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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Get Real(itybloger)! — Call In, Read the Links on CAFRs, Review Regularly. (First posted Jan. 24, 2014)

with 3 comments

Post title with shortlink: Get Real(itybloger)! — Call In, Read the Links on CAFRs, Review Regularly. (First posted Jan. 24, 2014) Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-2hg.”  Just under 13,000 words.  This title with shortlink added during blog update Jan. 2018.

– – –

The “CAFR” topic is a governmental accounting and reporting practice which affects all people (and particularly in this situation, all US Citizens) because of its impact on the economy and our understanding of the size and scope of government operations. It is an over-arching and underlying issue, but it has been a hidden issue.

For example, as Carl Herman (Harvard Economics grad) put this in 2012, a very good question in my opinion.  Once certain evidence IS posted, it requires an review of reasoning built on “the big picture” (not including that evidence), and that “big picture” includes the hot topic of “DEFICIT.”

This is a “README” article! // Let’s Get Honest

CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?(Posted on June 18, 2012 by Carl Herman in ‘Washington’s Blog”),

. . . Governor Brown is silent about the $600 billion in surplus cash and investments, claiming the $16 billion budget deficit can only be addressed by austerity – massive funding cuts to our essential infrastructure. A 2.8% divestment of the fund would cover the $16 billion deficit.

So the natural question is if the state’s withholding of $600 billion in our cash and investments does not fund pensions, address a budget deficit, or prevent devastation to infrastructure, how can we best restructure the purpose and use of OUR MONEY for optimal public benefits? ~

Actually, my response would be why should we continue giving the same authorities MORE money for pensions — not to be used to fund pensions?? Is this typical state stewardship (??). If so, what does that say about taxation in general? Where’s the real “WE” in that equation? …. Seems more like an “Us/Them” proposition, in practice…. (sarcasm added 1/26/2016).

“Deficit” is relative to point of reference.

Do not wait on main stream press to expose this deceit, and anticipate, if no reasonable answer to it can be given, for the responses to take the nature of implications on the presenter’s character (this one’s a Harvard grad and economics teacher, which may make it a little harder), or characterizing that as “conspiracy theory.”  If you don’t want to engage, watch what happens to people who do engage, and notice the responses — whether character-based, dismissal based, “not-an-expert” based, or simply silence.  SILENCE only works up to a point.  Sooner or later, some things get out there, and then tactics for silencing intelligent discussion on it have to change. Seeing it happen is, well, almost entertaining. [<==This and preceding paragraph added during 9/7/2016 blog format review].

This post also has some discussions on and links to  Title IV of Social Security Act, which relates more directly to family court matters, and under which the “gender issue” as federal policy is exposed. [<=sentence slightly revised 9/7/2016 during blog format review]

[Link to “Title IV” — scroll down to see what are parts IV-A, B,(C), D and E:    Title IV-A {{BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES}},IV-B {{CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES Subparts 1: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and 2: Promoting Safe and Stable Families [PSSF]}}, IV-C {{repealed}}, IV-D {{CHILD SUPPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY, including, for example, such invasive record-keeping bureaucracy as these:***}} and last but not least, IV-E {{FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE}}

Notice each section (A, B, D and E) has its respective allotments or payments to states.  Or, both. It would be good to memorize which Title addresses which subject matter.  Also, I have found (very relevant) information on some of the grants I studied under the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) pertaining to that section.  From the “Link to Title IV,” here’s  a summary of where to look for which parts:

Title IV of the Social Security Act is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Office of Family Assistance administers benefit payments under Title IV, Parts A and C. {{now repealed, it says}} The Administration for Public Services, Office of Human Development Services, administers social services under Title IV, Parts B and E. The Office of Child Support Enforcement administers the child support program under Title IV, Part D.

Title IV appears in the United States Code as §§601–687, subchapter IV, chapter 7, Title 42.

Regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to Title IV are contained in chapters II, III, and XIII, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations of the Secretary of Labor relating to Title IV are contained in subtitle A, Title 29, and chapter 29, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.

Understanding that even with just “Title 42,” we are dealing with a mammoth enterprise, federally enabled (and under HHS, it’s organized regionally — see my sidebar links on “Social Sciencification” and “Regionalization”) Look at the rest of U.S. Code §§601-687, subchapter IV, Chapter 7, Title 42:

U.S. Code: Title 42 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE — Look at the Chapters Surrounding Chapter 7 here:


My bringing it up on this blog is going to have a certain flavor and examples relating to the family and conciliation courts. Moreover, as mainstream media basically plays deaf, dumb, and blind on this matter (though they aren’t, and although heads of major media outlets are actually mailed copies of CAFRs, I’m told) I am often looking for ways to express, communicate and teach some of the concepts behind this fundamental issue of national (at least) importance to people who may be reading my blog. I am not a CPA and do not have a financial degree, so obviously this is not financial advice. It is simply my blog.

My statements are my own, and my citing to other people’s writing, website, or work in this post in no way implies that they agree with me in general or in particular — or vice versa.

This has been undergoing revision.  I am  considering posting a “table of contents” and summary (just written) for this post  (Nov. 2014) as my own understanding continues to deepen of just how relevant the issue is.  The CAFR issue, and how seldom it’s referenced by mainstream media  is FOUNDATIONAL to representative government, and maintaining any balance of power and consent from those governed.

This topic also brings up the topic of responsibility —  if we want freedom, it comes with responsibilities to comprehend both large-scale basics and be able to prove things, specific economic details of governmental operations.

We have to care enough to know whether the information being fed us is reasonable, or ridiculous, and from there, make value judgments and tactical decisions.  Failure to decide is a choice.  If it requires learning a new language, so what!  What’s freedom worth?


C.A.F.R. =  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Governments, plural, issue CAFRs annually.  So, who ever reads them?   After all, it’s just what the public is funding and is taxed for..

But if you and your entire block, or family line, or neighborhood invested, held stock, in three or four big corporations, having payments withheld from every paycheck, or dropping large amounts into the corporations no less than yearly — and the corporations continued broadcasting they were in debt and operating at a loss, and kept hitting you up for more contributions with fewer dividends– would you be curious and start reading their annual reports or financials?

Would you as a shareholder, knowing it’s your money, speak with others, speak through regular channels with management, and say, get a pay cut on some of those top officials, show me the books, and cut the fluff?  Or, if there was no response, move your money, which is your investment, elsewhere?  Well…..??

Many of us may not have anything to invest at all, but chances are we have worked for corporations,  businesses that do invest in governments every time they pay their employees; employees often invest “up front” — it’s called income tax withholding.   If there’s a paycheck, look at it and see what goes where.  Once it’s gone, why should it be “out of sight, out of mind, catch it on the evening news…?”

Governments, plural, and there are likely well over 100,000 government entities within the USA, issue CAFRs annually.  So, who ever reads them?

These reports tell what they received, what they spent, and what they have remaining in which funds and under which agencies.  They tell it in detail, and that detail tells us what is really meant when “debt” is constantly pushed on the public.  Technically, “debt” may be true when the “budget”  is considered, but since when is a personal, or governmental, or corporate budget representative of one’s total holdings?

Larger corporations sometimes also issue annual financial reports. If you look at them, they are often structured like  a sales brochure.  However, they will still report  revenues and expenses (for a year, or a couple of years) AND assets and liabilities.  ASSETS are what the corporation is actually holding (or, may be due and so can collect), and NET ASSETS are what it’s holding minus what it owes, “LIABILITIES.”  Well, when governments do it the term is “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,” and each one is to tell what units are included in the report.

So ? ? ?

What’s with our collective ignorance on governmental (comprehensive) annual financial reports?  I didn’t even hear about them til I was almost sixty years old? It simply didn’t occur to me, and it is not taught most of us, to live our lives as citizens conscious, aware and informed on how to read them, yet they are as basic as it gets when it comes to where taxes went and who government is, literally!

You wouldn’t expect to understand and invest in a corporation without looking at its books, but somehow we think that the NYT, WSJ, and other financial publications, and/or some evening news, is going to tell us who our governments, plural, literally are, and how do their revenues (which we supply, regularly) compare to their holdings?

(It seems to me that) the major difference between corporations, which are (allegedly) SUBJECT TO the state laws under which these corporations, as “persons” under U.S. Commercial code,* must declare a home (domestic) residence and under which they must register to do business, and governments, which ARE the state and federal, county, municipal special district and school district (etc.) government “entities” have authority to establish taxes through their very existence, paid by residents in that jurisdiction (state, country of the USA) and collect fees for services (for example, filing fees in a courthouse, or licensing fees for the state “Department of Motor Vehicles,” etc.).  Essentially, the difference is compulsion, and the BIG difference, generally speaking, is income taxes.  While it’s government by consent, a whole lot of compulsion seems to be involved…

*U.S. Code Title I, “General Provisions,” Chapter 1, “Rules of Construction,” § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant clarifies that “person” includes every born-alive infant member of the species homo sapiens.  It doesn’t say “and is limited to.”

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Therefore it gets REAL attractive for corporations of all sizes to do business with governments which can compel collections on citizens at large, and tend to do so up front, with the back option of seizing assets, or simply jailing the recalcitrant or in arrears on any number of taxes, or even child support.

You’re “not good with numbers”? Perhaps this relates to having received a public school education K-12 in the US, and having been both poorly taught and told long enough you’re just not good with numbers, and internalized the viewpoint?  This can be corrected.  (see John Moughton’s 2007 story in Scientific American, about learning in increments and overcoming myths about innate ability, or disabilities, in the subject )

And I actually began to get the confidence that I could maybe do math.  I never felt – Because I had struggled I never felt I understood something really well unless I could break it down into the absolutely simplest steps and the simplest explanations.  Or I didn’t think I understood it.  And also I was dealing with some fairly challenged students.  One of my students was in a remedial grade six class and they thought he could do math.  He finished his doctorate about four or five years ago and is now teaching math. For these students who were often quite anxious, who couldn’t focus, and who had gaps – I had to figure out where the problem was and go back sometimes many years.

But I found that if I did that and gave them a series of incrementally harder challenges that they could succeed at they started focusing more and developing more and more confidence.  And the way they learned seemed to really change dramatically so that many of them became very strong students fairly quickly. . . . . And I think it’s partially psychological because they convince themselves they can’t (then their brains don’t work efficiently), and partially the way they’re taught.  The challenges we give kids often aren’t broken up into manageable enough steps.  They’re overwhelmed by too much complexity.  They don’t get enough assessment.  They don’t get enough time to practice.

They don’t know the basics before they tackle harder things. I think those are the reasons we’re seeing such big differences between kids, not because some have an innate ability. It’s largely psychological and has to do with the way they’re taught.

[paragraphing is from me, the blogger, not author/LGH]

Note:  the “JUMP” process originated with a Canadian and has been adopted for Common Core classes in the US, probably trademarked, etc.  I’m not in favor of trademarking curriculums and using US public school students for the market niche (tested or untested), (or in favor of  “Common Core“), but I do personally know about the “dumbing down” in math process in school systems.  I know it as a parent, and from my experiencing teaching a wide variety of children (and adults) some very complex skills in another field [[music, and music literacy and theory] where myths and rumors about innate talent or lack of it can be busted, and proper support and opportunities, plus grounding in the basics, makes all the difference.

It’s not that innate talent doesn’t exist.  It’s just that this provides no valid excuse for illiteracy and not trying in some basic information for those to whom it comes harder. And sometimes the alleged “lack of talent” can better be phrased “lack of ability (or passion, or insight) to teach.”

So, adults who came through that system, and othersgot a better excuse?

Can you count how many digits are in a number?  Like which is larger:    $300 or $3,000,000?  Can you tell plus from minus?   Can you read words?

These CAFR reports, while maybe intimidating in size, are not just columns of fine print containing many large numbers (often expressed in thousands).  They also have sections in plain English describing, literally, how the reporting government unit is organized; many also have even flow-charts to show you who (which agency) is under which chain of command.

I’m not particularly fond of huge spreadsheets with lots of numbers in them either (are you?) — although at different times in my past I was paid to type them up, and designed forms using formulas to produce them to reduce human math or typing errors.  I would certainly rather do other things with my “free” time than volunteer to study up on this.

 But . . .

But when I realized the family court was a system enabling chronic work interference, and I also realized (finally was told, and listened in 2009) that the federal grants  and other private money were influencing the courts, and the public has no really useful way to track them, and after realizing through my own diligent sessions of actually tracking them, on first hearing of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report phenomena (in 2012), it became obvious — I realized —  that the existence of this same reporting system has a critical truth to tell usIt is a “burning bush” situation, and critical to changing the status quo of letting politicians and others continue lying, or even talking without reference to the evidence, when describing the national economic system and our moral, legal, and social obligations to continue propping it up while seeing services reduced, restructured, and often outsourced

It is evidence “from the horse’s mouth,” which is to say, government entities issue them.

CAFRs provide evidence, leverage to discuss major issues of national interest, and a different point of view.  This is a “gamechanger” topic, and not for a bunch of kooks or nuts. That discussion can only take place if enough people get up to speed (comprehend) them, and start talking.

Regarding, “I don’t do numbers” (“am just not interested in this topic,” as I find too many people complaining about the family and conciliation courts processes and decisions, are also just not interested enough to look up grants and nonprofits affecting the family and conciliation court processes and decisions — like they were designed to….):

Well, would you rather have more or fewer numbers on the “Amount” line in a lifetime of paychecks? Would you rather have more, or less, taken from paychecks in the form of taxation (or collected in the variety of ways taxes can be collected, or fees raised)? 

How about for others you may be living among, or dealing with– do you want more or less poverty; more or less crime; more or less ethical government?

Because this is about truth-telling in  whether or not we need such things as, to continue the federal income tax system, and whether the sky would fall if we phased it out, or eliminated it on the basis of it’s just not necessary for government operations! After that, I believe many other systems of taxation and fees to provide services which get lost in the disconnect between disbursements and receipts, and in the chasm of “can’t be bothered to comprehend it” attitude by the conditioned-to-submit-to-the-incomprehensible public.

The CAFR issue is about basic accounting (truth-telling) definitions, logic, and how to get an understanding of your status in relationship to government and business entities affecting where you can live, what you can do, and how much food and shelter, transportation, and basic human needs cost — and why there are so many poor people around decade after decade and, it seems, not enough prisons or shelters or behavioral-modification programs around to control them all.

It is about whether when the any major news outlet [MSM on-line or in print] reports some major city like Detroit, or minor city like Scranton, Pennsylvania is bankrupt or almost bankrupt  they are telling the truth, or using an accounting technicality in order to deliberately tell part of the truth.   In other words, IF only that fragment referred to is considered, and NOT “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” to the point that the whole matter is understood, technically speaking, some of the rhetoric is “truthful.”

Carl Herman (Harvard.edu. economist, Washington’s Blog) seems to comprehend the CAFR principles, and has done a lot to publicize it, AND attempted to get a straight answer about whether omission of the truth about the collective held assets of government could be considered criminal or not. (NOTE: Like Wikipedia articles, these are sprinkled throughout with links. See source to get them, I have not copied them into the quote.  Some of those links are now “broken,” but the saddest part to me is “0 comments.”  It’s a very good question! /LGH.).  GOVERNOR BROWN refers to California:

This is a “README” article! // Let’s Get Honest

CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?(Posted on June 18, 2012 by Carl Herman),

. . . Governor Brown is silent about the $600 billion in surplus cash and investments, claiming the $16 billion budget deficit can only be addressed by austerity – massive funding cuts to our essential infrastructure. A 2.8% divestment of the fund would cover the $16 billion deficit.

So the natural question is if the state’s withholding of $600 billion in our cash and investments does not fund pensions, address a budget deficit, or prevent devastation to infrastructure, how can we best restructure the purpose and use of OUR MONEY for optimal public benefits? ~

Force (change legislation if necessary) the use of the already withheld $600 billion to fund the $16billion, and quit withholding, would seem obvious.  This is a matter of inappropriate taxation.   Of course that will re-arrange some vacation plans and personal plans, but it would be bee than continuing a policy based on dishonesty (if not fraud).  It seems to me, anyhow.  Point in case, this won’t happen unless those being defrauded demand it.  Those engaged in the fraud, or profiting from it, have no motive to do so!

I see three obvious solutions. ~  [link is now broken in original article]

I asked this of my two state representatives, Senator Carol Liu and Assemblymember Anthony Portantino. Carol and her consultant, Robert Oakes, has not yet answered this question. Anthony responded, but failed to address the question. ~

I’m also addressing law enforcement whether such non-disclosure of withheld taxpayer cash and assets by public officials is a crime while they tell us the only option is our austerity.

FYI (and clear below, I hope), I do NOT agree with his assessment that public banking is some sort of solution.  However, it’s clear that Mr. Herman understands that money is being withheld from public view through simply failing to advertise it exists:

Are we there yet to arrest 1% criminals before the war-murder again in Syria?” Carl Herman, Sept. 1, 2013

Fraud is the crime of misrepresentation that causes harm. The US bankster economy uses fraud to transfer trillions annually from We the People to them. This criminal “1%” represent our “debt-supply” as a “money supply,” represent bank debt that they made out of nothing as “loans,” and represent escalating government debts as having no solutions except our austerity rather than presenting obvious solutions in money and through public banking. . . .

I disagree!!!  In going for “public banking,” he is going for a more NWO solution proposed by a person who basic fiscal and information-reporting facts show (and I have shown some below) to be dishonest.  That didn’t prevent the same person from running for California State Treasurer under Green Party endorsement.  However, I do agree that misrepresentation is generally speaking, for the purposes of fraud, as it is here in these matters.

This fraud costs Americans increasing work for less pay (if they can get work), increasing debt, inflation, deprivation of public services, and a transfer of wealth to a criminal-colluding 1% that hide ~$20 to $30 trillion in protected tax havens.

. . . In case you consider state-level “leadership” of our Left and Right arms of fascism any better, they lie and hoard literal billions and trillions in surplus taxpayer accounts while demanding our austerity. This is what the CAFR scam is about.

Although we say the above points often, I don’t see much else to say beyond helping to make the choice clear between competent American citizenship that recognizes and ends obvious crimes, versus thoughtless obedience to criminal “leadership” that annually kills millions, harms billions, and loots trillions.

CAFRS help as a truth-standard  for reporting on BASIC, critical issues such as, for example, the bankruptcy of a city — or the national debt — or whether a school system really needs to have more bonds issued to keep its “enrichment” courses — like library, arts, music, sports, gifted programs, or other things good for growing children — in place.

Or, for example, whether the largest grant-making agency in the United States government (HHS) should or should not be channeling (as it has been)  Social Security Title IV-A funds into responsible fatherhood, marriage promotion, or Title IV-D funds into “access/visitation” programs, which is another way of saying, child support compromises in exchange for fatherhood promotion.  And about why it seems no matter what decade the nation is in, there remains  a steady traffic INTO and AROUND the foster care system while also funding programs purposed to reduce the same.

[Link to “Title IV” — scroll down to see what are parts IV-A, B,(C), D and E:    Title IV-A {{BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES}},IV-B {{CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES Subparts 1: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and 2: Promoting Safe and Stable Families [PSSF]}}, IV-C {{repealed}}, IV-D {{CHILD SUPPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY, including, for example, such invasive record-keeping bureaucracy as these:***}} and last but not least, IV-E {{FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE}} Notice each section (A, B, D and E) has its respective allotments or payments to states.  Or, both. 

From IV-B, Subpart 2, “Promoting Safe and Stable Families”:   Rhetorical Question: Where is “Federal” getting all this to PAY the states when the state residents are paying in each year, often each paycheck,  to help reduce poverty and provide basic government services to start with, are paying taxes coming, going, forward, backwards — and often for the privilege of filing court actions to persuade that branch of government to perform its services.  Or, for getting married, getting divorced, copies of court records, and etc.   The footnote “1” describing Title IV of this act from this website tells us which parts of HHS administers which parts of the act.   It reads, from the top, with my comments (acronyms) in “{{   }}s”

{{Link to “Title IV}}

[1]Title IV of the Social Security Act is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Office of Family Assistance {{“OFA” for short}} administers benefit payments under Title IV, Parts A and C  {{Food Stamps and Cash Aid to families, and the marriage/fatherhood programs would be under “A.”  It says “C” was repealed}}. The Administration for Public Services, Office of Human Development Services {{OHDS}}, administers social services under Title IV, Parts B {{Child Welfare/Promoting Save and Stable Families.}} and E  {{ Presumably B&E this would be where the abuse prevention would come in, and breaking up families where abuse has been found, finding new homes for the children removed from those homes…}}. The Office of Child Support Enforcement {{OCSE}} administers the child support program under Title IV, Part D.

Title IV appears in the United States Code as §§601–687, subchapter IV, chapter 7, Title 42.

Regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to Title IV are contained in chapters II, III, and XIII, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.**

Regulations of the Secretary of Labor relating to Title IV are contained in subtitle A, Title 29, and chapter 29, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.

**So, the phrase “45 CFR 303” for example, shows  yet more bureaucracy and workforce/materials support for monitoring these grants and programs involved in Title IV-D, i.e., Child Support and Paternity Establishment.   45 CFR Part 303 refers to Title IV-D.

The Definitions page references 1976 (start date) and 1989 (amended date) of another “FR” section.  That’s interesting, because the Child Support began as a Family Support Act in 1975, and the actual funding of “Access/Visitation” grants in 1988. Which I only learned by looking at 45 CFR 303.109 (it’s been posted in this blog a few times) in an HHS 1999 “Action Transmittal” regarding those grants, which gave a little summary of their history.

Scope and Applicability of this Part.

§ 303.0 Scope and applicability of this part.

This part prescribes:
(a) The minimum organizational and staffing requirements the State IV-D agency must meet in carrying out the IV-D program, and
(b) The standards for program operation which the IV-D agency must meet.
[41 FR 55348, Dec. 20, 1976, as amended at 54 FR 32309, Aug 4, 1989]
Among all those 45 CFR 303 regulations (Take a look!) the LAST one listed relates to actually regulating those access/visitation grants

See Vol. II, 31 U.S.C. 3720 and 3720A, with respect to collection of payments due to Federal agencies; 6504–6505, with respect to intergovernmental cooperation; 7501–7507, with respect to uniform audit requirements for State and local governments receiving Federal financial assistance.

This is again the context of state and local governments — looks like — just not being economically self-sufficient then, as they are needing all the Federal assistance. Sounds like, if we have a national debt and the state and local governments can’t support themselves to the point they continually (decade after decade after decade) are stuck on “welfare” in order to handle their own welfare populations, maybe it’s time to consider who’s trapping whom into welfare, and whether it’s simply easier to blame the poor on their sloth and indigence  — or the government on cutting services to the poor — than for everyone take a closer look at the books and business model…and consider whether this business model is a cause, or an effect, of the problems the business model (I am referring primarily to policies set in place 1913 forward, and having furthered the wealth centralization and accumulation for the public good in the 1930s before World War II, and then getting uniformly standardized as to selective presentation of the facts starting in the 1940s, right after World War II.   From what I recall, having established income tax and Social Security #s or corporate EIN#s for every “person” — except those “persons” who were by corporate identity, exempt from it — some way to count it all and coordinate all this infrastructure was thought desirable.   ***THESE ARE JUST A FEW SAMPLE SECTIONS under CHILD SUPPORT (IV-D)

Sec. 453A. State directory of new hires

Sec. 457. Distribution of collected support

Sec. 458. Incentive payments to States … [see below]

Sec. 463. Use of Federal Parent Locator Service in connection with the enforcement or determination of child custody and in cases of parental kidnaping of a child

Sec. 464. Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds

Sec. 469. Collection and reporting of child support enforcement data

Sec. 469A. Nonliability for financial institutions providing financial records to State child support enforcement agencies in child support cases

Sec. 469B. Grants to States for access and visitation programs

 Comments: Sec. 469B places an incentive to the states to refer parents from the family court (and child support) systems to people and groups which fall under the funded categories — and to label/classify this as in the public interest under “Child Support Enforcement.”  However at the state level, people are lectured frequently about how visitation does NOT have to do with child support enforcement; there’s not a direct relationship; and failure to support of course is no excuse for cutting off visitation (I do agree — but concealing these incentives to set up programs [[which is to say personnel and nonprofit trade associations]] specializing in these fields:

mediation—voluntary and mandatory, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement—including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup

…wasn’t exactly honest!

Let’s talk about “Incentive Payments to the States” (Performance bonus, or some might just call them bribes.  Carrots…  Perks…]]

Although the alleged and original purpose of child support [the “Family Support Act” of about 1975] was to REDUCE family dependency on welfare, so the poor and needy wold quit being such a national burden — and this was done as part of the nationwide public health and welfare purpose of the Social Security Act of 1934 under the United States Code, to start with (most major revision/restructuring of this 1934 Social Security Act happened only in 1996; if you are reading my blog, probably within your lifetime…), the mathematical formula, written into this Social Security Act for these incentive payments is to take whatever it was a certain year, and INcrease it by the percentage that year was over the previous year.You can see it at that link, and I’ve shown it below, has been ONLY increasing from Year 2000 forward– but, look at part “x” at the bottom to see for yourself.  By law, those incentive payments ONLY increase.  This money doesn’t go direct to needy families, but to State Government.

Sec458. [42 U.S.C. 658a] (a) In General.—In addition to any other payment under this part, the Secretary shall, subject to subsection (f), make an incentive payment to each State for each fiscal year in an amount determined under subsection (b).

(b) Amount of Incentive Payment.—

(1) In general.—The incentive payment for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the fiscal year.

(2) Incentive payment pool.—

(A) In general.—In paragraph (1), the term “incentive payment pool” means—

(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;   [[FYI that’s $422 MILLION, in addition to Title IV-A diversions into marriage/fatherhood promotion, somewhere around $150 million (per year) since 1996, AND access visitation grants of $10 million (since 1996), included in the HHS/OCSE budget, and appropriations of about $4 BILLION.  To my understanding [it could be checked] those amounts of $15M/year marriage/fatherhood promotion and $10/M access/visitation, AND about $4B overall.  ]

(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;   [=$7 million more than Year 2000 — a Presidential Election, challenged, having happened that calendar year; CAFRs often show a fiscal year end of June 30th…]

(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;  [=$21 million more]

(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;   [=$11 more than 2002, $33 million more than 2001]

(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;   [= $7 million LESS than 2003, but still $4 million more than 2002, and $25 million more than 2001, RIGHT?]

(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;  [= $8 million LESS than 2004, but still $17 million MORE than 2001]

(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; [= increasing again, $18 million MORE than 2005, and $29 million MORE than 2001]

(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; [=increasing again, $13 million MORE than 2006, and $42 million MORE than 2001.

(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; [=increasing again,  $12 million MORE than 2007, and $54 million MORE than 2001.]


(x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the second preceding fiscal year

So when anyone, such as Public Banking Institute (Ellen H. Brown and the Web of Debt promoters) proposing “Public a network Banking/State Banks” and does NOT address this, is that person or group concerned about this type of “only-increasing-payments” to states, when it’s already known that the two main sources of  Federal Receipts for the year is a combination of income taxes and Social Security Retirement contributions from the people it’s supposedly there to help? The question is — did the promoters know, or not know about this?  [finish reading this post to better understand that last comment].

Is Freedom Optional? 

If So, then understanding the level of Government Accounting and its various controls would also be.
However, if Freedom is NOT Optional; then take personal responsibility to at least start learning basic government accounting (and CAFRs), and waking up enough others off their MainStreamMedia, pre-set divide-and-conquer addiction to being manipulated to make a difference.  Also, freedom, from abuse by others including systems of government ain’t free, and isn’t self-perpetuating.  Recognize systems of slavery when they’re seen, or being set in motion, and stop them.

Are definitions and understanding the language of government accounting (and its various controls) really optional?

Put another way — is freedom optional, and does basic justice, fairness in dealings, due process in proceedings, etc. — have anything to do with freedom? Do the various justice systems (courts, and their employees, the real estate in which the occur, the databases they maintain, the websites which direct people to access them, and an awareness of the professions which they support) have anything to do where revenues (resources, money, grants, contracts, etc.) are coming from and going to — have anything to do with justice, and freedom? If you just don’t want or need to know, have a nice life; please refer someone else to this blog with too many words and tough concepts, like, we ought to differentiate between truth and falsehood in business relationships.   And, that citizenship, whether born into or acquired, IS a business relationship with government entities (not just a few, but many). Business is generated by taxing MOST individuals, but exempting from taxation so many nonprofits that those who DO pay taxes cannot keep track of it– and the public officials whose salaries these support, are just not motivated to keep track. For individuals, it’s called “income” and for nonprofit corporation, it’s called ‘revenues,’ but in both cases, it’s an accounting entry, and the game is to increase profits to a point of comfort (or, luxury even) and retain those for the most individual choice in how they are spent.   In some scenarios, this is best done by donating to tax-exempt corporations, or sticking it in a privately controlled foundation, which then funds other nonprofits, in combination or not in combination with direct government grants.

Where do the continually poor, or cash-strapped if not literally hungry, homeless, incarcerated or drug-addicted (or struggling with family members who got that way) fit in that picture? To the wealthy, who have somehow figured out by association, smarts, family inheritance or family connections including to form lifelong business relationships in certain types of universities (or sometimes simply unethically), or who just have a good business and marketing sense, including enough sense to NOT restrict their income to just one or two sources, or their company operations to just one state in the United States, the poor are great for publicity — the poor justify tax-exempt donations which better help preserve family wealth and reputation in privately controlled sectors, — and if they don’t get out of hand, the poor are good for the workforce, and to scare the middle-class academics and other technically highly-skilled professionals who still depend mostly on their jobs for government and private foundation grants and sponsorships — the poor are good to scare the middle class with (“if you buck this system, that’s you next year….”).

The poor and the middle class combined are good to set against each other (one gets to feel morally superior or condescending to the other) while the top continues to set in place laws and exemptions to perpetuate the system, acquire (buy and sell, or hold for profits) what they need or want, and operate at the international level as to businesses, and sometimes, homes, and perpetuate in setting up a nice “NWO,” economically, even sometimes under the banner of patriotism, conservative politics, and family values.  Or, other banners — sustainability, environment, multiple rights-based labels.   A look at the economic practices in common shows that the other material (rhetoric) is not structural — it’s the decoration on the economic structures.  And it CANNOT be seen without a look at where government fits in, and an evaluation of that role as desirable, or undesirable.

The tax system is a caste system that has been in place for long enough, it’s tough to break out without joining the oppressive side.  However, one start is admitting that we’ve been lied to, and allowed those who knew in advance (and figured out there would be protests) to set in place not just a few, but multiple control systems to prevent their losing the privilege of exploitation. These multiple control systems, like of course the business of government,  also are themselves businesses, with employees and investors, automatically leading to those who make a living in them to have a conflict of interest with those oppressed (or having resources squandered, which is a form of oppression) by others.

CAFR reports contain introductory pages that define — and sometimes even draw charts of — that government’s component units. They are often posted under the comptroller’s (financial) page of any government website, but can also be found by a simple internet  search on the government entity’s specific name and “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.”  This post has plenty of links to find and understand them below.  I started a blog Cold,Hard.Fact$ in 2012 to list them.  Whatever it takes to first, see, and second, comprehend the significance of this form of government accounting up us all –find the time, now! My take, of course, reflects the experience in the family courts, but it is relevant to all taxpayers.  It is a public interest matterThis is a public interest blog.   Find it before the next legislative elections, judicial elections where that applies. Find it before the next round of multi-million-dollar Health and Human Services marriage/fatherhood/abstinence (CFDA 93086) grants to grantees that don’t stay incorporated, or incorporate in triplicate (1, 2, 3 in a row– some of them not just tax-exempt, but also religious-exempt-from filing corporations) after getting their “Capacity-building Compassion Capital” (CFDA 93009) grants. The marriage promotion industry was PLANNED, and those who planned it, planned in advance to stick the stressed-out public with their corporation’s bill and what looks like truly unethical behaviors as nonprofit corporation leadership. There is the “start a ministry (nonprofit 501(c)3) from a church and advertise it on the website” model), but thanks to these federal grants as a “bait,” there is also the “form a new religious-exempt corporation with intention to access these grantsMarriageSavers, Inc. (Maryland, Mike McManus et al) and multiple signers of  their”Community Marriage Policy” got these grants, and organize by means of other nonprofits to promote their mutual (not the public) interest.  The tax returns and corporate filings tell a completely different message than the rhetoric, which reveals the hypocrisy of lecturing about family values while failing to exhibit fiscal honesty for, sometimes, even three years in a row.  This is NOT seen unless one methodically starts checking corporate identities, charitable filings, and at least a few tax returns. FYI, so did the first model Family Justice Center in San Diego… and I didn’t see it until I looked at not just one, but several different related charitable registrations:  the center itself, AND “Camp Hope..” (make that “Camps Hope” as there have been three, last I checked) in its successive registrations of similar name, address, but different corporate identities).

I have blogged both these industries (on this blog).  There should be a ‘red alert’ to investigate (look up the filings — it’s just time-consuming, not that intellectually challenging!– the marriage/fatherhood grantees and how the industry is coordinated (which type of groups do which business functions to ensure ongoing profits), and the Family Justice Center racket (I believe it’s a racket, as in planned “RICO” operations, as in, an intentional form of racketeering, within government agencies by means of associated nonprofits.  As it involves justice department employees often (i.e., District Attorneys) and federal USDOJ grants,  the question comes up, who’s about to prosecute even if it were?  Gee, sound like someone though that through in advance?) I have a basis for saying this, and  am not the only reporter on some of the fiscal issues — but it cannot be discussed in a sane matter until others look at the economics.  In addition, however, I am an eyewitness of how my own interactions with both some of the component groups who later became part of the family justice center, and a family justice center locally, handled a request for help. All of these are symptoms of the larger cause of centralized wealth, and a taxable population who’s constantly being lectured about its debt burden.

You can only look at so many of these before realizing it’s a shared business model, and premeditated.   There are exit-corporations (or charities) set up to move the money in case one gets unfavorable press or attention from the enforcing authorities or regulators; i.e., “the shell game.”   Hide the money.


Case in point The other day (August 2014), a friend who endorsed and gives regularly to a certain charity (unrelated to this family court business), a Los Angeles group with a fantastic reputation helping people on skid row, the homeless and the hungry; and how over 90% of their money went to actual services, and the directors were not overpaid, and were NOT taking significant government .  It took less than one day to locate the “spinoff nonprofit” [formed in 1985] and  show, on my laptop, that they were not filing charitable returns for significant assets for several years, and they WERE taking significant.  The data I had access to only went back to about 2002.  This group simply decided to move their money, and despite the high profile, were allowed to continue getting governmental grants “off the record.”  Then, they started filing — and changed the company name.


The spinoff corporation was, of course, involved in real estate — homeless shelters.   So was the faith-based component, particularly after Presidential Executive Orders establishing an office to promote it in January 2001, only to have September 11, 2001, a national disaster with international ramifications, eclipse the significance of those first Presidential Executive orders, later copied by Governors in other states.   Behind these are trails of failed corporations, delinquent, dissolved suspended — and the leadership could care — they just go do it again, aware no one is likely to stop them.

The same could be said the other side of the political aisle, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, progressive or liberal.  I can say that because I’ve been looking — and see similar habits on both sides. It is NOT necessary for the public to choose one of those sides and base evaluation of government upon it — once the “back office” view is located and looked at, and its significance is comprehended.

Find the time to look at (read, get your hands on) least SOME of the evidence — governmental comprehensive annual financial reports.  Take at least another half-hour to at least consider just how many governments there are, and how they are created, from the US Census link I have below.

Or go look for a database you can count on and don’t have to pay extra (while giving up personal identifying information in addition to any IP address) to run some reports or basic citizen “take a look” inquiries on for not just one — but ALL of the federal grant-making agencies.

For example, there seems to be NO usable database for the USDOJ grants once they are dispensed. There is a database, but it is unusable. Might these grants [let alone contracts!] not be influencing our justice department programs (as they were designed to) — without even checks and balances for the public? Does this not influence the purposes for which this country is supposed to exist — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Imagine if the “Occupy” protesters of a few years ago had gone in holding some evidence in their hands — and understanding it — about these CAFRs, and what they represented — and got THAT on film and national media!

Blogger Note:  The next long “paragraph” (which is several paragraphs which got combined into one) is a good, and relevant study for family court issues and a recent “Family Court Enhancement Project”

Once a few examples of corporate/nonprofit/projects of nonprofits behavior is understood, the others become much easier to understand.  I am working on this one’s “show and tell” details.

Sorry about the current run-on format between the “~ ~ ~ ~” section indicators.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Like I said recently in a post….there is even a US Census of Governments defining their count (which cited a 75% response rate, so adjust upward for error? add the ones legislated into existence since the census was taken. . . . ). I also found some HHS grant to a health district (to my recall) in Nebraska which having been replaced with a more regional one, was thereby no longer valid, but was still getting HHS grants to the old district’s name.  Tell me what else was new in how can the federal government dump wealth into fiscal black holes and then go back to the taxpayers, “Please (well, “or else….”), more taxes or fewer services WHICH do you prefer?”???  [hit me with a comment if you want the reference, it’s several weeks back… it came up in the context of a dispute resolution institute associated with (as I recall) Creighton University in Omaha; the institute is listed under “Partners” alongside Battered Women’s Justice Project [“BWJP”] on the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) website. What “BWJP” was doing there before it finally obtained a legitimate corporate identity ca. Sept. 2013 (as opposed to remaining for years as the primary funded project under a Duluth, MN-based Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, “DAIP,” associated with Ellen Pence’s HHS grants-getting 501(c)3 is another matter, and why groups claiming they oppose incest and domestic abuse and parental alienation as a psychological fraud and a cross-accusation to cover up child molestation refuse to discuss why they wish to collaborate and conference in a mutual, professional-courtesy, and strictly maintained code of silence about the AFCC in general and about the AFCC/BWJP/HHS connections. Such things are known, but not shown, not explained (nor is the use of tools given to research or explain them typically mentioned) by groups highlighting their opposition to incest and domestic abuse,  the use of parental alienation, and their collective concern for making the family court system safe for children  to their followers and supporters.  These followers and supporters are typically distressed or outraged mothers whose lives and/or children have been mangled by the family court gauntlet over which AFCC presides, in cooperation with its favorite other related and membership-overlapping nonprofit trade associations, with a leadership and membership that LOVES like all true crusaders to obtain and sit in positions of power and influence,* and with private foundation funders, and its (AFCC’s) truly speckled, unstable, state-skipping, and accountability-evading corporate history all but RUNS the family court systems. *not just judgeships, or administrative directors of family court systems (state, or county-based), but also law school professors, and often by jurisdiction, on boards, commissions, tasks forces or other places where practices and legislation can be influenced absent genuine public input or information. Others have allowed these groups for decades to continue the professional code of silence through combinations of apathy, ignorance, assent, and collective amnesia (it’s called lack of the public’s AND special interest groups’ sustained attention to the mechanics of government accounting, and the significance of its dark closets, black holes, and unmonitored funds. Which is shorthand for the CAFR system.


Now that this CAFR system turning government across the country into for-profit business enterprises while by “sequestering” most of its possessions (and revenues) OUTSIDE of the funds allocated to the budgets, has been in place for decades, those who knew earlier how to draw from those funds for their nonprofits or businesses have a reason, a “vested” interest in NOT advertising the business model of drawing upon those excess sources of funding, i.e., distracting the public. This is in clear conflict with the public who pays taxes, wage-earners or individuals with only single sources of income — their jobs.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So I Must Ask

Who is going to change the conversation without a solid reading on the what’s in our government’s back pockets, and being currency, accounting, history AND government illiterates?  Because, this is about changing the conversation, not following the scripts.   

When you see talk of “budgets” in the media, or coming from a politician’s mouth, generally you will not find a reference to the collective holdings of that govenment entity (federal, state, or other) or other nongovernmental funds these mentioned alongside them.  This is a deliberate standardized form of government accounting which has (like any form of accounting) a deliberate purpose, namely, to justify ongoing UNjustifiable taxation for “budget-balancing.”

This topic is something individuals have to decide to bring up and discuss among themselves — or just go deaf, dumb (literally), and logically disabled.  The topic cannot have been handed on much more of a silver platter than some of these bloggers have already done and is a statement about what time of day it is in the USA.

[Revisions 1-29-2014:]If you want to see what happens when someone intent on talking about it engages with someone intent on discrediting or minimizing the concept (that any that the CAFR issue represents and strategical (conspiracy) to defraud), check out Walter Burien (former)  simply taking on Ellen H. Brown (the latter) in 2010’s attempt to change the conversation.  One of the two is an attorney, want to toss a coin on which one was more accurate and honest? I did a follow-up on the same attorney’s proposed solutions — and you should see what THAT revealed (and will, if I get it past draft form) when it comes to deceitful accounting practices by progressive nonprofits…Ms. Brown wants Public Banks (and the following year chose a very “strange” nonprofit with six PhD’s and several MA’s (or so it says) as their fiscal agent (Inquiring Systems Inc.) which has made it clear what it thinks of Americans in many ways, most obviously by failing to file properly as a nonprofit until caught and told to (ca. 2009/2010 — they incorporated in 1978) and with a kazillion earth-green-progressive-oh-so-altruistic projects under the one head, most of which have the same individuals on the board, or advisory board. Logo

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registrn Type Record Type
INQUIRING SYSTEMS, INC. 034547 Charity Delinquent SONOMA CA Charity Registration Charity

EIN# 94-2524840.  (see California Charitable Trusts Registry for filing history (such as it is).  Samples:  ~ InquiringSystemsInc CharitableReturnsDetails shows 9years of Nonfiling (per Calif Law)!!InquiringSystems 2nd California Charities (OAG)Delinquency Ltr 2010 March 481595ISI,EIN#94-2524840, TaxReturn2011(YE 6-30-12) showin $980K gross receipts, 1545 volunteers, and presumably Public Banking Institute along with all the others to improve the human condition by serving as a fiscal agent  (after being confronted and forced to cough up some charitable registrations and tax returns to the State of California for many years (PBI (Public Banking Institute) was added as one of the many projects.

Inquiring Systems CA 2012 990 28 $304,285 #94-2524840
Inquiring Systems Inc. CA 2011 990 30 $537,191 #94-2524840
Inquiring Systems Inc. CA 2010 990ER 1 $147,295 #94-2524840

This led (simply through a normal follow-up process) to seeing the UN/NWO connection, however I was a few years behind on that one also (follow-up by WB date 9/2010… explains what the concept of “public state-run banks” means in plain English (contains the phrase “you can kiss the United States goodbye” and “New World Order signed, sealed, and delivered.”)  Quote added to bottom of this page, stay tuned… [about one month later — interesting Advisory Board with a London School of Economics connection, I’d just like us to understand what rooms this conversation is taking place in, and in that light WHY it really does matter, to get basic identities on the conversationalists, not meaning their personal style, but their choice of colleagues associates, choice of corporate identities, which collectively is going to affect worldview (or reveal it).   9 Easy Questions for Green Party Calif State Treasurer Candidate from %22Let’sGetHonest%22  [A series of email exchanges took place around late Jan – early February 2014. 3 pages only]. This PBI matter IS in the “New World Order” view, and for one, I am not a subscriber to the philosophy that we’d all be better off on larger, more streamlined leadership with a Council of Elders, as if this was till somehow a democratic, village all-for-one and one-for-all planet with easily identified good guys and bad guys (for example, all environmentalists are good, and -here — large corporations and governments can be tamed by some minor adjustments to business as usual — change the accounting structure SLIGHTLY (don’t eliminate taxes, just, as Burien pointed out, cut out the middlemen and keep the stash of cash — only through networked State banks, not the Feds…).   At what point do we, the people, get to (or get smart and organized enough) to find honest leadership, still people capable of handling investments, infrastructure, and complex financial operations — but honest enough to understand that even IF and WHEN laws have sequestered the profit-making enterprises of government into sections they don’t have to report under “BUDGET” — these laws were passed once, and can be changed later?

Which also goes, FYI, for the entire family and conciliation court system.  There was a time it did not exist; it was legislated in for specific purposes.  At what point in time does discussion of this get into discussions of how to “fix” them? To do this without de-toxing from the fragmented and censored view of reality we are literally DRENCHED with worldwide is (IMHO) probably impossible. Then again, producing miracles is a matter of faith, which is a matter of heart. Really, what I’m talking about is a change of heart informing the cognitive functions (the intellect) of millions of PEOPLE. Before freedom from slavery, one has to stop thinking like a slave, which includes taking responsibility for one’s own thought-life, and focus of attention. After the basic institutional escape, there’s still protecting boundaries, and of course recovery (re-structuring a non-slavery response; knowing what freedom cost, and that one does NOT permit regular incursions on it, or tolerate without comment and protest, systematic and chronic lies from people either running current institutions — or seeking to run new ones). [Understanding the truths the CAFRs tell us — is primary to understanding the character, nature, scope and practices of government, which is needed to monitor and handle the balance of power between government and individuals. Most CAFRs contain up front in a Transmittal Letter or otherwise, a clear organizational chart (like a flow chart) picturing which government office are under which, as well as a simple summary of who they are.  Why not read a few and see? I have samples over at “economicbrain.wordpress.com” a.k.a. “Cold,Hard.Fact$”   Enjoy the rest of the post; thanks!] I’ve come separately to this conclusion, from the grants data, and the dysfunctional public databases as well.  If I hadn’t spent so much time looking at fraudulent HHS grantees, and experienced the kangaroo court system, seen welfare reform, etc. — I might not have believed the message that the CAFR situation capsulizes.  However it sure would’ve been nice to hear it while my children were still young. … [End Revisions 1-29-2014, except — see bottom of post]


See any of those links. And remember to tell the guy, thank you for continuing to blog it.  Identify the count your local government entities, find and read their CAFRs with pen & paper (or electronic data input devices), and “do the math,” and change the conversations.

I have been quoting Walter Burien,* Clint Richardson, Carl Herman, Gerald Klatt (http://cafrman.com, a virtual manual on how to navigate a CAFR) and some others since I found out in 2012 (there don’t seem to be that many others around), but until WE (enough “We’s”) start to of how important it IS to comprehend at least the basic concepts.   See my “Top Ten Posts” (itself a “sticky” post) for good sampling of these.  A basic comprehension gives any conversation about government, let along legislative reform (??) credibility because you are showing knowledge that your legislators already have — ALL of them are sent copies of these reports, as are major media, I’m told (and you could also verify).  They just aren’t discussing them with you, the public. I’ve been reporting on CAFRs since I heard of them in 2012 — and Clint Richardson (“Realitybloger”)’s “CAFR School” posts, below, were partly why I understood them.   All those sources should be read, in combo. If you do not understand this material, you don’t know literally which end is up and might as well stop flapping your gums in front of ANY state or Congressional legislators for any reason about any cause, they most likely DO.   Without understanding this and what it means, you do NOT have a context in which to discuss politics; have not gone high or deep enough, and will likely be ignored (unless your ignorance proves useful for kickstarting another “initiative” to be funded by, guess who… and managed by, guess who...) by whoever you speak to in favor of the higher “powers that be.” This IS the conversation that needs to turn the lights on and change the conversations, plural.  It is the difference between whether, collectively, any of us still really WANT to be free.  Free people take responsibility for acquiring their own knowledge and evaluating it AND prioritizing it. And, personally, I don’t want to hang with, or pour my efforts into blogging, exposing and diagramming the obvious for people who just don’t care about independence enough to take the responsibility that goes with it: to assess reality and make the best possible decisions — not inane, spinning the wheels decisions — about ,what to do about it.


Would YOU want to hang with people who prefer to be hard-working, passive worker bees* in further building up an infrastructure of slavery (cf. the Pyramids) that is owned by others, in exchange for not having to think so hard, or fight, in an organized fashion, for something meaningful — like having a work life that doesn’t contribute to slavery, genocide, and poisoning the planet? (*and even if superbly technically adept at many knowledge areas brainwashed in the most important ones – -like paying taxes to a government which is dishonest about what it has, and what it needs?) This is critical to understanding WHO government is and from there, who YOU are (in relationship) — regardless of what rhetoric, language, or jargon flap your gums on via Change.org, Petitions for change, or asking “government*” to “do something!  like “try our leaders’ ideas…[“Sure, we can’t explain them independently, particularly if separated from the herd and asked, but we can at least parrot them on petitions, and fend off the skeptics, critics, or analytical naysayers with our social media skills, so we are a true force to be reckoned with, or will be soon; we know it’s true because they told us so“].”

(*Is there are more vague word to describe thousands of government ENTITIES created by legislation and all of them with a budget, operating expenses, history, and mostly with income, most of which most people don’t know exists.  Why? For one, because finances and accounting, let alone commerce and what “incorporation” represents is rocket science ?

Even though most work in or for a corporation (or gov’t), or some, unemployed, don’t, and are hungry, having no “investment income” or “passive income” or income-producing assets (etc.) from which to go buy some food.) Commentary continued below.


Bookmark the links, call in the show (recommended) and “do not pass go” til you understand and make a decision where you stand on the spectrum:  I want to CONTINUE being stupid, or I choose to STOP being stupid and educate myself by, at a minimum, reading to the point of understanding, how the government I SERVE (if you pay taxes, which you do at some point — you are funding where funding isn’t needed and perpetuation the dishonesty), or I want to throw up my hands, get  back on the treadwheel  because that’s what I know how to do best, and leave it to the experts…. Either way, it’s a decision.


Just a reminder — every member of Congress (half of whom are already millionaires) knows about CAFRs.  The question is — do YOU?  When you talk to them, if you ever do, how long will it take for them to figure out that YOU do not?  NB: the more people do, the safer it will be for more of us; this knowledge with follow-through is leverage.



“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” –-Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

CAFR School Week On The Corporation Nation Radio (startedJan. 20th 2014)

For those interested in the subject of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of government (in any country or nation), I’ll be doing [Clint Richardson has done] an extensive in depth history of and explanation of governments audited financial statements. I’ll take phone calls with questions about your own individual line items and balance sheets and help with your comprehension of the terms used in this organized criminal “creative accounting” fraud. [Conversations with called-in Q&A being uploaded to the website, first two available here so far]

Listen live!  Mon-Fr  5-7 Pacific  8-10 Eastern http://republicbroadcasting.org/  Call in: (800) 313 – 9443 Commercial Free Radio Archives http://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/ Also On Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/cnrarchives Shows will be posted here! CAFR SCHOOL Part 1 –  Download –>http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/show61_jan20.mp3 CAFR SCHOOL Part 2 – Download –>http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/show62_jan21.mp3 CAFR SCHOOL Part 3 – coming soon!


“The following are links to study materials and films from all [Clint Richardson’s] previous research posted to [Realitybloger.wordpress] blog, some of which [I’m sure he used] for the show. Here lies an immerse learning library representing my now greying hair!”

(Etc. You get the pattern — the related link is underneath the title)

LGH viewers — There are more links below these on the original site, they are in plain English, contain examples, and if read should result in understanding the message the CAFRs tell the public about how government (1) operates and (2) communicates about its own operations to the public, versus among the various branches.  This information is leverage and needs to be understood

In case you still don’t get it, here’s a segment (like about half) from the Government’s Conflict of Interest:

Government’s Conflict Of Interest https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/why/ (Top part of blog by Clint Richardson)

I am so saddened as of late that these types of “petitions” are the focus of so much wasted energy. Writing, calling, and even worse… emailing your “representative” in this kind of futile effort is the worst part of our mutually controlled opposition. The sense of satisfaction and patriotism that is felt by these actions is indeed exactly the desired effect of these actions. They accomplish nothing, and yet makes whole groups feel a sense of accomplishment. A petition has NO legal jurisdiction. A letter is scanned and then filed in the trash, while emails are dumped into a folder on a digital archive never to be seen again. What a game we play – pawns moving around exactly as we are lead, never changing anything, begging our masters to do what’s right and to start representing us. It’s pathetic! Don’t you understand? The government owns Exxon Mobile. It has controlling stock interest in the company. It owns British Petroleum, Chevron, and any other petroleum based companies you can think of. If it didn’t have a major or controlling financial interest in BP, that gulf oil spill would have been immediately cleaned up! It wouldn’t have cost the government anything to force this corporation to clean up its mess. Don’t you Understand? Of course the government gives billions and billions in R&D grants to Pharmaceuticals and medical companies. Government owns those as well, both national and international. It hands these subsidies to these companies because it is profitable for government!!! It must do this to justify its tax collections. Don’t you understand? They wont stop giving their own profitable businesses subsidies (taxpayer money) just because you say pretty please. They wont stop making a profit to save a few square miles of farmland or housing. And they certainly wont change anything just because a bunch of pussified patriots sign a piece of paper demanding it. And so, I have compiled this list of just the New York State Retirement Fund’s holdings in Pharmaceuticals, oil companies, the media, and other industries. This is only one out of over 200,000 governments, Federal, state, and local. And if just one single government owns this much in these companies, the answers to the following questions should be as clear as day… government owns and profits from these corporations, and passes the laws which regulate them and to guarantee those profits, regardless of what the public wants. The answer to all questions is simple… it’s just business. Why are pharmaceuticals and medical companies out of control and killing people? Why is cancer the number one most profitable business, despite proven cures? Why are vaccines soon to be mandatory without one shred of evidence as to them being medically sound? Why are banks allowed to charge practically unlimited interest despite usury laws? Why are banks allowed to foreclose on millions and millions of homes? Why are banks allowed to ignore state laws in lieu of federal laws? Why are products made in China all over the stinking place? Why are dangerous and poisonous products being imported into America? Why is the American market so saturated with foreign products? Why was Exxon and BP not required to clean up their historical oil spills? Why is oil still being used when such vast and wonderful alternatives are all around us? Why is the media lying and misinforming us at every turn, supporting government in every way? All of these questions are answered by this simple realization… Government owns it all!!! Government is in a direct conflict of interest by being major majority shareholder (owner) of all significant corporations, both foreign and domestic….

Continued from above: Some others (a few) of us had to stop and look, because we could not stay “gainfully employed” while around the courts. And discovered — not through NAFCJ.net, but actually considering the concept of HHS Grants and Nonprofit Incorporations definitely was better than singing change.org petitions without link to the proposed bills, etc.) –the courts AND the school districts, both of them heavily engaged in educating and training (for profit) masses of people literally ARE forms of government. And that while they do NOT need our tax dollars to fund operations (any more), they are still collecting them so people believe they do — and so the masses don’t get too unruly.

Forms of control, forced imprisonment, forced medication, forced disruption of families, and, face it, wars — are ongoing.

I have fought now over two decades the most basic and outrageous forms of organized hatred and spite (including in the form of social, cultural, institutional and of course institutional passivity in the face of known violence) on behalf of personal survival and the next generation, my own children. And the closest I can come to a way to organize a STOP to the insanity is making sure first YOU, then no less than FIVE other people grasp the concept of the CAFR. This may require looking until you find where people sufficiently angry about the various tragedies are ALSO: (a) alert, and not yet (b) brainwashed into (see above descriptions of how NOT to to respond).

I have had some (somewhat unusual probably) lifetime exposure to upper middle, and lower (IF classes are measured by income alone) sectors of the country, and I can speak personally to the ethical and often financial illiteracy of the middle class on the history of the country and on basic government and business operations — as even concepts, , whether they are educated in private or public schools.

Whether people flunk or exceed in our public school system, from K-12 they are still being indoctrinated in how and what to think and believe about our country, rather than being given the freedom, free TIME, the tools, and the motivation to understand it without “group guides” (on public funds) to tell them what to think about what they see.

You cannot grope blindly and understand it (a blogger who refuses to link to THIS blog, but will link to almost anything else, without screening the originating group for identity or legitimacy) even made the excuse, referring to herself and efforts to reform the court, we are like five blind men groping at an elephant. I replied, “Speak for yourself, I blog the elephant in the room, give people a chance and put up a link.”   Eventually this blogger, it seems, took down the entire blog (including plenty of my teaching comments along with it) and started over from scratch with a more simplistic (your basic “CPPA,  Our Broken Courts”) approach.  (http://familycourtinamerica.com). I saved plenty of it, however, so it’s too late; the foolishness was already exposed. Truth-telling is going to make fence-sitters uncomfortable; it is supposed to.  Get off the fence; go through the mental hard work of making some sound decisions!!  And, if there’s been a cult involvement, which seems to be going around in these spheres, detox from it.

Moving on . . . . . Referenced above, here’s the segment from W. Burien’s 9/2010 response to Ellen Brown’s call for Public State Banks (in fact the Public Banking Institute was named and probably website set up in 2011.  Rather than maintain fiscal accountability, it was done under another California nonprofit’s name.  Perhaps there’s really something is in the water out here in the SFBay Area, particularly Berkeley???)

Found (for the first time 1/29/2014, posted same day) at:  CAFR1 on State Run Banks – In Reply to Ellen Brown’s article of 9/10/10 (I’m going to reverse the color scheme above, hopefully this will catch someone’s attention, if we have become a nation of people who only respond to moving pictures and bright animated creations that capture our imagination — for a few months, weeks, or moments at a time…) (Neither writer is responsible for my sense of color….):

CAFR1 on State Run Banks – In Reply to Ellen Brown’s article of 9/10/10:On Fri, 9/10/10, Ellen H Brown wrote:

From: Ellen H Brown Subject: latest article — “A Solution to the Federal Debt Crisis?” Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 6:06 PM

Hi, here is my latest article, posted on Global Research:
“A Solution to the Federal Debt Crisis? Time for Helicopter Ben to Drop Some Money on Mainstream” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20962Best wishes, Ellen Brown www.webofdebt.com

_____________________________________________________________ IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE  Speaking in Plain language for all to understand: CAFR1 on State Run Banks by Walter Burien 09/12/10   Ever hear of the New World Order?  — A NWO primarily run by corporatist government attorneys? Government is the NWO. The NWO is not coming from the outside; it is home grown by institutionalized government finance right here. Over the last seven decades government investments have quietly taken the investment wealth all over. The mortgage bailout mentioned in the article I am replying to cites that $1.25 trillion dollars was used to buy distressed mortgage bonds at the end of 2008. In reality, that money was used to bail out the government’s own investments to keep themselves in the black.

 (Burien, cont’d, @ CAFR1 on State Run Banks – In Reply to Ellen Brown’s article of 9/10/10)“So what is this presentation within the article I am replying to about state run banks promoting?ANSWER: The next step in the ability to steal massive wealth while the public is treated like 100% idiots. The Federal Reserve was created as a centralized valve for constraining or releasing dollars, whereby the economy was controlled. Wealth transfer was consistently accomplished to serve its primary investors, the various institutional investment fund of “government”.The fact that collective governments are the primary investors with the Federal Reserve banks gives the meaning and definition of the “silence is golden” rule.So now that the grand theft has taken place at the end of 2008, phase two goes into operation: “Cut out the middle man and hold the bags of cash yourself”.Disengaging from the Federal Reserve that government has always kept under lock and key in government’s pocket since day one, our government proposes doing it from this point forward directly for themselves through a conglomerate of state run banks.By exercising the blatant greed and their own tendency for theft, already firmly established within their own corporate personas, the state banks can vastly expand the ability to apply fractional reserve banking and do so up front and personal.  This expands their already over- bloated wealth bases.If done as planned, things will appear to smooth out for a few years while the balance sheet numbers massively expand within local governments. Then the final phase of grand theft will be set into play, only done now on the local government level.When that balloon of State run fractional reserve banking bursts, you can kiss the United States goodbye. During the interim leading to such a bust there will be much money changing hands, greasing the skids of perpetuation of this phase, and the economy will appear to be recovering.The international cartels are depending upon, promoting, and joyously awaiting the application of the state’s greed to expand their own internal empires, knowing definitively that when that bubble bursts, which I am sure they will arrange for, they can then walk in and buy or in effect steal everything at 5 cents on the dollar.

I was never a commodities trader, and didn’t see this so quickly — however, neither was I “born yesterday.” From a number of different angles, I can say that this explanation makes sense — and Public Banking Institute — as well as how trustworthy certain fast-talking individuals’ personal (#1) accuracy [accuracy] and (#2) demonstration of concern for the public by choosing honest nonprofits to hang with and be sponsored by (en route to solving global — and of course USA problems) — makes no sense. But of course if you go by pretty websites, then by all means, make life decisions based on website appearances and not contents. Pay no attention to corporate structures or inter-relationships, and of course remember NOT to read (or comprehend) any CAFRs…it might disturb your peace….and re-arrange perspectives. I’d say more but have a post in draft and some uploaded pdfs to go with it.

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I referenced, above, ‘Changing the COnversation” and Ms. Ellen Hodgson Brown, Public Banking Institute and its incorporation track record. Actually, I’d already posted half of this conversation on 1/24/2014 (I tend to focus on a single post at a time, when one is published, sometimes it’s off my chest (knowing it’s been at least published) and not in the front of my active memory, which to tell the truth, has plenty to deal with on a daily basis, and has storage limits and processing limits….

    How and When to Change, Ditch, (or Track) the Conversations of “Public Interest” Crusades. (that’s the title and date — link on sidebar at least until I write about 12 more posts, assuming I do)…

    There is, however, a second part to that comparing the two conversations, which is interesting enough (I feel) to post.

    meanwhile, here’s a link to the EB California State Bar record, notice it spirally in and out of “Inactive” status year by year — and with in a short time of passing the bar “Ineligible to practice law” which could mean any of whatever that definition represents…. among these choices, it says the 1981 suspension was simply failing to pay bar dues. Compare with the track record of the chosen organization for fiscal agent of the Public Banking Institute — at least the were consistent and didn’t file for MANY years in a row… despite revenues that would’ve required them to. As I believe my post notes, who knows what happened before the public accessible files posted on California Charitiable registries (i.e., what happened between 1978 and about 2001/2001) with Inquiring Systems Inc.???

    Not Eligible to Practice Law Those listed as not eligible may not practice law in California. There are several reasons that may result in this status, including suspension, involuntary transfer to inactive status and failure to pay mandatory State Bar fees.

    Not exactly the most stable situation (I note her personal bio mentions 11 years out of the country and a divorce, or an ex, which presumes divorce):

    Ellen Louise H. Brown, Bar # 79248
    A UCBerkeley (undergrad, presumably) with law degree from UCLA School of Law).
    Presently Inactive, but eligible to become active (i.e., not suspended, disbarred, or anything like that).

    Status History

    Effective Date Status Change
    Present Inactive
    1/1/1999 Inactive
    5/6/1998 Active
    1/1/1993 Inactive
    7/15/1992 Active
    1/1/1992 Inactive
    7/22/1991 Active
    1/1/1990 Inactive
    3/8/1989 Active
    1/1/1989 Inactive
    9/10/1988 Active
    1/1/1987 Inactive
    9/19/1984 Active
    7/6/1981 Not Eligible To Practice Law
    1/27/1978 Admitted to The State Bar of California
    Explanation of member status

    She is now wanting to run for State Treasurer and selling the concept of DEBT, it looks like. Part of the system, for sure (http://ellenbrown.com).

    From Austerity to Abundance: Why I Am Running for California Treasurer
    Posted on January 15, 2014 by Ellen Brown

    Governor Jerry Brown and his staff are exchanging high-fives over balancing California’s budget, but the people on whose backs it was balanced are not rejoicing. The state’s high-wire act has been called “the ultimate in austerity budgets.”
    Welfare payments, health care for the poor, and benefits for the elderly and disabled have been slashed. State workers have been downsized. School districts in need of cash have been reduced to borrowing through “capital appreciation bonds” bearing 300% interest. In one notorious case, the Santa Ana school district actually borrowed at 1,000% interest. And the governor acknowledges that California still faces a “wall of debt” amounting to $28 billion. Some analysts put it much higher than that. Read more »
    Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary | 31 Comments »

    Get this:

    In the fall of 2011, a bill for a feasibility study for a state-owned bank passed both houses of the California legislature. The Public Banking Institute, which I founded and chair, was instrumental in helping to get the bill as far as it got. But it died when Jerry Brown vetoed it. His rationale was that we already have a banking committee, and that the matter could be explored in-house. Needless to say, however, we have heard no more about it since.
    I am therefore running for California State Treasurer on a state bank platform, along with Laura Wells, who is running for Controller. We are throwing our bonnets in the ring for the opportunity to show the Governor or his successor that a state-owned bank can be our ticket to returning California to the abundance it once enjoyed.
    I was a recipient of that abundance myself. I got my undergraduate degree at UC Berkeley in the 1960s, when tuition was free; and my law degree at UCLA Law School in the 1970s, when tuition was $700 a year. Today it is $13,000 and $45,000 annually, respectively, for in-state students. In the 1960s, the governor of California was Jerry Brown’s father Pat Brown, a New Deal visionary who believed that investment in education, infrastructure and local business was an investment in the future. Our goal is to revive that optimistic vision in 2014.
    We are running on the endorsement of the Green Party – along with Luis Rodriguez for governor and David Curtis for secretary of state – because Green Party candidates take no corporate money. Candidates who take corporate money – and that means nearly all conventional candidates – are beholden to large corporate interests and cannot properly represent the interests of the disenfranchised 99%.

    Yep, there’s a reason they don’t take corporate money IF that’s true — they’ve already stolen from the public through tax-exempt multi-layered nonprofits which show complete disregard for the public’s right to some transparency, and of course for regulations which apply to — themselves, i.e., charitable trusts (which are to file annual RRFs to California, and Tax Returns to the IRS depending on revenues, etc.).

    What comes to mind, personally, is ACORN….
    And a few other examples. It’s a very arrogant generation, seems to me (I missed it by a few years, personally, and possibly got sidetracked? by actually having a profession and pursuing it. Silly me, didn’t know the larger picture…..)

    Just stay tuned (or heck, research it yourself). Check out the comments field.

    Note — I’m sorry to see Carl Herman (who knows about CAFRs also and is a Californian, I think, and has also been exposed to Burien’s writings, looked at them, reported the holdings)…. and this is a Jan. 2014 approval also:

    Carl Herman, on January 15, 2014 at 7:54 pm said:
    Awesome, Ellen! Thank you for clearly and powerfully communicating our economic central facts
    0 2 Rate This


    Carl Herman, on January 16, 2014 at 6:31 am said:
    Hi Ellen,
    I just shared your article with ~2,000 Advanced Placement Economics teachers
    0 2 Rate This


    Let's Get Honest

    January 29, 2014 at 6:36 pm

  2. […] Get Real(itybloger)! — Call In, Read the Links on CAFRs, Review Regularly. January 23, 2014 […]

  3. The post referenced above – -here’s the link. The visuals (i.e., websites of advisory boards, related nonprofits, etc.) on this one should be interesting…


    After having fired off a comment (on the site), gotten the response, responded to the non-response and made the points I still have no answer — why would someone talking about public banking in the public interest, be choosing for a fiscal agent, a non-filing (properly) nonprofit like ISI? I also asked a few other questions (FYI, the active/inactive state bar status isn’t the major issue; but having been out of the country during welfare reform years in this country and not addressing it, IS a valid issue; major restructuring of the federal finances, including where they went, needs to be looked at.

    The next several posts (assuming I can get them out) demonstrating the PLANNED re-write of the Social Security Act to privatize the service providers, and put the screws to low-income families some more. Our government (particularly HHS and in this subject field, also DOJ, DOL, etc.) is simply taking its vast stores and pouring them back into corporations.

    Burien talks about how government (and again, that’s a PLURAL and COLLECTIVE as there are pooled accounts; also see CALPERS, one of the largest public pension investing platforms around) is itself investing in corporations — not just in, itself.

    While Fitts, separately, confirms that there is a policy (not just practice) of investing — at least as to HUD, and HHS is definitely related) — with a NEGATIVE ROI for the public, but using the public as the credit guarantee for private corporations. Such a deal!

    Anyhow, while all of these want to lecture us about how the working classes should behave, so the various corporations make sure to have adequate low-wage workers, and the privatized prisons are kept to capacity for THEIR shareholders, I think it would make a whole lot more sense for both “low-income” families and (if they could get off their working behinds inbetween going to and coming from work to look at this) ought to seriously study how the wealthiest running the place GOT that way — and how the tax code relates to this.

    Again– cut out the taxes, starting with the income tax, (remove tax perks for the religious groups while you’re at it) and let’s see how balance of power is redistributed!!! Might some of the wage-earners have more free time to study their CAFRs, or in fact, anything else they set their minds to?

    Again, I say this seeing the practices — population control. Figure out who wants NWO and who doesn’t, and make a decision which you want (IMHO)…then make also a decision, accordingly, who are friends and who are talking like friends but working another agenda.

    Well, back to those other draft posts…

    Let's Get Honest

    February 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: