My Media/Library Uploads Retrospective– but First, The Context!
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?
Some Parts of the Archipelago:
Family and conciliation courts (generally one per county, throughout the country — how many counties in your state?), related state-level legislation– the CODES regulating their function and financing (Family and Conciliation Codes — 50 states and territories = how many?) ; real estate development projects (buildings, their financed debts, leases, salaries, contracts and grants in which these courts function); the multitudes of smaller + the fewer and fewer larger (because they tend to merge into “coalitions”) regionally/nationally/internationally-associated older court-connected nonprofits, often starting as the sudden brainchild of Public Employees* who are going to receive Public Pensions, but also typically belong to and organize their private interests around privately governed Corporations/Trade Associations named after their public governmental functions and sometimes confused with them; *judicial, court-appointed attorneys, social workers, directors of “Family Court Services” or the (Administrative Offices of the Courts).
In addition to the purely court-related aspects, are the whole strands of cause-related activities, which typically in this venue are going to split off into: domestic violence, child abuse (including sexual), and, on the other hand, marriage-preservation/family reunification, etc. Of course these interests want the law to reflect their particular interests, and as it happens, have learned from each other (while we were learning their particular jargons) how to have their way with the legislatures, federal law, federal grants, and in short public and private millions (make that “billions” when it comes to welfare).
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…)
OK, I’m going to comment on the “$600 billion in surplus taxpayer assets” and what this signifies:**[hover cursor or take a look] IF you can tell REALLY BIG numbers ($600 billion) from MUCH SMALLER numbers ($27 billion), or tell 4% from 95% [which is larger and how much larger: a lot, or a little?] (and realize 94% + 4% that leaves 1% only of 100%, meaning the whole), AND hold in mind that in this case “the whole”means, what it takes to fund [i.e., pay to people who are receiving them] California’s pensions….
THEN you should be able to comprehend that the ALL taxpayers are being NEEDLESSLY stuck with the funding of California’s pensions.
Rather than “divest” 2.8% of $600 billion of assets to cover the remaining 4% of the pensions (while by being held by California, and not taxpayers, deprives them of $50K per household, or if one counts the over 14,000 government entities within California, more like $650K undisclosed assets PER HOUSEHOLD) — our state prefers to stick the taxpayers with funding $19 billion (of $27b cost) through taxes, and cuts to the infrastructure, rather than dismantle 2.8% of it and pay up..
This isn’t as complex as it sounds. Someone else (California and its 14,000 subsidiary governments) is holding the income-producing assets and preaching austerity and budget/infrastructure cuts to the public. I understand this quite well from having lived for years with an abuser who claimed that somehow his withholding of basic needs (that means, food, clothing, transportation, and basic necessities — including often enough for our kids too) from me was “for the household,” while I noticed that the same individual wasn’t lacking much in: food, clothing, transportation, electronics, meals out access to credit, and the necessary tools for his trade.
I’m dealing with the same issue right now, vis a vis another family member who has obtained control of money in my name. The individual refuses even to distribute interest income, discuss it, talk about why the withholding, or even admit that I’m noticing what happens.
ONE is an abuser. The OTHER one is “governments” that commandeer assets, keep the profit (OR, write-offs from them) and then preach to controlled populations about their work ethic and the burden they are to others, and how great their protection and services are. Or, simply head for the hills when you need something from them — like actual help, actual ROI on what has been ‘stewarded for the future” (as if they were better advance planners, and had not been also engaging in things which hurt, destroy, or kill people unable to get free, or resist. Like: wars, or toxic dumping, or progressively expanding pharmaceutical drugging which also then gets into the food chain, affects hormones, affects brain chemistry, and reproductive systems and so forth).
When government entities — which are simply a form of corporate collaboration called government,, not corps — the rules are slightly different in re: taxes, and for example, stealing from, kidnapping, or falsely imprisoning (incarcerating) others against their will — corporations aren’t supposed to do this unless actually contracting with government, like the private prison industry, and THEIR rehabilitation slave labor industries also) are engaged in the same behaviors, perhaps it’s time for more “non-abused” individuals to listen to some of us who know the routine — and to others who read financial statements.
Back to What Carl (Hermann) did about this:
What law enforcement told Mr. Hermann in this case is a clue: Failure to Mention Hidden (or unpublicized) assets and teach the public what they are, how to find them, that they exist — and deceptive propaganda about “Budget” which doesn’t explain properly that “budget” =/= “Financial holdings” -isn’t a crime. They are not going to prosecute it. Only actually stealing funds would be.
This is a clue for the rest of us that it’s UP to us to find out, what are the holdings, and where have we been lied to in claiming “deficits.” The answer is, almost everywhere — when the CAFRs are read and understood. Moreover, since some individuals began reporting on these CAFRs (Walter Burien et al.) in the 1990s, reporting standards and a few new tricks have been utilized to reframe the picture as if the governments are holding LESS than they are.
Also when Catherine Austin Fitts, a woman near the top of the Federal Housing Authority in the late 1980s, and contracting through her firm “Hamilton Securities*” in the MID 1990s (1996ff) developed a software actually revealing (cross-sector) federal NEGATIVE ROI investment in neighborhoods, and taught low-income women on welfare HOW to understand and use this software — she was targeted for destruction, her computers and software were stolen, multi-million litigation and had to move from location to location for her own safety. The investigative journalism apparently had to come from OUTside the USA, and it had an impact.
I’m enclosing it in a Box here — this is the Macro picture explained such that a layperson (paying attention and willing to understand a few terms which might not be commonplace, to some of us) can grasp the scope of issues. It should be understood that dramas playing out surrounding the United States Family Court system are played out on this larger canvas, and affect the culture of the courts. If we are wishing to alter (restructure, or re-align) their fundamental character towards JUSTICE and RULE OF LAW in this context, we will have to take on a responsibility for understanding what is ECONOMIC justice and how our own economy works. This is a good primer, and took me from just following endless grants, to grasping inter-relating systems. But be warned — it will challenge primary assumptions…and may change what one does, or doesn’t, ask “government” (the undefined mass of anyone in authority, in whatever jurisdiction) to do to “Help us!” or to straighten up and fly right. KNOW who we are dealing with!
The story of Hamilton Securities is a real life case study about how the U.S. mortgage bubble was engineered—and how federal enforcement and the courts were used from 1996-2006 to try to stop Catherine’s efforts to prevent mortgage fraud and to warn communities and investors about what was happening and how to protect themselves.
Hamilton was involved in numerous civil lawsuits, three of which were primary:
“The Myth of the Rule of Law”, by Catherine Austin Fitts published by Sanders Research Associates in London in the fall of 2001 was one of Catherine’s efforts to warn the global financial community about collateral fraud in the US mortgage market.
“Where is the Collateral?”, by Chris Sanders of Sanders Research Associates in London, Scoop Media, Oct 2003 – connects the dots through the litigation, the missing money, questionable HUD deals, the impact on investors, …
its sequel: “So, Where is the Collateral”, by Chris Sanders of Sanders Research Associates
“HUD’s Victim?” – Insight (21 May 2001) and “HUD Gives Up With Fitts” – (30 July 2001) Paul Rodriguez’s two part series on the targeting of Hamilton Securities Group. His first article went up on the Internet on Friday afternoon. By Tuesday, the HUD Inspector General was “retired.” Several week’s later, his associate sent a series of questions to the HUD Inspector General’s office about their financial audits and $59 billion+ missing from HUD. Two hours later, the HUD Inspector General office faxed a message to Hamilton’s attorneys informing them that the investigation of Hamilton was closed. Rodriguez’s second article describes the success – a compelling story of investigative journalism
“America’s Black Budget and the Manipulation of Mortgage & Financial Markets”, by Catherine Austin Fitts, May 2004, describes how has the U.S. governmental apparatus become so powerful in the marketplace and asks what it means to the health of our economy.
“Dillon Read and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits”, by Catherine Austin Fitts, March 2006–a comprehensive business school quality case study of Tapeworm Economics depicting this litigation and surrounding events in the larger context of the political economy operating in the US today.
“The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008”, by Catherine Austin Fitts, August 2008, describes U.S. mortgage fraud within the context of the global political economy.
“Financial Coup d’Etat”, by Catherine Austin Fitts, February 2009, describes attending a private investment conference in London and coming to the realization that the banks, corporations and investors acting in each global region were the exact same players–a relatively small group that reappeared again and again in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Asia accompanied by the same well-known accounting firms and law firms.
This tells us (along with Edward Snowden, Antony Schwartz and others) that “transparency” is not really wanted. (I have links, or look it up!). She also acknowledged that the CAFRs are the blueprints — but chose not to highlight it, and didn’t (as I have, because of m subject matter focus of the family courts) touch the contribution of the religious tax-exempt sector TO the fiscal deficits of taxpayers, and how this exemption attracts federal programming and wealth to that sector. Again, silence is assent.
Such situations tell us “what time of day it is” and that it’s time to re-think OUR priorities.
(I don’t know for sure what “LCF” stands for, however “Local Control Funding” is a budgetary change for California’s schools, I see).
When those are considered, laws need to be shifted to quit forcing citizens’ public energies and income to be funding private debt on things they don’t even personally control. I posted the Scranton CAFRs on ScrantonPolitical Times and talked about the PEL and pretty soon afterward was told to mind my own business and stick to the family court threads (the equivalent of back to the kitchen and bedroom, “woman.”) and then put off it. But not before learning a lot and the section on the PEL may still be there.
And while people, individuals, are often highest paid (if not managing or CEO of some corporation) when they are highly talented and SPECIALIZED, corporations are most profitable when they have the proper market niche, are often the opposite DIVERSIFIED in their holdings, pour excess profits into foundations (= “Philanthropy”) to reduce taxes paid and better influence the planet — and when it’s time to switch gears, sell of, go private, go public, go overseas– they can do it; because they have NOT been operating at such a thin margin. Moreover, they have the right, under some circumstances, to also with their sell-offs, fire workers, or have workers wake up the next morning, working for someone else, being transferred (or fired if they won’t move) and so forth.
Conditioning people to specialize in hopes of being paid the most to work for corporations — yet these corporations are themselves subject to faster and larger sell-offs, potential bankruptcies, mergers, or simply being outpaced technologically, or outsourced and are completely out of control, collectively, by such people– that’s just not a good deal. While that’s what we have, I think “We the People” have to fully understand the difference between “jobs” and “workers” and the corporate mentality and come to grips with how they plan to relate.
Next post is the uploads. One of them contains a lot of detail on reading a Budgetary/Legal Basis Annual Report, how to look up specific funds and find the balance in those funds. As in my state, I’m sure similar conditions in others — this reporting IS standardized in format according to the GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) which also includes Canada, for the purpose of SOMEONE knowing exactly how much wealth is in the kingdom, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. If you owned a lot of assets – -you’d like to know exactly how much, right?
Well, collectively, governments both own assets, and invest in corporations as well. Our governments are stockholders (for the public benefit of course) in a multitude of other corporations, currencies, even countries. For more on that, go read some Walter Burien, Clint Richardson, etc, or browse the local school board of state pension fund.