Who Owns and Operates, and Leases, the Real Estate [and buildings] in which Justice is Dispensed?
That’s a good question. For example, if traffic court had to make its lease (quota) might this affect what kind or how many, how high the traffic court fines might go/ How about when the issues is families and children and it’s courthouses where custody, or dependency, or juvenile law issues are decided?
This “serendipity find” caused me to look at it in some detail, it’s an amazing story of multiple organizations — and definitely something to keep in mind:
Who owns the real estate around this place anyhow?
RICHARD FINE: One of the two things that appears to have helped put the attorney Richard Fine in solitary coercive confinement for 18 months from May 2009 through Sept. 2010 (and helped him both get disbarred, and lose the income from cases he’d won, affecting his family (wife and adult daughter) — appears to have related to insisting on ethical handling of cases involving REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS, and CHILD SUPPORT (Silva v. Garcetti) and there was some overlap with “outing” the origins of the AFCC as well. Not to mention the concept of county-paid bribes to judges. How can anyone keep this all straight?
Described in brief at “Tulanelink.com” My point in quoting this much — real estate is MEGAbuck (as opposed to, while substantial, the additional grants-based and other “programming” parents are forced through in the family courts). If you get through this post to the description of WHO helped put together the new Long Beach “Governor Deukmijian Courthouse” (opened for business Sept. 2013) together — should make this clear, if it’s not already understood. In fact, considering who and what is putting together which major infrastructure projects — one could feel like a pea, as a litigant, by comparison. Where are the judges loyalties going to lie? With one of their low-income people streaming through, or with the long-term relationships of who’s running, funding, leasing, and construction those real estate projects?
Quoting from 2009 write up re: FINE. I know I’ve posted a lot on this. However, check out the intro, and note that the individuals posting are recommending citizen grand juries (I’m not sure I agree that’s practical though)…Point here — he was dealing with substantial FORCE ($$) when dealing with real estate issues in some of these– and child support (do the math…) in others.
MALCOLM MACLACHLAN March 19, 2009
An attorney who spent years fighting against the practice of counties making additional payments to judges has suffered disbarment and been thrown in jail over the last several weeks. Richard Fine, 69, claims that his legal problems stem from his crusade against the practice. But the Los Angeles Superior Court and the plaintiff’s attorney at the center of the Sturgeon case say they aren’t related.
Fine is a real estate attorney who has raised objections to “local judicial payments” in several cases. Last May, he sued the California Bar Association, according to attorney Gary Zerman, who has staged several small protests demanding Fine’s release. Fine has repeatedly argued that these payments violate the State and U.S. Constitutions, including citizens’ “implied right to honest services” from elected officials.
“He was one of the first to discover this,” Zerman said.
Fine claimed not only that judges might have to repay the money they had received, but that any judges who took the payments could be forced to leave the bench, and any rulings they had handed down could be invalidated.
“They either have to resign or be impeached,” Fine said.
Fine has argued that the Los Angeles judges have never ruled against the County of Los Angeles in court since the payments began. Many of his legal problems appear to stem from a real estate case, Marina Tenants Association vs. Los Angeles County, and the judge in that case, David P. Yaffe, who, he claims, has retaliated against him for trying to draw attention the payments issue.
Real Estate is a Really Big Deal:
Courthouses are needed, and if they get decrepit or dangerous, or overcrowded (of course, poor decisions in the first round may have something to do with HOW crowded they are)- sure, they should be replaced. But I can’t help noticing how WELL some of these new buildings under state, county and outfits at law schools can be — while people going through litigation, some of them, are ending up homeless or nearly. Is there a correspondence to which way the funds are flowing?
In September 2013, a new courthouse opened for business in Long Beach. It was the first of a certain kind in America. A fascinating story. However anything in tan-background before that is also generic (but detailed) pointing out that the California Judicial Council, which now owns this building (and someone else operates, and yet someone else leases) is in addition getting millions of dollars of grants (yearly) from HHS (and a few from DOJ) which are affecting where children live.
This may make more sense when I get all three “AOC” posts out (this isn’t one of them, FYI). Anyone want to follow up? Also, there’s a corporate history trail behind AECOM which goes back to a situation involving John Dionisio (now CEO) and a 39year old engineer, alleged bid-rigging on the Port Authority, missing documents, arson and suicide, possibly murder. Needless to say (or, for other reasons) the company then involved “Frederick R. Harris” might not want that association, and eventually ended up in this one. the next paragraph is repeated towards the end:
In 1994, John M. Dionisio formerly of Frederick R. Harris had a 39 yr old engineer (in re: bid-rigging for a Port Authority Project) literally commit suicide in his home setting it afire, and forcing Dionisios’ wife and young son to flee. Apparently the engineer also killed his long-term (9 yrs) mistress (body never found). I wasn’t sure IF this is the same “John Dionisio,” but his “Forbes.com” bio makes the connection clear enough: Frederick R. Harris & Co., Inc. became later DMJM & Harris, which became, later a subsidiary of Aecom Technology, from which we get some amazing projects, including possibly the new Long Beach Courthouse in the Los Angeles Area.
New courthouse just opened in Long Beach, California. Notice the logo at the top of the set of logos — the Judicial Council of California. That’s what inspired this post. As usual, however about half the post (the top part) is going to be setting the stage. Short on time? Scroll down to the middle, where there’s no tan background, or you see this graphic again — for more on this specific situation (which I just found out about ca. 11/4/2013).
Short Brief Section with Misc. Inf on who IS this Judicial Council (tan background)
From their site:
The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) implements the council’s policies.
Oct 28, 2013
At its meeting Oct 24–25 in San Francisco, the Judicial Council continued its move towards greater transparency, accountability, and efficiency when it approved enhancements in oversight of its administrative office. View more details on the Judicial Council meeting page. MORE»
To provide leadership for advancing the consistent, impartial, independent, and accessible administration of justice, the Judicial Council must be aware of the issues and concerns confronting the judiciary, as well as appropriate solutions and responses. The council carries out this mission primarily through the work of its advisory committees and task forces. [[There are plenty: here’s Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee as of August 2013. Who/what kinds of fields are represented are on those committees in other states? Do you know yours?]]
[NEXT SECTION IS SIMPLY LOOKING UP A FEW INDIVIDUALS/ORGANIZATIONS ON ONE OF THE ABOVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ADVISORY COMMITTEES MAY BE LIKELY TO GET LEGISLATION PASSED, OR INITIATED; THEY’RE RARELY CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST FREE, AND IN AN IDEAL WORLD, WE’D PAY BETTER ATTENTION TO WHOSE ON WHICH ONES…]
In addition to Judges, a Social worker from one county, and District Attorney representatives, and a single attorney with a Ph.D. (no affiliation listed, Frank E. Dougherty, Ph.D./40 yrs as a psychologist, switched to law in 1995 (interesting timing, right before welfare reform), there are these individuals:
- Ms. Leslie Heimov, Executive Director Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles EIN# 954252143
REGARDING this (large) OPERATION:
|Entity Number||Date Filed||Status||Entity Name||Agent for Service of Process|
|C1472604||11/29/1989||ACTIVE||CHILDREN’S LAW CENTER OF CALIFORNIA||JOHN MOLL|
Notice to them in Sept. 2013, courteously asking them to answer “from whom did you get Gov’t funding for YE 2012” (no RRF for that year posted yet): “1. Explanation/Information not provided for “YES” answer to Part B , Question No. 6.” their RRF for the previous year (revenues, $18 million) says the only Gov’t contributions came from [Although pg.2. “Statemt. 5′] shows no date or date stamp to verify it’s from the same year] : MELANIE JONES SENIOR COURT ANALYST CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN & COURTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 4 5 5 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94102-3688 PHONE (415) 865-7960… [[Admin office of the courts appears to have moved, however]] Their 2008 and 2009 Audited Financial Statements are available on site, and not that for those years, how they are contracting with the Judicial Council /AOC to provide representation for dependency services, the contracts being for around $17 million yearly. They are staying rent-free in a courthouse: Notes to the Financial statements are on the Charitable site to upload and read, under “Miscellaneous Documents 59492“(hover cursor — however the link is a site to look them up again, and from there, click on organization name for more details – scroll to bottom of screen to see or upload individual pdfs, like that one). An operation of this size gets sued from time to time and was sued in 2010 by a mother and two minors:
On February 1,2010, plaintiffs (2 minor children and former CLC clients) and their mother filed a lawsuit against the Organization alleging legal malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Organization has not yet [dated: Jan 26, 2010] been served. If the Organization is served, it will vigorously defend the suit.
Since this is a NONprofit contracting (for a lot) to represent children in dependency cases, its rental/leasing situation is interesting and on the same statement, you can get a flavor — it’s in a well-known court building (rent-free, providing it performs the service) and this also shows who the contracts are with. Again, the transmittal letter with this audit is dated 1/2010 (not current):
Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles (“Organization”) which was formerly known as Dependency Court Legal Services, Inc., was incorporated in December 1989 as a nonprofit, public benefit corporation. The Organization contracts with the Judicial Counsel of California, Administrative Offices of the Court (“AOC”), to serve as counsel for Los Angeles County’s abused and neglected children. Organization’s attorneys are appointed by the court for such representation pursuant to Welfare and Institution’s Code Section 317. Effective July 1, 2005, the Organization entered into an initial three year contract with the AOC that covered the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 (hefty in size, can you spell $17 million?)
The Organization maintains offices for legal services operations on the sixth floor of the State of California owned Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Court Building in Monterey Park. The Organization is permitted to occupy the sixth floor of the Edelman Children’s Court Building without the payment of rent, provided the Organization continues to perform the services required by its agreement with the AOC.
The Organization also occupies offices for legal services operations in the Alfred J. McCourtney Juvenile Justice Center in Antelope Valley, California without payment of the rent pursuant to a contract with the County of Los Angeles that was recently assigned to the State of California.
The Organization leases an additional facility in Monterey Park, California for legal services and administrative operations. Terms of the original non-cancelable operating lease, which commenced in October 2002 called for a monthly fixed cost of $27,478 over a seven year term running through September 2009. The Organization is responsible for insurance costs, as well as its pro-rata share of various building operating costs, real estate taxes and common area expenses.
In August 2005, the Organization entered into an amendment to its original lease, which called for an expansion of the leased facility along with an extension of the lease term through September 2012. Under the terms of the amended lease, monthly rent with the additional expanded space was increased to $32,676 per month. This monthly amount increased to $34,206 on October 1,2009. The lease calls for additional annual increases based on certain escalation clauses.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 the Organization leased space at 44300 Lowtree Avenue in Lancaster for a satellite office for providing legal services. The lease was on a month to month term, and the lease payment is $700 per month. In February 2009, the Organization cancelled this lease and such operations moved to offices at the McCourtney Juvenile Justice Center mentioned above. Such space is occupied without the payment of rent.
After looking at the (corresponding) return, it shows Ms. Heimov at $145K plus some, and several administrators/supervisors at between $120-close to $130K (plus some), and what are actually CONTRACTS with (as it says) the Judicial Council of California (amount, $1.7 million or so) are called “contributions or grants.” It’s a complex operation, someone has to do this, and I’m not in a place to critique, other than to note that the money could possibly be influenced by incentives to adopt-out children (Promoting Safe and Stable Families, other) federal funding to the Judicial Council itself as well). More below. It would be a very challenging job. Anyhow — the Executive Director Ms. Heimov, is on the Advisory Committee of a body her organization exists to do business with, and who probably owns the facilities the Nonprofit is housed in, as above. The RRFs indicate the only source of government money is from the AOC itself — which is known to be body that processes lots of grants.
- Ms. Kathleen L. Hrepich, Interim Director and Chief Counsel, Dept. of Child Support Services
She is a Governor Scharzenegger appointee from 2008 (bio at link): Naturally! There has been some turnover in who directs DCSS; in March, 2012 it was announced “Security Breach: Lost Data Cartridges May Have Exposed Personal Records From California’s Child Support System (Huffington Post 3/30/2012 by Tayefe Mohajer: ”
LOS ANGELES — Four computer storage devices containing personal information for about 800,000 adults and children in California’s child support system – including their names and Social Security numbers – were lost by IBM and Iron Mountain Inc., officials announced Thursday. … [after noting the format they were in was probably hard to access] The cartridges also contained addresses, driver’s license numbers, names of health insurance providers and employers for custodial and non-custodial parents, and their children. The department has notified all those possibly affected by the March 12 data loss via mail, and has notified the three major credit reporting agencies, the state attorney general’s office and the state Office of Privacy Protection. The agency’s interim director, Kathleen Hrepich, says the incident won’t affect the processing of child support cases. The backup storage cartridges had been sent to IBM’s facility in Boulder, Colo., as part of a disaster simulation, so the technology company could test whether it could run the state’s child support system remotely. The cartridges are believed to have been lost in transit, somewhere between Boulder and Sacramento, Lally said. The state contracts with Iron Mountain to provide secure transportation services. But Iron Mountain doesn’t fly, so the data storage company had FedEx transport the cartridges.
- Ms. Sharon M. Lawrence [Esq.], Executive Director “Voices for Children, Inc.” [a San Diego area nonprofit (since 2002] that recruits and trains CASAs (volunteers) to accompany abused children to court, etc. Ms. Lawrence’s salary, $146K, her main assistant’s /other Director Anne Farrell’s is $125K/EIN# 953706847 [2011-2012 return]
Didn’t do the breakout as above — this is a smaller organization, still dealing with dependency cases. Who is on there to speak for mothers who are losing their children improperly, or being reduced to a functionless existence through long-term fighting to protect them, being forced to pay their former abusers, being stalked (case in point ,year after year), or the ones that got killed? Or whose children got killed (or stolen) but they didn’t? No offense good Dads, but some of you aren’t, and it wasn’t someone else that made the ones that aren’t, murder. Atypical Antipsychotics in some cases, MAYBE. Others, a serious case of @ssh0le-itis. Charles Pragnell wrote some about how FR groups exploit men in emotional trauma to either go suicidal, or think in those terms, and blame it on someone else. As a mother — not on the map, won’t happen, couldn’t even think of it. WHY? I’m a mother, I have children, even as young adults, they’re still my kids. End of story!!! And it’s not from lack of pressure — plenty of pressure on year after year ….
- Ms. Julie Saffren, Esq. (Law offices of Julie Saffren)(“Pro Bono Project” powerpoint 8/2013, which I just paged through, makes NO mention of Conciliation code, states that the (only) grounds for divorce is irreconciliable differences (true??), is still thorough and helpful — and reveals that she is a member of the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council; see recent post on “What’s with Women Judges forming nonprofits to run fatherhood programs..?” which pointed out that in this county, “DV Prevention” means Fatherhood Intervention and that a prominent (now retired) AFCC judge formed that DV council to start with, etc. Ms. Saffren appears to be someone who is definitely active in and concerned about DV matters (See “In re: marriage of Nadkarni” ), HOWEVER, she is still a FAMILY law attorney).
In addition to whatever from the California budget supports the major operation of the Judicial Council (and its subsidiary operations, including the AOC, the CFCC, all staff, all attorneys, all supporting infrastructure in the terms of their location (in San Francisco), and in terms of many other things (telecommunications, phones, travel, etc.) — there are the grants to this entity from the United States government through HHS (I’m not checking from elsewhere, currently). These are not date-selected; we can see three different DUNS# — and if it’s on here, it’s a grant (not contract or loan) from the United States Dept. of Health and Human Services. Most TAGGS records (the database in question) go back to about 1995:
|Recipient Name||City||State||ZIP Code||County||DUNS Number||Sum of Awards|
|CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL||SAN FRANCISCO||CA||94107||SAN FRANCISCO||124971982||$ 7,437,367|
|CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL **||SAN FRANCISCO||CA||94107||SAN FRANCISCO||360709414||$ 3,778,060|
|CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL||SAN FRANCISCO||CA||94107||SAN FRANCISCO||609626320||$ 33,767,373|
**a quick look at these (63) grant records shows they are: Access/Visitation (sometimes labeled “CASVP” of usually >= $950K/year), CASCID (State Court Improvement Data) or CASCIP (State Court Improvement Programs) grants. The address showing from that middle row isn’t the Golden Gate Address usually associated with this council, but 303 Second Street, South Tower” (Click to see grants), owned and operated by “Kilroy Realty”
|CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL|
|Address:||303 SECOND STREET, SOUTH TOWER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107|
Welcome to 303 Second Street!
303 Second Street is located in the South Financial District of San Francisco. The Property is in a prominent position in the direct path of continued urban growth. With the redevelopment of the nearby Transbay Terminal, the area will become the eventual center of the Financial District. [Apparently, from the grants records, some business continues at the old address?]
Grants for 2013 from the Top and Middle-row “DUNS#” above are $3+ million:
|FY||Award Number||Award Title||Budget Year of Support||Award Code||Agency||Action Issue Date||DUNS Number||Amount This Action|
|2013||1301CASCID||FY 2013 (SCID) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT- DATA PROGRAM||1||1||ACF||04-25-2013||124971982||$ 725,392|
|2013||1301CASCIT||FY 2013 (SCIT) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT-TRAINING PROGRAM||1||1||ACF||04-25-2013||124971982||$ 713,835|
|2013||1301CASCIP||FY 2013 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||1||ACF||04-19-2013||124971982||$ 840,498|
|2013||1301CASCIP||FY 2013 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||2||ACF||05-09-2013||124971982||$- 133|
|2013||1010CASAVP||FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION||1||6||ACF||05-08-2013||360709414||$- 26|
|2013||1310CASAVP||FY 2013 STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION||1||1||ACF||10-22-2012||360709414||$ 958,704|
|Fiscal Year 2013 Total:||$ 3,238,270|
In 2009, when the Long Beach Court House project apparently begin, it seems that the third-row DUNS# 60626320” (See 3-row chart above) was “retired” and that funds from prior years of Access/Visitation Grants, labeled “fiscal year 2009” were being subtracted, in amounts about the salary for an average, or low-income family, per year):
|FY||Award Number||Award Title||Budget Year of Support||Award Code||Agency||Action Issue Date||DUNS Number||Amount This Action|
|2009||0901CASCID||FY 2009 DATA STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||1||ACF||12-07-2008||609626320||$ 786,069|
|2009||0901CASCIT||FY 2009 TRAINING STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||1||ACF||12-07-2008||609626320||$ 788,370|
|2009||0901CASCIP||FY 2009 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||1||ACF||12-07-2008||609626320||$ 807,034|
|2009||0901CASCIP||FY 2009 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||6||ACF||06-06-2009||609626320||$ 266,289|
|2009||0010CASAVP||2000 SAVP||1||8||ACF||09-14-2009||609626320||$- 48,827|
|2009||0110CASAVP||2001 SAVP||1||4||ACF||09-14-2009||609626320||$- 26,938|
|2009||0210CASAVP||2002 SAVP||1||6||ACF||09-14-2009||609626320||$- 46,392|
|2009||0310CASAVP||2003 SAVP||1||2||ACF||09-14-2009||609626320||$- 15,092|
|2009||0910CASAVP||FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION||1||1||ACF||12-23-2008||609626320||$ 942,497|
|Fiscal Year 2009 Total:||$ 3,453,010|
It would appear that this Council is getting over $3 million of free money from US taxpayers per year (nearly 1/3rd of it A/V, although money has been moving away from that category), consistently — in addition to the same taxpayers paying all salaries, and all expenses of the council itself. Why this should be, I don’t “get.”
I ran a chart looking to see if ANY of the grants actually had a Principal Investigator a citizen could contact to know what they were about (all 63 entries; given that several were negative-entries). I found that the ONLY grant with any Principal Investigator listed (at all!) were three under “Adoption Opportunities,” P.I. being Diane Nunn (of the AOC, and I believe an AFCC member) — which were the only grants under this CFDA 93562 to the Judicial Council (on the TAGGS.hhs.gov database). There was even over $800K to them in 1996 (first year of welfare reform) which had NO CFDA#, and NO principal investigator and also NO grant title! (Grant 9601CASIP). In addition, in far too many the “type of award” was also “Unknown.” Moreover, these were consistently “Year 1” of budgets — so while it’s getting $3 million+ per year of free money with less than appropriate accountability — apparently each year, it’s a new award, no continuing. Interesting way to run things! Chart at the bottom….
I only bring this up because it turns out that the California Judicial Council is going to be the owner of the brand new Long Beach area “George Deukmejian Courthouse” opened — last month, and occupying two square blocks.
File next to “Judicial Council delegates too much authority to the AOC” (admitted in the SEC report) who has been expanding exponentially, assuming authority it wasn’t delegated, and focusing on getting grants. (Note: many of these grants relate to issues dealing with families and children, marriage, fatherhood, custody, adoptions, foster care, etc.).
So, the new courthouse was a “serendipity find” — I don’t live in Southern California or Los Angeles, but apparently they have a spanking new courthouse opened in 2013, ,while complaints about courthouse closures for lack of funds, and government shutdown are very, very recent history.
The question of Real Estate ALWAYS belongs alongside the question of who owns and runs local jurisdictions, counties, states, and of course, America — and where do the (family and conciliation, for this blog’s purposes) courts fit, in that mix?
Other than this recent courthouse is fairly spectacular, and that AFCC began originally, it would seem, within a then-new courthouse in Los Angeles, using the county EIN# instead of its own, this is still a live question. At some point, the rest of us need to start finding a way to untangle, classify, or at least vaguely perceive what’s going on.
I might not have posted this until I noticed a single detail on a single (of the several) corporations involved in opening the courthouse pictured below. I noticed the CEO’s name, “John Dionisio.” As my manner is, I looked it up, and found that he and his wife were exposed to a suicide (and arson) by a 39-year-old engineer in Mr. Dionisio’s bedroom, with his wife an 11 year old son having to flee. This suicide and arson possibly related to bid-rigging on a very, very large project (relating to the New York Port Authority) and are extremely disturbing. The corporation Mr. Dionisio was then working for (no indication he was involved in the same bid-rigging, or stolen documents from the Port Authority), however there seems no question that the former corporation connects, sequentially, to the corporation preceding AECOM (see below) which is doing major infrastructure projects, globally. It puts a whole different light on the treatment of welfare recipients in the courtrooms, and why these people were on welfare to start with, given how easily well-positioned, well-connected (and obviously talented) people in association (corporation) with each other can pull in a $10 million a year salary, with other options and stock figured in.
This is also enabled by technology (software, obviously) to coordinate projects across time and geography, and get them up ahead of schedule. Bentley, Inc. (who provide software to major infrastructure projects) were involved with the group AECOM involved in this one.
*Speaking of “rapid expansion” —
see the California Judicial Council’s recent Real Estate Acquisition: Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse (@Sep.2013)
[In quickly looking up “Deukmejian” I find there is a spectacular new courthouse named after him in Long Beach California. LBJP, LLC (Long Beach Judicial Partners) describes who was involved in the project, and another link, from the Administrative Office of the Courts gives a factsheet on the “Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse“
(Long Beach being right near the City of Los Angeles, and on the Bay/think “Port of Los Angeles” and you got it.) [[WOW — reading about the new courthouse and “PBI” (Performance Based Infrastructure” reminds me of the private ownership of public facilities, and then who gets billed for the leasing?)
AECOM offices (see logo), Global enough for you? [this brings up the issue of “Who Owns and Operates the Courthouses? in which lives and livelihoods are adjusted and re-allocated?]
Marv Bryer ALSO brought this up in the late 1990s. (see johnnypumphandle.com, that old site with so many different leads — he talked about the issue of how many “public benefit corporations” is it possible to squeeze into one address, and ways in which we often just do not know who owns the real estate in which justice is dispensed — when they are private corporations.
Wow…. more information (note, the URL ends in a “*.com” so it’s not a gov’t site).
Long Beach Judicial Partners LLC (LBJP) will continue to operate, and maintain the 545,000 square-foot state-of the art courthouse in Long Beach. The project has been delivered under a unique public/private partnership agreement, which has a total development cost of approximately $490 million and a design-build cost of $343 million. The five-story building houses 31 courtrooms, as well as court administration offices, Los Angeles County lease space, and retail leasable space. The building includes below-grade secure inmate transfer facilities, detention facilities, and separate secure parking areas for judges. A five-level great room atrium enclosed on two ends by a cable-supported glass wall system serves as the single entry point for the public and provide access to a secured central courtyard. Clad in deeply-articulated curtain wall and elements of stone, the project spans two city blocks in downtown Long Beach and replaces the functionally- obsolete court-house building one block away. In addition to the new building, the project team also renovated and expanded an existing 399,000 square-foot parking structure (right nearby? owned and operated by whom?? Revenues go to whom?) This court building is the first social infrastructure project in the United States procured under the principles of Performance-Based Infrastructure (PBI) contracting [[see factsheets]. Under the PBI agreement, the Judicial Council of California (JCC) owns the building, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County occupies approximately 80% of the space.
Then, does the Superior Court of Los Angeles County pay rent to the Judicial Council of California? If so, how’s THAT work in re: conflicts of interest, when the County gets sued, if it does?
The JCC pays LBJP an annual, performance-based service fee for 35 years. The PBI delivery method leveraged the private sector’s access to financing, technological expertise, and management efficiency to quickly provide a high-quality facility serving the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
This project was started for bidding in 2009, I thought. LBJP, LLC, was formed in 2009:
|Entity Number||Date Filed||Status||Entity Name||Agent for Service of Process|
|200914110161||05/21/2009||ACTIVE||LONG BEACH JUDICIAL PARTNERS LLC||C T CORPORATION SYSTEM (C0168406)|
515 S FLOWER STREET 8TH FLOOR, Los Angeles 97001
See “Aecom Services, Inc.” dba Aecom Design” (same address and floor):
AECOM Services, Inc., doing business as AECOM Design, operates as a design, management, and technical services company in the United States, China, and the United Arab Emirates. Its services include engineering, architecture, consulting, engineering, integrated facility management, interior design and planning, master planning, security, and sustainability, as well as system solutions and information technology/telecommunications. The company offers client staff augmentation and staff extension, system integration, quality control, and financing strategy services; technology services for intricate and critical infrastructure facilities and systems; and program, project, and construction management services for building projects, including new construction, expansion, renovation, and modernization projects. It serves aerospace/industrial, corporate, defense, department of energy, telecommunication, education, federal, hospitality, nuclear, leisure, and transportation markets; and ports, airports, public and commercial facilities, justice facilities, sporting venues, and government facilities. AECOM Services, Inc. was formerly known as DMJM H&N, Inc. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Los Angeles, California with additional offices in New Mexico, Virginia, Illinois, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, California, Florida, New York, Arizona, Washington, and Utah, as well as in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates; and Shanghai, China. AECOM Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of AECOM Technology Corporation.
|Entity Number||Date Filed||Status||Entity Name||Agent for Service of Process|
|C1260794||11/05/1984||ACTIVE||AECOM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.||C T CORPORATION SYSTEM|
|C1745075||05/31/1994||ACTIVE||AECOM MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP.||C T CORPORATION SYSTEM|
|C0390443||02/01/1960||ACTIVE||AECOM SERVICES, INC.||C T CORPORATION SYSTEM|
|C0608461||09/29/1970||ACTIVE||AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.||C T CORPORATION SYSTEM|
- Delaware Corp. with a Fort Worth, TX address (C126074)
- Delaware Corp with a 555 S. Flower St #3700, Los Angeles address (C1745075)*
- California Corp. with a 515 S. Flower St, 4TH Flr Los Angeles (C0390443)
- California Corp with a 515 S. Flower St, #1050, Los Angeles (C0608461)
(*see also Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 555 S. Flower Street, Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 612-0880 Fax: (213) 612-5731
Because I cannot find either LBJP or Aecom on “Public Traded Companies” search in California, they do indeed look to be privately controlled (major scope of activity, international) Incs and the LLC.
On a hunch, I went to see whether “AECOM” was listed in the Bentley 500 that I keep squawking about on this blog (and in other forums). Bentley provides software infrastructure support to major projects, one reason they probably know alot about who owns what assets. I was floored when I saw their list. … Sure enough, AECOM is involved with them (using some of their software) and got an award (from Bentley). I just want readers to see the scope of the projects involved here. They have about 45,000 employees worldwide, are involved in rebuilding the World Trade Center (as in, NYC, rising from the ashes), and:
AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering solutions that create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments. A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in approximately 125 countries and had revenue of $7.7 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2011. More information on AECOM and its services can be found atwww.aecom.com.
Essentially it is collaborating across time and space, utilizing high-quality and secure software (provided here by Bentley, Inc.) to complete projects in a cost-effective and timely manner:
25 October 2012
Selects Online Deployment for $416 Million Texas State Highway Project
EXTON, Pa., U.S.A. – Bentley Systems, Incorporated, the leading company dedicated to providing comprehensive software solutions for sustaining infrastructure, today announced that AECOM Technology Corporation, a global provider of professional technical and management support services for government and commercial clients, has selected Bentley’s ProjectWise for the cloud-based engineering content management of its Texas State Highway (SH) 161 Phase 4 project. The ProjectWise system of collaboration servers and services provides industry-proven work sharing, content reuse, and dynamic review capabilities that are essential to leveraging information modeling throughintegrated projects for high-performing, intelligent infrastructure. The $416 million design/build project completes a 6.5-mile link in the loop around Dallas-Fort Worth, managed by the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA). AECOM was challenged to complete the major design elements within 15 months. With the project office in Grand Prairie, Texas, and team members distributed across 22 locations in seven U.S. states, AECOM implemented ProjectWise Online to provide project team members, regardless of their location, with a single, secure environment to create high-quality design documents. ProjectWise enabled AECOM to increase quality, create documents that were 95 percent compliant with its client’s CAD standards, and reduce risk, saving NTTA $850,000 in costs associated with information, workspaces, and standards management as well as quality-control review.
However Long Beach Judicial Partners, LLC (which operates the courthouse now) is sited as underneath a different corporation (while sharing a street address with AECOM).
Did you notice that tiny “A Meridiam Infrastructure Project Company” under the logo for “LBJP, LLC” above? So who is “Meridiam” and what does it mean to be one of their “infrastruct project companies?” Meridiam:
History: Meridiam started as a French/USA (venture?) in 2005, with support from AECOM Technology Corp* and Credit Agricole:
[*note that exact name is not among the four California Corps listed above. AECOM Technology Corp =/= “AECOM Technical Services, Inc.” the closest similar name listed under California Business Entities Search, is..]
A PIONEER LONG-TERM INVESTOR IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Meridiam was established in France and the United States by Thierry Déau, formerly Chief Executive of Egis Projects (a subsidiary of France’s Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, specialized in developing, financing and managing infrastructure projects), with operational and financial support from AECOM Technology Corp. [operational presumably] and the Crédit Agricole Group [financial, presumably] Set up to achieve convergence between the needs of public authorities and the interests of institutional investors, Meridiam finances public infrastructure while aiming to create a secure investment framework for long-term savings.
In 1994, John M. Dionisio formerly of Frederick R. Harris had a 39 yr old engineer (in re: bid-rigging for a Port Authority Project) literally commit suicide in his home setting it afire, and forcing Dionisios’ wife and young son to flee. Apparently the engineer also killed his long-term (9 yrs) mistress (body never found). I wasn’t sure IF this is the same “John Dionisio,” but his “Forbes.com” bio makes the connection clear enough: Frederick R. Harris & Co., Inc. became later DMJM & Harris, which became, later a subsidiary of Aecom Technology.
(the background-color change signifies going back to the topic of grants to this arm of government called the California Judicial Council): Printout of 63 HHS grant records, looking for who are the Principal Investigators, and showing the “Adoptions” grant to Ms. Nunn of the AOC. For Further Inquiry! NOTE: It’s known that Shelly LaBotte of the AOC has (long) been responsible? and the contact person for those Access/Visitation grants. Omitting a name seems to me intentional, and might otherwise highlight her other nonprofit association affiliations (Supervised Visitation Network, the 2010ff CASVSP (California Association of Supervised Visitation Service Providers — she’s advisory board; they are linked directly to the CFCC website where “Trainings” for this field are advertised; however she is one of the trainers. This outfit (CASVSP) also recently (2011 or 2012) sponsored a California Bill (AB 1674, I think) which actually was passed, requiring 24 hours annual of training for providers who are called “professional” (unprofessinoal are not required to sit through the trainings). As I have a post upcoming, maybe (it’s been looked at), I’ll leave it at that). For this database to year after year NOT mention even a person in charge of the grants (when there is such a person) shows that:
#1. Most of us aren’t watching the database anyhow, and if so
#2. No one, that I”m aware of, had made a stink about it. How many people even know about these grants at all?
Results 1 to 63 of 63 matches.
Page 1 of 1
|Award Number||Award Title||Budget Year||Action Issue Date||CFDA Number||CFDA Program Name||Award Action Type||Princ. Inves.||DUNS Number||Sum of Actions|
|0001CASCIP||SCIP 2000||1||07/06/2000||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 805,456|
|0010CASAVP||2000 SAVP||1||10/10/2000||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 987,501|
|0010CASAVP||2000 SAVP||1||09/14/2009||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||OTHER REVISION||609626320||$- 48,827|
|0101CASCIP||SCIP 2001||1||07/02/2001||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 778,774|
|0110CASAVP||2001 SAVP||1||08/23/2001||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 987,501|
|0110CASAVP||2001 SAVP||1||09/14/2009||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||OTHER REVISION||609626320||$- 26,938|
|0201CASCIP||1||07/08/2002||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 1,071,211|
|0210CASAVP||2002 SAVP||1||08/06/2002||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 970,431|
|0210CASAVP||2002 SAVP||1||09/14/2009||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||OTHER REVISION||609626320||$- 46,392|
|0301CASCIP||1||07/16/2003||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 1,192,273|
|0310CASAVP||2003 SAVP||1||09/11/2003||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 970,431|
|0310CASAVP||2003 SAVP||1||09/14/2009||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||OTHER REVISION||609626320||$- 15,092|
|0401CASCIP||2004 SCIP||1||07/21/2004||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 1,210,185|
|0410CASAVP||2004 SAVP||1||09/15/2004||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||609626320||$ 988,710|
|0501CASCIP||2005 SCIP||1||09/20/2005||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 1,226,900|
|0510CASAVP||2005 SAVP||1||09/14/2005||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||609626320||$ 988,710|
|0601CASCID||2006 SCIP –
|1||09/20/2006||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 885,142|
|0601CASCIP||2006 SCIP||1||09/27/2006||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 1,201,407|
|0601CASCIT||2006 SCIP – TRAINING||1||09/20/2006||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 904,380|
|0610CASAVP||2006 SAVP||1||09/19/2006||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||609626320||$ 987,973|
|0701CASCID||2007 SCIP –
|1||09/19/2007||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 870,481|
|0701CASCIP||2007 STATE COURT IMPROVE. – BASIC||1||09/19/2007||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 1,272,138|
|0701CASCIT||2007 SCIP – TRAINING||1||09/19/2007||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 871,401|
|0710CASAVP||2007 SAVP||1||07/20/2007||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||609626320||$ 950,190|
|0801CASCID||2008 (SCID) STATE CT IMPROVE. –
|1||09/15/2008||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 818,023|
|0801CASCIP||2008 (SCIP) STATE CT IMPROVE. –
|1||09/15/2008||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 1,082,580|
|0801CASCIT||2008 (SCIT) STATE CT IMPROVE. – TRAINING||1||09/15/2008||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 792,773|
|0810CASAVP||2008 SAVP||1||01/30/2008||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||609626320||$ 957,600|
|0901CASCID||FY 2009 DATA STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||12/07/2008||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 786,069|
|0901CASCIP||FY 2009 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||12/07/2008||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 807,034|
|0901CASCIP||FY 2009 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||06/06/2009||93586||State Court Improvement Program||ADMIN SUPPLEMT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)||609626320||$ 266,289|
|0901CASCIT||FY 2009 TRAINING STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||12/07/2008||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 788,370|
|0910CASAVP||FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION||1||12/23/2008||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||609626320||$ 942,497|
|1001CASCID||FY 2010 DATA STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||10/30/2009||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 833,016|
|1001CASCIP||FY 2010 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||10/30/2009||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 806,010|
|1001CASCIP||FY 2010 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||02/12/2010||93586||State Court Improvement Program||ADMIN SUPPLMT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONaRY OR BLOCK AWARDS)||609626320||$ 265,910|
|1001CASCIT||FY 2010 TRAINING STATE COURT IMPROVE||1||10/30/2009||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 808,689|
|1010CASAVP||FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION||1||11/25/2009||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||360709414||$ 946,820|
|1010CASAVP||FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION||1||05/08/2013||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||OTHER REVIS’N||360709414||$- 26|
|1101CASCID||FY 2011 (SCID) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – DATA PROGRAM||1||01/21/2011||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 815,374|
|1101CASCIP||FY 2011 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||12/10/2010||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 799,429|
|1101CASCIP||FY 2011 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||05/17/2011||93586||State Court Improvement Program||ADMIN SUPPLMT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)||124971982||$ 262,956|
|1101CASCIT||FY 2011 (SCIT) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – TRAINING PROGRAM||1||01/25/2011||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 778,551|
|1110CASAVP||FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION||1||10/08/2010||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||360709414||$ 928,087|
|1201CASCID||FY 2012 (SCID) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT- DATA PROGRAM||1||04/17/2012||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 812,635|
|1201CASCIP||FY 2012 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||04/17/2012||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 911,485|
|1201CASCIT||FY 2012 (SCIT) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT-TRAINING PROGRAM||1||04/17/2012||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 777,345|
|1210CASAVP||FY 2012 STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION||1||11/22/2011||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||360709414||$ 944,475|
|1301CASCID||FY 2013 (SCID) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT- DATA PROGRAM||1||04/25/2013||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 725,392|
|1301CASCIP||FY 2013 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||04/19/2013||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 840,498|
|1301CASCIP||FY 2013 (SCIP) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT – BASIC PROGRAM||1||05/09/2013||93586||State Court Improvement Program||ADMIN SUPPLEMT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)||124971982||$- 133|
|1301CASCIT||FY 2013 (SCIT) STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT-TRAINING PROGRAM||1||04/25/2013||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||124971982||$ 713,835|
|1310CASAVP||FY 2013 STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION||1||10/22/2012||93597||Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs||NEW||360709414||$ 958,704|
|90CO0874||EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIONS FOR TIMELY ADOPTIONS||1||09/15/1998||93652||Adoption Opportunities||NEW||DIANE NUNN||609626320||$ 175,000|
|90CO0874||EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIONS FOR TIMELY ADOPTIONS||2||08/11/1999||93652||Adoption Opportunities||NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION||DIANE NUNN||609626320||$ 175,000|
|90CO0874||EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIONS FOR TIMELY ADOPTIONS||3||09/14/2000||93652||Adoption Opportunities||NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION||DIANE NUNN||609626320||$ 175,000|
|9601CASCIP||1||01/01/1996||NONE||Awards not funded from a program listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance||NEW||609626320||$ 824,628|
|9701CASCIP||SCIP 1997||01||02/27/1997||93586||State Court Improvement Program||NEW||609626320||$ 824,628|
|9701CASCIP||STATE COURTS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM||1||01/31/2002||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$- 19,049|
|9801CASCIP||STATE COURTS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM||1||05/01/1998||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 761,536|
|9801CASCIP||STATE COURTS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM||1||05/21/1998||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 85,000|
|9801CASCIP||STATE COURTS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM||1||12/14/2001||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$- 987|
|9901CASCIP||SCIP 1999||1||08/12/1999||93586||State Court Improvement Program||UNKNOWN||609626320||$ 827,811|
Results 1 to 63 of 63 matches.
Keeping in mind the disclaimer about D&B data (at top of the USASPENDING.gov site), A search on this DUNS# only at “USASPENDING.gov” and I checked “Grants” only (in other words, I did an “Advanced Search” and the ONLY select field I entered anything in, was the DUNS#) — and keeping in mind that this database doesn’t go back as far, but gives more details — tell us about the above grants, that their “PROGRAM SOURCES” were one of two kinds — which I don’t believe TAGGS tells us:
“Timeline” display shows this as fairly equal amounts from years 2007 – 2010 only…
Transaction # 1
Federal Award ID: 0210CASAVP: 6 (Grant)
Transaction # 2
Federal Award ID: 0010CASAVP: 8 (Grant)
Transaction # 3
Federal Award ID: 0910CASAVP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 4
Federal Award ID: 0801CASCIP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 5
Federal Award ID: 0901CASCIP: 6 (Grant)
Transaction # 6
Federal Award ID: 1001CASCIP: 2 (Grant)
Transaction # 7
Federal Award ID: 1001CASCIP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 8
Federal Award ID: 1001CASCIT: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 9
Federal Award ID: 1010CASAVP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 10
Federal Award ID: 0701CASCID: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 11
Federal Award ID: 0901CASCID: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 12
Federal Award ID: 0701CASCIP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 13
Federal Award ID: 0801CASCID: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 14
Federal Award ID: 0310CASAVP: 2 (Grant)
Transaction # 15
Federal Award ID: 0110CASAVP: 4 (Grant)
Transaction # 16
Federal Award ID: 0701CASCIT: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 17
Federal Award ID: 0901CASCIP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 18
Federal Award ID: 0901CASCIT: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 19
Federal Award ID: 0810CASAVP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 20
Federal Award ID: 1001CASCID: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 21
Federal Award ID: 0710CASAVP: 1 (Grant)
Transaction # 22
Federal Award ID: 0801CASCIT: 1 (Grant)
… Description of the purpose of “Promoting Safe and Stable Families (CFDA 93556, which could include adoption promotion) grants, from a site “CFDA.gov”:
JUST TO TAKE A LOOK AT A SINGLE (the 2nd largest showing, over $1 million) ‘PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES” GRANT, year 2008, 0801CASIP transaction#4 above) for the detail (clickable on the grant # at USASPENDING.gov) we see that it was a Block Grant (no “State Application ID possibly because state didn’t have to apply?) and place of performance, and other data, remarkably vague: – – – – – – – – -(part of the detail under that grant, below):
Project and Award Info
|Major Agency||Department of Health and Human Services|
|Agency Name||Administration for Children and Families|
|Federal Award ID||0801CASCIP|
|Federal Award ID Modification||1|
|State Application ID Number||SAI UNAVAILABLE|
|CFDA Program Number||93.586|
|CFDA Program Title||State Court Improvement Program|
|Assistance Type||Block Grant|
|Project Description||2008 (Scip) State Ct IMPROVE. – Basic|
|Program Source Agency||1512 75|
|Program Source Account||1512|
|Program Source Sub Account||N/A|
|Program Source Description||Promoting Safe and Stable Families|
|Business Fund Indicator||NON|
|Fiscal Year / Quarter||200810|
|Action Type||New assistance action|
|Original Subsidy Cost of the Direct Loan/Loan Guarantee||$0|
|Face Value of Direct Loan/Loan Guarantee||$0|
|Federal Funding Amount||$1,082,580|
|Non-Federal Funding Amount||$0|
|Total Funding Amount||$1,082,580|
|Obligation / Action Date||09-15-2008|
|Record Type||Individual action|
|Corrected Fiscal Year / Quarter||200810|
Principal Place of Performance
|Principal Place Code|
|Principal Place State|
|Principal Place County or City|
|Principal Place Zip Code||0|
|Principal Place Congressional District||0|
|Principal Place of Performance Country Code||: UNITED STATES|
IF THIS POST PROVOKED SOME DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE SITUATION, AND WAS HELPFUL, HIT ME WITH A COMMENT. THANKS!