially) .  She didn’t get much print in this post, however her program the “Family Impact Seminars” is central.  I’m just not dealing with it right here. It’s been blogged before…

FOR COUPLES, FOR INDIVIDUALS, FAITH-BASED, FOR SPANISH SPEAKERS, FOR MILITARY,  FOR FATHERS, FOR CORRECTIONS, FOR THE WORKPLACE) and distributed through the welfare system, facilitated along with endless other curricula by a single LLC in the Washington, D.C. area running ten years of conferences on “SMART MARRIAGEs.” using what WAS a TANF Surplus, starting statewide in Oklahoma (1999) [HOVER CURSOR FOR SELECTED TEXT, the site tells you HOW it was pushed, starting at the top political levels] is a sad statement on the level of public knowledge of private racketeering (or at least, marketing) through government funds.

A continued look at this Oklahoma Phenomenon exposes tactics of the industry money-maker curricula (particularly a certain one) and that this is being done at public expense and with our silent consent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm

My Sidebar Summary, in all its Conversational, Linked “Glory.”

leave a comment »

I am in the process of clearing up and cleaning up (which may mean simply POSTING) information on my blog.  the format is often largely Soundoff, but will at least show that I’ve looked up before I laughed out loud, and have taken time to come to my own conclusions, over the years — and as a person meanwhile dealing with both the aftereffects of and various other forms of ongoing trauma, and some threats (such as stalking) such as happens to people who are bounced from DV protection into Custody Battles (which, FYI, is the business plan)…..

This text used to be on the sidebar, meaning it was written in one long chain of paragraphs, viewed three vertical inches at a time.  It has now been replaced by almost as much sidebar material (oh well).   It does cover significant topics of the blog, as a boat trip down a river will reveal many aspects of the countryside as you pass by — for an overview.  However it’s only when someone gets off (reads in the links, considers, or processes) the information, that it will start to make some sense).  I am intentionally covering plenty of territory, with periodic links — to introduce the concepts.  While this may seem like a meandering trip down a river, in fact, it should demonstrate which Creek we are up, and without a paddle, either.  Or should I say, with not enough people paddling forcefully in the direction of land, or even against the current.

Position statement.

Jump in somewhere, or consider it a two-inch wallpaper border to the posts. I write on (and on, and on), am opinionated, but post links to some basis for those opinons, and am consistently sowing certain information on-line that certain groups chose (and I also can back up that evaluation) to cover up. Reason demanded a reason for (and a short history of) how these courts came to be, and from under which rock did they crawl?

Most of us don’t have $139 to spare for an ebook of “Problem-Solving Courts, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Mainstreaming,” (preview of the 13 chapters here) apparently this wasn’t intended for the parents, themselves, many of who are struggling in the courts, or to feed and raise kids, or continue to house themselves simultaneous with family court cases which refuse to close until all the family and extended family assets are drained, and enough problem-solvers have got a piece of the pie… They publish while we perish…

The book grows out of a live conference where legal, social science, and philosophical dimensions of problem-solving courts—and of the ‘new judging’—were grappled with by an impressive and accomplished group of scholars. [published by two from UNL dept. of psychology/Sept. 2012, Puerto Rico].

Back up 20 years, and hear Meyer Elkin (interviewed Feb. 1994) (short version: obituary 1994) describe how he got involved with the Conciliation Court model in Los Angeles, after time doing group therapy modeled in Alcoholics Anonymous in a Tucson? or at least Arizona prison. Or quoted by the organization he helped (it wasn’t a solo job) found saying in 1975 that the language of criminal law needed to go, and be replaced by the language of behavioral health; after all, aren’t we all on the same page?).

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: