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

As I tend to combine “reflect and investigate,” this process helped me distill basic language and themes, which are being parsed out to different posts.  I also aim to shorten posts to 5,000-6,000 words (including quotes).  As I was a novice blogger (starting pretty much with this one!) the earlier ones, with so much cut and paste, font-changes and just too much to say (essentially I was learning and posting notes on the entire field, at once) can be hard to handle!

But Summary, First!

I have a lot to say, it has some complexity, and after spending several days on this post (not sure if that meant improving it!) including consistent formatting code issues and revisions, I’m just splitting it in two.  This section’s “show and tell” segments on the economic matters really sets the context for the other links, which are subsidiary.  Each segment is probably about 5,500 words.

However this post still outlines, from better teachers than myself, how anyone can see, and prove from understanding those “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports”, the accumulated-wealth of our federal AND state governments, the practice of crying “broke” when they aren’t, which then highlights that we have been massively deluded, redirected, and deceived into the process have been believing major lies about the nature, and with this the purpose, of our own government, for decades.  With the exception of those who have been diligently exposing it, which hardly attracts major funding and approval from the engines of commerce that depend on those lies.

Every government (or religion) is going to use propaganda to consolidate and unify people under its umbrella and for its cause.  However some are worse than others, and this one needs to be recognized, and spat out.

ALSO, Unlike many who report, in general on the CAFRs and accumulated wealth factor, I’m also a woman, a mother, an individual — who was dragged with children, then without children, through the court system that’s the subject of this blog.

So I am seeking, and finding, how to apply that knowledge to THIS problem of the courts.  Knowledge of government financing (and how to understand it) is valuable.  It is also leverage with legislators and taxpayers, with policymakers (who set budgets) regarding the courts, and adds credibility to any discussion — even if the person speaking doesn’t work in the academic elite dedicated to these matters.

In investigating these courts, for a change with some better signals and clues (than the DV agencies or “Mothers of Lost Children” “No Way Out But One” and/or Lundy Bancroft [The Batterer as Parent”] and friends crowd was providing) it was immediately obvious the elephant in the family law system was the conciliation courts, who with the related nonprofits, were focused on the were federal incentives, and demands, to states driving the welfare system. Finding this material also sheds lights on how come, if I could (and reported), these individuals didn’t (or didn’t report).

This factor, and the slush fund factors HAS been reported right along — but not well enough publicized or explained enough; apparently the understanding didn’t catch fire and start some appropriate fires to burn up the falsehoods coming from groups who want a piece of the training pie.  One reason it didn’t “catch fire” is so much distracting, less relevant and intentionally de-railing publicity DID catch fire took its place, with a different focus and intent — a focus on the precisely those things which sell causes and get coverage; the story line; the human tragedies, and the victims.  And that’s not the type of reporting that leads to focused understanding of the situation — it’s situational, it’s personal, and it’s transient.

In fact, if you remember a 1978 (!!) book called “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television” by Jerry Mander — here’s an August 2013 interview with this 80 year old author and former ad-man, by “writer, journalist, commentator” (on, “media, finance, politics”) Sean Kerrigan:   Mander summarized the points:  “Unifying all Experience” “Complex Ideas are Lost” “Sensory Deprivation” and “Our Distance from Nature.”  If this was the case with Television, what about the media developed since, such as the internet?

1. Television promotes autocratic control.   2. It is inevitable that the present powers-that-be (or controllers) use and expand using television so that no other controllers are permitted.

3. Television affects individual human bodies and minds in a manner which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.  4. Television has no democratic potential. Even when the content is of the highest quality and its message noteworthy, it is shallow.

Rather than constantly summarizing and explaining , forever, I want  pages where people will browse the materials, see some scope, and select topics to read.  That’s the idea behind “Libraries” right?  They are for browsing and organized according to some hierarchy — subject matter, or chrono.

My posts are more in the form of summaries, narratives, alerts, and signals:  “LOOK AT THIS!”    Seeing is believing — and it’s not my summaries but your interaction with this material (and constructing your own understanding) which counts. The act of looking, labeling, and placing it in context — and doing that as accurately as possible.

During information overload, — Tagging, archiving, narrating, and constructing linear (narrative, show and tell) posts on a complex topic — to show underlying principles — caters to the compartmentalizing of information.  “What can I file and forget, for now?” becomes the norm.

But understanding requires both perceiving, observing, some effective (consistent and truthful) system of naming/labelling, AND a system of scaffolding (parts to the whole) to hang these on.   That scaffolding can change, but should be coherent and should accommodate the essence of truth.   Understanding combines observation, symbolism, and synthesis.

Our society literally teaches us NOT to do this vital, most human of activities — but instead  to take orders, obey orders, and take it on faith that the experts have it all under control, or will consult with other experts in roundtables who soon will.

We are taught passivity — to instead let the “hired hands’ (professionals, experts) do this.  Or, to want to be those white-collar experts and participate vicariously in playing “lord” with other people’s lives.  And particularly to do this in the key areas of human relations, sociology, psychology, (Law), and economics, education, and eventually, this gets down to such areas as self-sufficiency, self-defense, protecting others from harm (or one’s own), and even producing food to eat.

The result of this passivity, when it comes to the development of the family and conciliation courts has led to a superstructure based on public support of pathologizing MOST human relations (including the most basic ones, such as ones that change, “families in transition”) and demanding the experts be called in — at our own, public expense.  And then, somehow, as conditioned, we collectively threw our own understanding of the accounting, the balance sheets, in the trashcan. **[[The CAFR message proves this, I can, and will continue to review — it’s the truth!]]

Now, there is debt, there is blood in the streets and in the homes, and there is an investment in these courts which claim to help and heal families — which are marginalizing and stripping them of what they need to live on– finances, work, social connections, business connections, and more.

These marginalized families, these individuals, have to live SOMEWHERE, and their presence and ongoing struggles  continue to “haunt” those communities as if they were the problem, rather than a symptom of the problem.   These people are more obvious than the forces causing the marginalization and are used (as “the poor” in most generations are also used) to justify ongoing “Unfreeze-CHANGE -Refreeze“*

Historically, we can see it in the pushing of psychology (the art of persuasion, group-process as making people more comfortable towards being persuaded to behavioral change, the art of persuading an entire population to change its course, etc.).   Many key aspects of what we now take for granted (the mainstreaming of the concept of “mental health” and treatments for it, and the switch from courts of law to the hybrid courts of therapeutic jurisprudence (which, trust me, IS how the family law practitioners and friends see themselves, and encourage each new generation of law students to see THEIR role also, through group-training, conferences, etc.) — started around and inbetween World Wars I and II, and techniques to get us involved in both of those have been refined, for futher ongoing wars.

I’ve repeatedly quoted this as I looked into WHY is it so important for any government of our size to become expert at mass persuasion, if not brainwashing, of people to uninformed (hence non-consenting) conditioned behaviors, in re: how they respond to other members of any Group Culture.

Coercing people into Group Decisionmaking, Therapy, Conferences, Psychoeducational Courses — or CONCILIATION is still FORCE, and is improper.

Literally, then, and based on their design and history, I see these courts as an ongoing form of warfare (in my opinion) on the larger population.  

I didn’t see it this way immediately, or only after the (very negative and enduring) consequences of a few passes through their halls and “mandatory mediation” sessions based on an immediately preceding CRIMINAL act by my ex, often with others’ participation.  No, I only saw it after looking into the funding of these courts and their history AFTER seeing them in operation and in their “growth and development” phases.  From what I can tell — this is an unending war, it doesn’t lead to good places, and it doesn’t contribute to the better parts of human nature — or society.  IF the courts were to help “resolve family conflict” as they claim — and they are failing to do so (obviously, generation after generation), then they would do so without the “roadkill” — or change policies.

They want to become the norm.  They should not become the norm. HOW did that happen, and HOW is it still happening?

[How much do you want to know?  How diligently will you look?  How much disturbing information can you handle at a time]  Because ……essentially, into this vast expense and impact of this entire “Family and Conciliation Court Archipelago,**”) of business operations and interests (public and private) and the cause-related businesses attempting to steer it this way, or that, I drop the question:  is the infrastructure and investment worth it?

And if not, what are you going to do about it?

Because it’s your investment and your future, too.

I already have my answer (it didn’t take all four years to get to it, either).  The question is, what about you?

So, when are you going to take a look, talk about it, and make up your mind?

And then, mind made up (but not immune to new information), what’s the plan?

()()()()()()()()

RE:  Cumulative effect and momentum of diverting power, influence and money away from individuals in a community towards pre-selected sectors of society (like: university institutes, government, social service offices and courts) 

Not to mention where the “Sam and Doug unload boatloads of white agricultural substances” factor may have ALSO kicked in– I’m talking about profits from unregistered corporations made available to those who are low enough to take them.  And in the case of grants-based professions (I’m not specifically saying DRUGS here; that was just an example. On the other hand, I’m not ruling it out, either….) we can see no one is properly tracking the usage.   Do read that example if it’s new to you and ask this:  HOW COME “58,000 kids a year” (or whatever the actual figure is) ARE ending up in the custody of batterers?

IF there is illegal laundering going on in the marriage and fatherhood promotion field (FYI, it is; fake corporations* hid out in open continue to get the grants, in fact that seems to be the ideal grantee).

*This includes both ones that may have once been real, but were dissolved or automatically revoked (which eventually I saw was part of the plan) or ones that simply never registered right to start with, while spreading their acronyms or names around widely…).

Others in the “domestic violence” field have somehow access to political influence such that they can get specific funds named in their honor, and then access them; funds skimmed directly (without their conscious realization) from fees people pay to access government services — for example, certified copies of records.  Or, probation fees.  Etc.

SO, when you think about it, if our commerce really truly is aligned around the exponentially greater debt-creating (i.e., capitalist) power of corporations themselves; then imagine how much improper clout and influence is possible — versus individuals NOT well organized themselves — when it’s illicit corporations(or one might call them “rackets” as in racketeering:  RICO.  They’re organized, just not legal in how they are organized.  Money moves — just not legally) that take the federal (and other government levels — state, county, etc.) funds — but don’t report or pay taxes, and the honest, ethical (or at least subservient/obedient) workers continue to, because they are employees, in general get their hourly wages (small, medium, or large), and nothing else, and taxes are garnished (with, for some, child support payments too) from those wages?

Seriously think about it!   Corporations can get larger, exceed country bounds, and outlive their founders; with this, government (the other very large contingent on the block, anywhere in the USA and most places in the world, which my blog DOES demonstrate, as I learned it from others more competent to measure this — like Bentley Systems, Inc. of Pennsylvania (found researching a group that was helping Scranton, a city in Pennsylvania go bankrupt (for lack of looking at their CAFRs?  Seriously, listen to the language: July, 2013, “globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com,  “Scranton Needs 117% property tax hike to Balance Budget, Simple Truth:  Scranton is Bankrupt“),

Yeah, leave it to the Pennsylvania Economy League to recommend a 117% tax increase for locals!

I wanted to know who (in the heck) was the PEL, a few years ago seeing the Scranton issue, and found the list of their board members in at least (Greater Economy League of Philadelphia).  [which is where you can see, among the assembled clout — look at the industries– Lockheed, Deloitte, Banks, Construction, etc., and among them “Gregory S. Bentley”].  So, I looked some of them, like Stephen Wray, its Exec. Director, up.

While the info isn’t fresh in my mind (one reason I keep posting things!) I do remember that Wray’s connections went back to a NY real estate development law firm, an outpost of a London one with roots back to the 1800s and a fire of London.  Someone had to re-draw the property lines; hey, business is business!  Then Mr. Wray was advising the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania (or something similar) (while near the top of the Commonwealth’s COURTS, the “Justice Programs division” of the AOPC was devising yet more creative ways to steal from parents in the courts, by mandating consumption of parenting classes, and standardizing as much GAL involvement per custody order as possible; and meanwhile it was parents — not these guys — who finally caught “Kids for Cash” in Luzerne County, a judges racket…)

Also, how in heck could the “Finance Chairman” of Scranton not know or do anything about the CAFR factor, on behalf of the residents?   Most cities (including Detroit) are NOT broke when they say they are. As I’ve been reporting, that pretty much tells us where it’s at — when you realized you’re being sold a bill of goods, even if it’s “legal” because it was legislated.  So who are the laws FOR?

Carl Herman, Washington’s Blog reports (summer 2012) on his attempts to reach out to those in power and remind them that California is sitting on over $600 billion of assets while claiming it has to close the parks (or, for an update, cutting Food Stamp benefits to hungry people by literally 10%; don’t ask me how come I know…)