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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Suppose I’m Right, here. . . What Would You Do when the Lights go On? [Published Mar. 5, 2014].

with one comment

 [post is 20,000 words [3/6/2014], will probably be split in half later.  Has many examples. Much of this length comes from a TAGGS table of “Faith-based” grants]

(Suppose I’m Right, here. . . What Would You Do when the Lights go On? [Published Mar. 5, 2014]. <=includes case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ending in “-2os”).

See also nearby post published 3-23-2014, “A Different Kind of Attention Leads to Sound Judgment” also being reformatted in 2017). I have upgraded the blog (allowing more media storage of the type of image used to SHOW what I’m talking about in annotated screenprint form). If and where you see an annotated screenprint (of a tax return, or any other web page) in THIS post, it’s been added recently, and may contain information which came on any entity discussed since this post was first published three years ago (as I now write).  I also incorporated these two post titles, shortened & with publication dates, into the blog motto and moved the former “Uncommon Analysis” motto into the blog’s Title (which now will display on window frames in most browsers, below the individual  URL open at the time). “Different Kind of Judgment” title now reads:

A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment  [Original, March 23, 2014.  Reformatting and Reminders March 14, 2017, Three Years Later]. [<== Post title with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-2qm”]

Upgrading the storage capacity of the blog affected its fonts and color display; in addition since producing more (though not 100%) complete Tables of Contents in easier-to-view (and click to access) word-processing (printed to clickable pdfs) format, I found myself increasingly bringing back some formatting techniques I just did not have earlier on, into the earlier posts, as well as (for some key posts) writing 2017 updates on organizations, entities, and initiatives I did notice and name back in, for example, 2011 and 2012.  //”Let’s Get Honest,” writing 3/15/2017.

P/REVIEW (3/15/2017):  Despite the length, this post has many single sections, many are clearly marked inside thick-bordered boxes with colorful background, which I believe distill and explain the problem mothers face when attempting to make sense of their treatments in the family courts after identifying and reporting abuse (of themselves or their children) IN the courts.

To Whom It Concerns — Suppose I’m Right?

. . . . In general, and in what I’m about to prove, right now? . . . . Suppose that when I report what I see (and hear), I am seeing and hearing quite well, based on my report versus independently observed reality?

Even though it’s quite the minority opinion, suppose it’s far closer to the mark than others?

In fact years after some of this started hitting the Internet, people reporting consistently, diligently (and accurately) on these matters are so few and far between that we get confused with each other by outsiders, the language is just that different.   “….all you people look alike….”

To Whom It Concerns among the:

  • 254 or so followers,  [@2017 — now over 1,000.  Not that this is a lot, but it is a change…”followers” referring only to those who’ve submitted email addresses to be notified on each new posts; not to be confused with visitors, which count is much higher over time…]
  • Others who receive each new tweeted post because they follow Lets Get Honest on Twitter, or
  • Among those I report on, and who are monitoring to see how much, how close to the mainline truths are “out” so far, (bloggers do get to know this in back-office functions; I’ve even posted a few samples on an About This Blog page, i.e., who was watching this blog when), and are curious if and when their gigs are up;
  • Or those who click after reading some comment I submit elsewhere along the lines of “get real!” or “What about this?” that indicate some of us simply don’t talk like the others, when addressing:

Family (and Conciliation) Court Matters

(and an Uncommon Analysis of the Operations, Practices & History, thereof) 

Suppose I’m right?

Some holes are fathomless, they seem to have no end.  But, suppose, we have already hit the bedrock, here in this blog[*], of: Fundamental, Urgent and Relevant Truths — what would you do when the lights go on?

[* including the many links to other sources, but what’s here, is my assembly of that information, my general roadmap, and “Analysis.”  Incidentally, it’s also copyrighted to me, Let’s Get Honest (i.e., this blogger), except where quoting other copyrighted material, and subject to wordpress Terms of Use]

Or is the dark more comfortable, because the lights tend to show things that need to be cleaned up,

. . . . .for example nationally respected [by whom?] experts and consultants whose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policies on major aspects of the truth is resulting in too many dumbed-down, distracted and misled mothers,

. . . .who (have been) willing to mortgage the greater truth [entire categories of it] for a stripped-down version, minus accurate vocabulary and plus folklore on “how and why judges (etc.) make decisions,” but at least with the press coverage of the personal drama, and a nice supportive group of on-line friends who also don’t do lookups, use TAGGS, or apparently question their leadership much, but are quick to fight back in comments fields others who do. 

Over time, while new generations of roadkill, children STILL being murdered in or around supervised visitation (or court-ordered) exchanges, sometimes and/or with the father, or mother, other times with bystanders — and lives are disrupted (and bankrupted) — the conversation from this assembly of experts has barely changed, except “hitch your story to this wagon, and hope for results through self-selecting intermediaries…” and they have now picked up, year by year, more connections with the “court-connected corps” crowd, who are hardly about to get confronted on matters such as relate to misdirected, diverted, and otherwise inappropriate federal grants to the states [i.e., such as some of us DID report on] to help increase the misery level in the average contested custody case. 

Other than what I’ve been saying (show and telling) all along, the next two to three posts, I have recently seen and come to a (firm) understanding of some rock-solid and hard-to-accept truths.  BUT, I believe the assessment is good.  First, let me outline them (and it is in out-line form).

Then, below, I’ve referenced some math (proof) terms, i.e., Proof is a Process with Elements.  Propaganda, on the other hand, is a swirl of insinuations.   My “SUPPOSE” are in “SUPPOSITION” format, an IF/THEN process.  I feel we have to first establish that it matters!  And that truth (or at least proofs of it) have a form.  So the words:

LEMMA, THEOREM, PROPOSITION, and COROLLARY — we’re talking, how to talk some sense, instead of NONsense — have to make an appearance.  Look for this photo, below (twice):

confused student

Etymology On-line (good reference for understanding words’ origins).  It has an index; all definitions below from this:source.

lemma (n.) Look up lemma at Dictionary.com1560s, first in mathematics, from Greek lemma (plural lemmata) “something received or taken; an argument; something taken for granted,” from root of lambanein “to take” (see analemma).

So the word “lemma” apparently means “taken,” (“taken for granted,”) or in our terms, we might call it the opposite, a “given.”  (“Given that so and so is true, then  . . . . “)

analemma (n.) Look up analemma at Dictionary.com1650s, from Latin analemma “the pedestal of a sundial,” hence the sundial itself, from Greek analemma “prop, support,” from analambanein “to receive, take up, restore,” from ana- “up” (see ana-) + lambanein “to take,” from PIE root *(s)lagw- “to seize, take” (cf. Sanskrit labhaterabhate “seizes;” Old English læccan “to seize, grasp;” Greek lazomai “I take, grasp;” Old Church Slavonic leca “to catch, snare;” Lithuanian lobis “possession, riches”).

You’ve probably heard of this next word — which means, “oh my, both can’t be right– I’m going to have to choose between two.”  Hence, “di-lemma.”

dilemma (n.) Look up dilemma at Dictionary.com1520s, from Late Latin dilemma, from Greek dilemma “double proposition,” a technical term in rhetoric, from di- “two” + lemma“premise, anything received or taken,” from root of lambanein “to take” (see analemma). It should be used only of situations where someone is forced to choose between two alternatives, both unfavorable to him. But even logicians disagree on whether certain situations are dilemmas or mere syllogisms.

So the “Lemma” is a sort of given; next words: the Corollary, is something attached to it — “if that’s true, so is this” — a PROPOSITION is putting them side by side to come to a conclusion about the situation, and a THEOREM is a little stronger, we got something going there as to truth…

corollary (n.) Look up corollary at Dictionary.comlate 14c., from Late Latin corollarium “a deduction, consequence,” from Latin corollarium, originally “money paid for a garland,” hence “gift, gratuity, something extra;” and in logic, “a proposition proved from another that has been proved.” From corolla“small garland,” diminutive of corona “crown” (see crown (n.).

The corollary to be “correlated” must actually come from something proved, and it’s not a corollary unless logical deduction was the path from one to the other proposition.

I guess if someone hits two (truth) birds with one stone, that’s rewarding — a corollary.  If one is looking to assess the situation, and by determining whether or not ONE proposition? (or “lemma,” whichever!…) is true and then obviously there’s a corollary, it’s like a bonus point in the pursuit of truth.  the pursuit of truth, for example, is important when one is in protection, survival, rescue, or defense situations — or simply looking to understand what’s going on!!

proposition (n.) Look up proposition at Dictionary.commid-14c., “a setting forth as a topic for discussion,” from Old French proposicion “proposal, submission, (philosophical) proposition” (12c.), from Latin propositionem (nominative propositio) “a setting forth, statement, a presentation, representation; fundamental assumption,” noun of action from past participle stem of proponere (see propound). Meaning “action of proposing something to be done” is from late 14c. General sense of “matter, problem, undertaking” recorded by 1877. Related: Propositional.

theorem (n.) Look up theorem at Dictionary.com1550s, from Middle French théorème (16c.) and directly from Late Latin theorema, from Greek theorema “spectacle, sight,” in Euclid “proposition to be proved,” literally “that which is looked at,” from theorein “to look at, behold” (see theory).

Proposition is “let’s discuss it.”  Theorem points towards something seen (evidence which can be beheld — viewed — looked at).

Pythagorean (adj.) Look up Pythagorean at Dictionary.com1540s, from Latin Pythagoreus “of or pertaining to Pythagoras,” Greek philosopher of Samos (6c. B.C.E.), whose teachings included transmigration of the soul and vegetarianism (these are some of the commonest early allusions in English). The Pythagorean theorem is the 47th of the first book of Euclid.

So, language really counts; it matters.  To SPEAK (on-line, includes to write) means placing words into a coherent (or incoherent) pattern of statements, either at one place and time, or many places, over time.

When someone’s, or some group’s, or group of groups’  (including but not limited to self-selecting group of professionals within certain fields) SPEECH continues incoherent (in meaning; things don’t add up) — this could be accidental, because the speakers are distracted or somehow disabled (for example a PTSD state or outside influence may be involved).  Or, you could be listening to a sales pitch designed to distract.

Over the long-run, if it’s consistently internally and externally incoherent, it’s likely intentional, and designed to manipulate, not just persuade through reason.  There could be a group motive; i.e., what’s the relationship with others outside the immediate conversations?  What is the pattern of the other relationships in the room?  When they are better known (which takes some time, and definitely some attention, some lookups), probable intentions and motives become more clear.

So that’s what we’re looking at here.

I’m not a math brainac (and don’t even do calculus), math and logic are about proof and disproof.  But if things don’t add up, they just don’t add up, so why continue yakking along the same lines, or listen to others who do?

Would it not help to have some way of screening the information, or sorting it (INbox, OUTbox), to distinguish  “doesn’t add up” from “adds up,” and to make better decisions on when “where do I put my focus and spend my time, en route to regaining contact with my kids, staying alive (or keeping them alive), with a long-term view to figuring out whether OR NOT these family and conciliation, problem-solving, holistic, unified, high-conflict docket (etc.) courts are worth saving and fixing, and/or whether a more appropriate practice for the public (nationwide) might be quarantining them, or administering a shut-down, like any hazardous waste, or hazardous construction zone — or HUD slumlord property, someone’s real estate investment en route to a political career — as unfit for human habitation?

When a stranger drives by, or a devastated parent refers you to a group who are offering  enlightenment on your struggles, or to help recover ransomed minor children, and your friend has other friends who offer hope (not results) but they claim are experienced in this — would you notice?  Or have we not yet heard how cults do recruiting?  Do the leaders show up on street level and talk to strangers, or do they send out the initiated?  Or, at a minimum, network marketing?

I have watched certain things [groups] developing, many from Northern California, where my STILL OPEN court case has been ever since the restraining order was stripped off, and Dad got essentially relieved of first, basic duties to society (supporting his own offspring through minimal child support payments, and through at least pretending to look for work), thereafter his parenting duties, by abandoning our stolen children with a stranger, leaving them to fend for themselves and deal with people who, obviously, had thought through the process several steps in advance — and with whom I still have to deal, regularly, after all that other trauma.  

And I have decided, it being 2014, and the information starting to seep through the cross-talk that other types of information exist, that …  

2014 is the year to finish exposing the “Crisis in the Courts” crowd’s determination to be THE priesthood of the enlightened when it comes to protecting mothers and children in the courts.  

That means, who’s who, practices, common speech (jargon) and probable agenda, which I simply disagree with — both the obvious agenda of stringing along victims with hope of delivery, while negotiating a series of dangerous compromises with their opponents.  It’s a selfish, not an altruistic, agenda

And to carry it out requires establishing a cult-like following, complete with censorship, manipulative talk, and driving outside influence away from the people they are poised to rescue.   I have survived years of spousal abuse (battering, coercive control, intimate partner VIOLENCE) and know how it’s done.  I then was driven/hauled into the family court venue from a civil restraining court docket (terms I didn’t know at the time) and learned ITS agenda. I have also in the interim years seen how certain others who prefer to enable the prior abuse, attempt to blame me for it, and in general focus on destroying or intimidating witnesses (not just me) to prior violence and a clear ongoing agenda — with a profit (dollars), not just the arrogant need to win — motive already on the table.  At MOST points in this game, the profit motive is active.

And yet the Crisis in the Courts crowd (members) are so vague, as if completely clueless about finances and the money trail (which I doubt they actually are), about how money works and where it flows to and from (get real!- some are formerly or currently lawyers, others college professors, others practicing psychologists or psychiatrists or doctors — and they don’t know where funding comes from in their own field, or goes to???) that in their rhetorical world, it’s a distant, and minor player.  If referenced, it’s a “cottage industry” sometimes or large numbers — with no validation given — other times.    At no point is there an attempt to systematically (or, at all) educate their followers on the finances of the courts.

By “educate” I don’t mean “teach to parrot,” (reblog, refer, repeat, Tweet and link…) but provide the tools to look and deduce such that others could go through the argument and withstand evidence “to the contrary” which disagrees with the theorems and assumptions.

RE: Protecting mothers, or parents, and their children, in the courts.

Being true miracle workers, (the Crisis in the Family Courts) they’re going to do it, apparently, without referencing any 1996 welfare reform-funded diversion activities at all — not even the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, the Faith-Based Initiatives at Governmental level in several states, and talking consistently as if the professionals (targeted to be re-trained by these professionals) are anything other than just “un-enlightened” as to the matters above.  And they are going to continue to do this as though judges were not handcuffing attorneys to wheelchairs (MN, 2013 Fall: Michelle MacDonald in the Grazzini-Rucki case), doing courthouse roundups (February, 2012 Lackawanna County, PA, “courthouse roundup”[1]), hiring cronies to work without a contract right from the courts (there, Connecticut, where else is this NOT done?) or consistently letting private nonprofits formed, often by public employees, simply use the state court systems (even from out of state) to just solicit business without (if it couldn’t be controlled, at least it could be publicized) so much as a comment identifying specific NONPROFITS or COURT_CONNECTED CORPS (vs. individuals, or broadly defined job descriptions, i.e., “custody evaluators…”), let alone revealing that such nonprofits tend to be organized in networks (statewide and across states), specifically to obtain funding streams made available, in significant part, by federal funding to the states, or the courts.

[1] Where even people without business before a judge that day were prevented — by bailiffs — from leaving the courthouse so a judge could finish her business, bring people in by force, and lecture them — context some (not ALL the people in the courthouse that day) parents had been protesting outside the courthouse.   [Paragraph above, incl. this footnote, expanded during 2017 update].

See recent posts.  [See next table from TAGGS.HHS.gov] Apparently none of these initiatives, grants, and grantees exist, in some worlds: (just recipients with the phrase “faith-based” in them.  

Notice Ohio? Notice the little one ($75,000) near the bottom from California? — what’s only $75K, right (other than, I could sure live on it easy…..) — however I just did a quick look, again, at the corporation and charity status in my state (DELINQUENT, hasn’t filed for years) and there’s $6 million showing as revenues which you can’t see on a tax return.  Housing (HUD) gets mixed in with helping low-income people (who get HHS help too, right?).  Yet real estate is one of the biggest ways to retain — or hide — money around.  But as who wants a LARGER post, I’ll move it…

Fl Yr Grantee Name St Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA  Principal Investigtr Sum of Actions
13 Governor`s Ofc of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives AL 90SN0033 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 02/20/2013 93711 LISA CASTALDO $- 54,876
13 Governors Office of Community & Faith Based Initiatives MI 90SN0021 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 05/14/2013 93711 GREG ROBERTS $- 9,306
11 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 10/18/2010 93086 Greg Hargett $ 0
10 Governor`s Ofc of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives AL 90SN0033 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 05/14/2010 93711 LISA CASTALDO $ 0
10 New Jersey State Office of Faith Based Initiative NJ 90EJ0121 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) 04/22/2010 93009 EDWARD LAPORTE $ 0
10 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 09/24/2010 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 446,675
09 Governors Office of Community & Faith Based Initiatives MI 90SN0021 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 09/23/2009 93711 GREG ROBERTS $ 250,000
09 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives IA 90SI0016 ARRA – STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES FUND – NON-PROFIT CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 09/17/2009 93711 DARYL VANDERWILT $ 1,000,000
09 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 08/21/2009 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 543,371
08 Faith-Based Solutions, LLC NV 90EJ0108 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 08/11/2008 93009 LAUREN SOULAM $ 500,000
08 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/14/2008 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 544,140
07 Faith-Based Solutions, LLC NV 90EJ0108 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 09/18/2007 93009 LAUREN SOULAM $ 500,000
07 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives IA 90IJ0859 THE COMPASSION CAPITAL (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM-RURAL 08/04/2007 93009 DR DARYL VANDERWILT $ 50,000
07 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/20/2007 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 150,399
06 Alta Vista Faith-Based Initiative Corporation TX 90IJ0624 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 09/23/2006 93009 ROBERT CHAVEZ $ 50,000
06 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 07/28/2006 93009 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $ 1,000,000
06 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 09/24/2006 93086 KRISTA SISTERHEN $ 544,140
05 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 07/18/2005 93009 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $ 1,000,000
04 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 09/07/2004 93647 EARL W HAMILTON $ 525,000
04 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 07/23/2004 93647 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $ 750,000
03 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 09/12/2003 93647 BISHOP HAROLD CALVIN RAY $ 525,000
02 Faith Based Community Development Corp. CA 90ED0060 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING PROJECTS – PA 4 09/14/2002 93570 DANIEL SCOTT $ 75,000
02 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 09/15/2002 93647 BISHOP HAROLD CALVIN RAY $ 700,000
[Note:  This search — apparently the search filter in recipient name was “faith-based” and the columns selected, without specifying year or state — can be repeated at TAGGS.HHS.Gov/advanced search.  The data will be updated, and once run, will produce a system-generated hyperlink (above table, to the far right), a “tinyurl” which can then be shared.  In addition, since TAGGS user interface was revised, you can also sort search results by any column.  But (user beware), other restrictions have surfaced — only 25 results visible per page, no “Basic Search” using an EIN# is possible (EIN#s would never be displayed, but formerly could be search) and a decade or more of data has been removed from “Basic Search.”  As well as specific CFDA@s (column above, 3rd from right) are no longer selectable under “Advanced Search” drop-down list, therefore even if data on them (previous to 2007) was available, you couldn’t search BY those specific CFDA#s.  Some have specifically to do with domestic violence prevention funding, too.  My recent posts provide links to official (CRS – Congressional Research Service — reports on the unreliability of federal spending data, including public laws passed in attempts to clean it up and consolidate the information (the responsibility for USASpending.gov is now under the Treasury Dept, not the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and it was mentioned that as to grants the data is LESS consistent with federal agency data than for contracts.  These references also provide links to other agency search databases.]

[I’ve studied several of the above; for example Faith-based Solutions, LLC (Nevada) was a scam, which was caught — building houses in Haiti; it was featured in Nevada investigative newspaper. So was a lot of Ohio’s office.  I DNR Iowa (but see size).  I’m looking up the California one).

When US President George W. Bush began his office with certain Executive Orders establishing an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (or, see exact terms) — continued to this day under slightly different terms with Pres. Obama (see “Joshua DuBois”) clearly some groups were prepared — and incorporated accordingly.  This had been an area of contention leading up to welfare reform of 1996, however apparently simply ordering the deed done, was quicker and more effective (1/29/2001 GWBush, look it up) than waiting for legislative approval which wasn’t likely to be coming soon.  [Speaking of Executive Orders vs. Congressional Authorizations, I am writing that last phrase within the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s administration…]

Already, around the same time and as prompted by the National Governors’ Association (among others), Governor Keating of Oklahoma had made the executive leadership (of the state) funds-grab for forced marriage-promotion statewide, TANF purpose IV, and started DIVERTING welfare funds away from custodial mothers to noncustodial fathers and service providers, some of who were from other states (like Colorado), and several of who were in on the planning.  By the time we were hit with 9/11/2001, some of the impact of the faith-based executive order was, perhaps, not front and center on the public’s attention — BUT the funding continued.  So, CALIFORNIA’s selection of ‘FAITH BASED” organizations, a few are still standing.  Notice, the one that got the grant was incorporated in 1998, and probably had a heads-up on what was about to come.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

Some of the above terms involve federal money and have the word “MARRIAGE” in them — are they not possibly a topic when it comes to “FIXING THE COURTS,” and resistance to letting protective, nonabusive parents go when there’s been violence in the home?

To Be Continued, this California Faith Based Community Development Corporation shares an EIN# (per TAGGS, not per the Secretary of State) with one in Florida, which I discovered when I looked up that CALIFORNIA Corporation — in its home state, from there got the EIN#, and plugged the EIN# back into Recipient search under TAGGS.HHS.gov. I came up with a Florida Corporation (different name, looked that up, it showing a DIFFERENT EIN#  (So who’s to know whether the $700K the FLORIDA corporation got, per TAGGS, ever reached it or not? Because meanwhile, that FLORIDA corporation (filed by 4 individuals with the same last name: “Gallon”) then moved to Georgia. Hmm…

So who really knows how much money is “MIA” nationwide, or associated with certain programs? I don’t know.

Maybe it’s easier to go back and talk psychology and custody evaluations with no reference whatsoever to the existence of ANY federal grants streams designed to affect custody matters?? If we shut our eyes and pretend hard enough, perhaps this Land of Oz will turn back into Kansas again, and we can quit being faced with real-world grown-up problems, not just custody issues, but also money matters affecting them?

(I’ve been blogging steadily, and teaching others at least that Welfare Reform took place, nearly 20 years ago, and should perhaps??? be a topic; that AFCC has hit its 50th anniversary in 2013, and should be mentioned, by name (admission that it exists and is a player in custody matters), in certain circles; that compliant 501(c)3s, who are not exempt from filing either through not enough revenues, or the historic “religious-exempt,” have a paper trail that should be considered as EVIDENCE, alongside absence or presence of PROOF, in the policies women are supposed to ask Congress (or their state legislatures) for next time round, as per these 501(c)3’s recommendations.

And that court-connected corporations (whether or not they’re legitimate) do have billings records).  That individuals can indeed submit testimony to State Legislative Task Forces [Anne Stevenson has been moving and reviewing mountains of evidence, specifically in Connecticut (see Item 3), and in a breakthrough success, actually got AFCC’s name in national media, as to its incorporation habits while operating out of the judiciary.   Within two short pages, more topics were raised about “The System” than will ever be found in “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody,” with proper vocabulary, too.  I just found the link (today), haven’t read it all — however the four points raised, gives labels and terms that hook into systems; anyone could follow up as they are SPECIFIC.  Afterwards, examples are attached, showing readers also, what examples of evidence at least LOOK like!

From what I can tell, more was accomplished by this ONE journalist/reporter (and mother, incidentally) in approximately three? years, than in approximately the past ten years (2003-2013) of the “Crisis in the Courts Crowd.”

On the other hand, individuals who were not making decisions on who to follow by “how connected ARE they?  Will Dr. Phil give them a spot?  Will my story go national? Do they run conferences, have they got books?  I’m confused, please guide me!” COULD have and SHOULD HAVE had the common sense to do better, earlier.

About PROOF:

Proof has format, elements, and the elements relate to each other leading to a logical conclusion, or close to one. Vague ramblings (some are below) which don’t have self-contained links to outside evidence, are just that.  In these matters, corporate identity, and chronology (history of events/timelines) matter and should be shared and understood WELL.

confused student

After this drill, I”ll post more evidence that my particular “Lemmas” are true, resulting in a Proposition, perhaps even a proved theorem, hopefully leading to a conclusion.  Along the way, those corollaries are also enlightening — for example, what does it say about us to continue funding insanity?  

Before simply posting my Suppositions 1 & 2 and Drawn Conclusions about #1, the AFCC Crowd (Meyer Elkin et al), #2, the Stunning Validation/Origins of Psychoanalysis/Assault on  the Truth Crowd, and a few assertions about who they are in re: The Truth (and each other), AND their hypothetical relationship to the more recent “Our Flawed, Broken Courts which Need Fixing” crowd (#3), I have to go through this “Process of Proof” stuff.

And give some fantastic examples of what it is NOT.  Proof has form, it has elements (which are themselves reasonably proved on their own) and then there’s the relating one to another to come to a conclusion. This does take work, and most people seem to want to skip it, focusing instead more on networking.

For example, the first extended section of quotes below, a sampler of how utterly lacking in the FORM of something which can be proved (as opposed to simply publicized), comes from the “Our Flawed, Broken Courts which Need Fixing” crowd.  This (I will probably call  “Group 3,”) in part because they’re more recent, actually make an appearance in my own SUPPOSE propositions, or I wouldn’t go to all the trouble of illustrating, outlining and “propositioning.”

Although not for sex….

Then (next post or so) I’m going to talk about “Founding Families” of the various groups.

There might be better shorthand for representing these groups, but if anything is going to be proved, some labels and relationships (representations) are going to apply — and then assembling them sensibly in relationship to each other, similar to  an “equation” (if “solutions” are being recommended, would it not be wise to state the “problems” in some sort of format?).

Problems Improperly Stated (Observed) Don’t Get Solved.  The Language and Logic of Math helps:

What’s the Price of Peas (4lbs)?

Simple problem:  “What’s the price of four pounds of frozen peas today?” — context is fairly simple:  What kind of peas?  Where (what’s that store selling them for), do you have any coupons, and is there a bulk discount.  It’s situation-specific, Time-specific, a single-purchase and fairly defined today.

How Hard Is it to buy Four Pounds of Frozen Peas, in areas that sell them?  [actually, I’ve been through plenty of times when I couldn’t — see “economic abuse/control/monitoring” but, for the rest:

You get a few facts, eliminate or consider any sales or coupons, locate the price, and have a very few facts to juggle:  How much, either per pound (if single-pound size), and where P=Price/lb. and C = Cost at checkout, 4P = C. or, if we choose, say, two 2# packages, it’s just 2(2P) = C.  Can I afford it today (not counting tomorrow or other matters), look what you have on hand, look at “C” and if C is less than what I have, the answer, at least for the moment, is YES.  If not, NO.  Planning a budget?  That’s another matter, more variables, but either way, SOME plans can be made.


Why aren’t Family Court Cases, seems like, ever getting, and staying CLOSED?  

Why, if it’s true, are non-violent parents losing contact (court-ordered custody) of children they raised after leaving abuse?   Does fatherlessness Cause or is it a Result of prior criminal behavior?  What causes crime?  What causes abuse?  What causes poverty and what should the government do about it?  Why do all these judges keep writing those orders?  Why is there such a demand for foster parents?  What causes making all those abusive biological parents?   

But, when we are talking about complex systems with unknown, unpredictable, major variables which may be in process for — oh, say 18 years or so (till all kids turn 18, at least) and how is this going to affect the “OUTCOME” — oversimplifying based on hearsay, minus even defining the courts, hardly helps.

For example, I don’t see in the legislation or in the rhetoric around the groups setting up the courts in the first place, that “protecting children” was particularly on the map.  So on what basis are we complaining that they aren’t?

For example — how subject to expressing in some POLICY formula does the solution to ANY major social or legal/judicial practices problem, with all these variables? 

  • Now, we have much more complex problems, such as domestic violence custody-related roadkill, or women falsely alleging the same; judges that can’t (or don’t) see straight, participants that lie, courts that resonate to “relationship” talks instead of evidence, and ordering services vs. closing the case equitably.  We’ve got the financial incentives to the courts from the Feds (i.e., TANF factor), we’ve got the “cronies” factor, the potential moneylaundering sinkholes factor, the one parent hides his/her money better than the other and can live off the grid, the kidnapping threat factor, the conflict of rhetorics (criminal law vs. family law) and ALL kinds of variables in these courtrooms.  We’ve got the “we’re in business with one of the judges, and it’s not been declared,” the “dual-docketing case system” (yes, that’s a factor), the fact that the courts funding is in part dependent on how fast they handle how many cases, and satisfy certain federally, ah, “supported” outcomes.
  • We also have the re-gressive religious vs. pro-gressive permissive factor, and the sociopath factors.  The “one parent is in prison” factor.  We have the human fallibility factor, and the judicial/legal arrogance factors.  All in all, this would be a highly complex formula IF we wanted to know HOW to stop getting kids killed, their decent parents from living a very, very long nightmare (and becoming homeless, or dysfunctional in the process), and the “while we were sleeping some people came up with some new innovations for new professions for services to the courts.

We know this stuff gets truly messy, right?  IF SO:  (Supposition “A” — life’s messy and the family law courts are worse).

Then — how does it make sense, when confused about SO MUCH, to just head for an overly simplistic solution that doesn’t resemble “proof” on closer examination– even if it’s easier to promote, and besides we’re all Dear Friends on the Same Page with similar agenda?

PROOFS have some FORMATS, and the presents of several experts who agree with others shows agreement among experts– not “proof.”

What we have, in too many circles, is “The Witness of the Experts” in (consistently) so broad, so vague and so (“un-linked”) described as one might tell a bed-time story to a child, only the subject matter is adult.

It’s not very nice to parody or mock others.  On the other hand, in my book, it’s not nice to talk to adults as though they were kids, and when this kind of talk comes to town, I recommend not rolling out the red carpet.  So, parody it is:

I’ve read a LOT of this, so will paraphrase.  First level:  BedTime Story Folklore and Fairy Tales.  Read and admit — it’s not that far off base! (courtesy, yours truly…)

Once upon a time there were some misled custody evaluators — and judges who believed myths, and sheriffs who carried out their orders.  Together, these people ruled the custody court systems of the land with an iron hand.  The true, good genuine people, especially the protective mothers, were crying and hurting because the sheriffs and judges and custody evaluators in the town couldn’t tell the big bad wolves in their daytime, courtroom disguise as human beings and as good fathers, from their real, true natures as growling dangerous beasts who preyed on children,  snatching them from their schools, bedrooms, or court-ordered visitation exchanges, and sometimes bit their mothers, too.  What’s worse after several rounds of coming before the judges, the frightened Mommies in the courtrooms would start either crying, or getting angry, or going real flat in countenance (so they wouldn’t get in trouble for crying, or getting angry). In short, weren’t very convincing in court.

These judges and evaluators meant well, but  they simply weren’t educated in how to tell the difference.  As you can imagine, their untrained eyes (like:  JUDGES and CUSTODY EVALUATORS??) might not be able to tell the difference, not even the women judges.  See, these big bad wolves only came out and bared their teeth, and stole children, or bit their (spouses, partners, etc.) when the sheriffs and judges (and custody evaluators, here) weren’t looking. In the courtroom, they cleaned up pretty good and looked domesticated.

  All the Land was Sorrowful and the courts were overloaded with good parents seeking justice, or at least to protect themselves and their kids, and Big Bad Wolves seeking more babies and children to eat for supper (or sell on the black market…)

Things were really  bad! Until…..

.. along came a new generation of better-informed experts, who loved the true good people, knew how to listen to mothers in distress, and had experience in just how hard it was attempting to convert Big Bad Wolves (BBWs) into human beings and good loving men.  In fact, some of them really knew WHY do they DO that?

Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling MenThese new experts got together the best of their best, and published a Field Guide to telling Bad Wolves from Real People, and also to speak for the Mommies and their now grown-up kids, who (somehow) had forgotten how to speak up on their own after all these traumas, and anyhow wouldn’t be believed  if they did (see “gender”…).  With the brave Mommies telling their terrible tales, and the Wise Expert Consultants interpreting, a chosen few of the distressed Moms then continued to stand by the NextGen BetterInformed Experts, forming a mutually beneficial traveling troupe in the best interests of ALL the children in the land.  The Moms groups did Mom Outreach and News Updates, sometimes conferences, while the experts flew around the land teaching and informing the custody court system personnel the true Path to Protecting Children (based on the latest research), and trying to get an audience with the King, or at least his counselors.

In fact, if the people of the land were willing — or could help persuade the keepers of the keys to the court-connected-lockbox, a few gold coins of investment into better trainings would surely reap more happiness and safer boys and girls.  A few villages had already tried this.

What’s really amazing — these experts could speak to and empathize with almost ANYone — bad wolves, judges and evaluators and fathers’ rights AND normal guys and domestic violence groups— and of course the terribly-treated lovers and mothers who also were fooled by these men so often, they needed ongoing coaching and healing for their ongoing abuses…

Moral of the Story:  Wouldn’t you like to have a better-trained BBW-detector (“Big Bad Wolf”) and their manuals, and consulting expertise in your village too?  Wouldn’t you like laws changed to accommodate this?

Join our cause, and let’s promote this idea — after all, you don’t like wolves in disguise snatching, or eating, little kids, and leaving their Mommies crying, do you?”

“What’s that I heard from the peanut gallery?  You say, some of the judges, sheriffs, and custody evaluators are BBWs too?  Or, that they knew the BBW from the truth-telling parents all along, but  the BBW would sometimes sell kids they sole, for a profit [especially if the Judges threatened the wolves, and some good men also trapped in their nets, with incarceration on child support arrears, if not — or, as they had a criminal past and ought to watch their step…] or a share of the take when the kids were farmed out to tax-supported homes and institutions; and it wasn’t in the court’s [at least those judges’] best interest to show up honest on knowing which was which all along?

You suspicious dissidents attacking good-natured advocates and activists!  Has that battered Mom from Kansas polluted your thoughts?  Go to your corner (TIME OUT) work on your cooperative, unifying collaborative  (female submissive?) side — don’t you realize what a huge task we have undertaken  on your behalf?  Have YOU ever run a batterers’ intervention class?   How ungrateful!!”

Next, (2nd boxed quote below), and shorter — a  modified summary, with less Euro-centric fairy tale language, and more of the flavor of the day, but still pretty accurate….

The problem is NOT defined well at all, but time has shown, was framed to facilitate a  pre-defined, out-come based solution.

While I haven’t seen it in the literature, the grapevine (hearsay) has it said “FieldGuide”  [Barry G & Mo Hannah’s edited chapters under “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody,” is being promoted over at Wm. Mitchell College of Law (MN, and an obvious AFCC outpost) for training law students to recognize domestic violence when they see it.  This would probably explain, then why there was zero mention of the OCSE (Child support) factor in any identifiable detail.

Wm. Mitchell College of Law, Nancy ver Steegh (AFCC), Differentiating Types of Domestic Violence: Implications for CustodyLouisiana Law Review, Vol. 65, p. 1379, 2005  William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 41    Abstract: 

Child custody determinations are based on the fiction that families with a history of domestic violence are all alike. However, researchers, scholars, and practitioners increasingly agree that families experience (and children are exposed to) different types of domestic violence. These types of violence involve distinctly different phenomena – they are not simply separate points along a single continuum of abuse.

Without a basic definition of who is AFCC and what are its goals, discerning what’s up is harder.  However, once it’s known that the organization has a stated mission to substitute the language of behavioral health from the language or criminal law, that there has been a consistent promotion of parental alienation as a crime (and violentcrimes against the person NOT as crimes), AND we understand that Ms. ver Steegh is straight-up AFCC, there’s not problem with interpretation.

AFCC can’t eliminate DV as a crime, but what’s going on here is calling out the language of the experts, “behavioral science” — “TYPOLOGY” — which is a form of pulling rank.  The desirable outcome would be ALL domestic violence is re-classified as a relationship problem, however en rte. to that goal, splitting off more of the cases, and then calling in more experts to question: “Was threatening to kill and steal the children, or that physical attack, or stalking, REALLY domestic violence, or a fleeting emotional tirade…”  They first caused the conflict by trying to reclassify it (and child abuse etc.) as something else, then resolve the conflict by further classifying and ordering services (to cronies).  See #2, below.  Also note, fields (2) below are some supported by federal grants, and (3) complains about the current DV child custody statutes..

This article examines child custody determinations through the lens of a domestic violence typology. The resulting analysis (1) reconciles competing viewpoints and contradictory evidence about domestic violence; (2) matches families with appropriate child custody court procedures and services such as parent education, mediation, supervised visitation and parent coordination; and (3) exposes serious deficiencies in current domestic violence child custody statutes.

Application of the typology leads to the conclusion that child custody courts could more effectively protect children through identification and consideration of the type of domestic violence experienced by the family.

To this end, three significant procedural and substantive law reforms are recommended.

First, courts should adopt Differentiated Case Management in order to identify cases involving domestic violence and to the extent possible, distinguish the type of violence experienced. Second, child custodycourt procedures and services should vary depending on the needs of the individual family and type ofviolence experienced. Under the current one-size-fits-all approach, some families are referred to procedures and services that are unsafe for them while other families, who could benefit from those very procedures and services, are discouraged from using them. Third, current domestic violence-related child custody statutes should be amended to include language that targets perpetrator patterns of coercive control.. Current statutes are not drawn with sufficient precision to adequately protect children.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 55

If we have a basic understanding of the AFCC “crowd” we already know the predictable actions they will take.  We also would have an idea of what they’ve already done (such as create courts where this type of debate can continue — endlessly), and that the eventual goal is to eliminate criminal law — at least for violence against women and children.

Therefore, I suggest that Goldstein et al’s refusal to utter the word “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” (along with actually naming nonprofit organizational fathers’ rights groups — are there none identified by name yet? Most of us know a few – but in the rhetoric, the terms are simply not mentioned, an implicit “we are not going to discuss this.”)

While some of us are saying, ‘Whaaat? was that?” certain promotional groups just split and multiplied, set up another website under some protective and valiant-sounding name (sometimes with a donate button) — and got a few more radio spots.  Fox news and others.. Some call this “The Art of Confusion,” it’s intentional, Yes, it is both a science and an art form and has been discussed in some circles as a technique for putting patients (or people) “under,” i.e., getting them to put themselves into a trance, at which point they become much more susceptible to suggestion.   [Scientific American, “Confusion helps us learn” (that first was less devious, as it seems the students understood they were in a test situation?)

Some of the family court circles ALSO are known to be very much enamored of hypnosis, engaged in societies for it, and are not above of promoting it in  people already traumatized by, well, that Assault on themselves (and/or kids) FIRST, and then the truth (when someone reports), afterwards, and then another time, when because they stood in their reality, their children kids are switched to the other household, or even a third-party household, trafficked, and for SOME, a fourth time, kids run away (go MIA from their court-assigned foster care or group home situations) and so forth.  Might as well playing tether-ball with a parent’s psyche.   They may hold it together, recover, — or they, the parents, may never be the same. [Don’t ask how I know that…]

Cult Leader Ron Hubbard (Scientology) picked off elements from Milton H. Erickson’s Confusion Technique to get subjects (targets) to self-induce a deep trance state:

Coercive persuasion is antithetical to the First Amendment. It contains aspects which could be interpreted as constituting the illegal acts of fraud, false imprisonment, coercion, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct, and other tortuous acts.

The confusion technique was one of Erickson’s most innovative and important contributions to hypnosis. These verbal and nonverbal methods created disorientation, disrupting habitual sets paving the way for enhanced responsiveness.

From: The Letters of Milton Erickson

L. Ron Hubbard Lecture, 20 May 1952 “Decision.”

“A confused person has their conscious mind busy and occupied, and is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things. A confused person is in a trance of their own making – and therefore goes readily into that trance without resistance. Confusion might be created by ambiguous words, complex or endless sentences, pattern interruption or a myriad other techniques to incite transderivational searches, (TDS.) (A psychological example of TDS is in Ericksonian hypnotherapy, where vague suggestions are used that the patient must process intensely to find their own meanings for, thus ensuring that the practitioner does not intrude his own beliefs into the subject’s inner world.)

When employing the confusion technique verbally, steps are taken via verbal wording to overload the subject’s mental abilities. This can be done using a play on words such as “knows, nose, nos.” Furthermore, irrelevancies and nonsequiturs can also be employed to achieve the desired results.

So, here’s the next version of this presentation of the problem (impromptu summary, mine), from the “Group 3” (Crisis in the Courts) crowd.  It’s at about this level of coherence, and reason, and proved about as well, too. It has a rhythm and a flow to it, right — but do any two parts actually fit in with the other parts? Or can you nail them down into a concrete statement that would lead to, say, UNDERSTANDING of something you didn’t understand before, or will it simply be a comforting voice to hear, and as it sounds authoritative, who knows — maybe it is. Maybe we should skip that profiling, back-ground check, fact-check part and save our dollars for the hotel reservation (or call round the group email lists for some couch-surfing during the conferences), start writing up our banners (words will be provided), etc.

This also is a characterization…. an improv on season after season of reading the same slush, I mean, stuff.


Abuse is Bad.  Some people are Bad.  The courts are messed up.  This is bad.  The sky is, generally speaking, blue, and at times the grass is green.  We need Congressional oversight hearings on this matter, please sign here — and tell your story so we sound more credible.  Use a pseudonym if needed (but give us your case files…).  Show up HERE, tell your legislators THAT.  We are Standing up against Bad People to Save Abused Children and, again, here’s the link to the CHANGE.ORG petition.  Also, send in your case history to so and so @ (address).  Remember Elsa Newman.  Remember Holly Collins.  Support Jennifer Collins’ new group.  Courage, we are making progress.  Mo Hannah.  Barry Goldstein.  Here are the next conferences you can attend on recovering from trauma or ritual abuse.  We need to save the children.  We are shining the light.   58,000 children a year.  You are in good hands fear not. Fathers Rights.  Abusers’ Lobby. Flawed Practices.  The Leadership Council.*  (Obviously), we are presenting, publishing, and of course PROTECTING good people from bad people through our new, improved research and evidence especially our friend Daniel Saunders at the University of Michigan and  now we have the USDOJ connection, too.  We are hot stuff (but also modest), and will speak for abused mothers everywhere…

Daniel Saunders, professor of social work, University of Michigan, established one of the first intervention programs for men who batter and helped to establish crisis and advocacy programs for battered women in the 1970s

Dr. Daniel G. Saunders =>=>=> I can see why the photo wasn’t sent round with the alerts…

[*I finally found their EIN# and which state.  Mailing Address (on website, ca. 2008), Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.  Tax return address, Marquette Michigan.   Joy Silberg (with Stephanie Dallam of KS the only paid director), Baltimore.  In 2005 (see link) the name was changed from “Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice and the Media,” stating it was a Delaware Corporation.  [IRS listing followed by Delaware Corporation search listing]

51-0392011 Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence Inc. Marquette MI United States PC

[Stephanie Dallam’s sister Katie took up boxing, and was almost killed in an unfairly matched fight in 1996.  NotesNotesSounds like an amazing woman, a fighter like her sister, and exposed to so much trauma.]

Stephanie’s story (or, part of it), shows how the group was started:   Challenging the Way Child Abuse is Treated  (in “Working Nurse”) “As an acute care nurse practitioner in pediatric surgery and trauma at the University of Missouri-Columbia in the early 1990s, Stephanie Dallam, then RN, MSN, FNP, was working with children who were suffering from illnesses and accidents, but also with young victims of abuse.”   and how she and two others co-founded the Leadership Council and eventually DVLEAP got involved.

[Nevertheless, there are still other factors to discuss when it’s about the family law system!]

For reference, Dear Friends, in case you think that riff on a typical group-alert, here’s a recent email circular from California Protective Parents Association, giving directions, referencing conferences, and somehow instead of just printing  an abstract, or a link to Mr. Goldstein’s latest project, the rest of the email apparently prints nearly the whole thing (paragraph after paragraph).  This is formulaic, almost a ritual itself although one of the primary themes is recovery from ritual abuse.

And go ask someone else — this is typical. Designed to engage the readers and elicit a certain kind of response.  Notice the references to so and so, to “my friend” in the BG prose also.  My short parody above, is pretty close, is it not?   In fact, here are two; I added commentary to the January 8th, 2014 one.  Compare parodies, to sample below, to these two uploads.

  • CPPA Email Alert Recd13FEB2014 [NoteStyle,Contents,Personnel]  [click to read]
    • Announcing upcoming conferences, and a theatrical production involving Mr. Bancroft, etc., Forbidden To Protect, so I looked it up.
    • The Nurtured Parent Support Group has a virtual listing of “Family Court Crisis” groups, FYI, I guess it’s these PARTICULAR groups against the world.  Notice that “Front and Center” are the two non-victims, non-parents with kids in the courts, and, specifically, MEN who have already invested in the batterers intervention program model, from which they “Emerged.”  See the links.   The NPSG has a psychoanalyst and a DV person.
    • Other than its omission of the California groups, such as Center for Judicial Excellence and CPPA (plus some), and the various Safe Child Coalitions, etc.  this “Family Court Crisis” is a fairly representative listing.
    • Please review, and note:  NONE of the above groups will ever explain the things I have explained in this blog, the things Anne Stevenson has been documenting, or the things that were being reported in the late 1990s early 2000s by LizRichards et al., California NOW (2002 court report) and multiple others.
    • For example,  Los Angeles anti-trust Attorney, aged 69 (Richard Fine), spent 18 months in solitary confinement in one of the worst jails in the country; he did it for confronting not “getting it wrong” but BRIBERY (County-paid judicial bribes when judges were state employees) and FRAUD (Silva v. Garcetti, collected but undistributed child support in Los Angeles).  This crowd has not mentioned it once in all their years, that I can see, however every year it’s “Remember Elsa Newman.”
    • Upcoming “Community Events” (for NURTURING PARENTS SUPPORT GROUP) — try to get this judge ousted.  See my “58,000 children a year” mantra in the sky-blue box, above?  Here it is again, and pushing for (the Saunders Study, better professional training, and Congressional Oversights, etc.  )


(<=2017 Update: Original image now gone.  I’m supplying a different one/s from “The Nurtured Parent” website.  I went to the site during this quick update (3/14/2017, three years after publication) and in fact looked long and hard at (and, for) “The Nurtured Parent Resource Center” inc. in NJ 2003, IRS exempt status still good (though revoked for not filing 3 years in a row in May 2010, re-instituted on the same day May 2010, showing this was then published about four years later….

[[2017 Disclaimer on this updated commentary re” MIA tax returns for Lundy-Bancroft-pushing organizations, this time from New Jersey — follow-up calls to the IRS # provided would provide more current information.  I am just going by what is (and is not) shown on-line from government filing sources, and some others who’ve been blogging it regardless of its non-extant filing history.  I’d order certified copies of corporate filings from N.J., but that’d be $60.00… ]] Well, things are starting to “come together” about how The Nurtured Parent Resource Center, a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation” which is required to file Forms 990 (or Form 990-N), but apparently did neither (at a minimum 2007-2010, but then I didn’t see ONE tax return spanning 2003 – 2014 (after checking 3 well-known databases AND the IRS for the Forms 990-N)has obtained a “Ruling Date 2014” from the IRS (after having been “status revoked.”  A public and filmed presentation (2015) was scheduled at a Passaic County Community College.  First, the IRS-, Foundation Center, and Guidestar-generated images (Citizen Audit came up empty on that EIN# and the entity searched by name.  Guidestar did show it up with “0” income and assets (which might also mean, no results found).  A namesearch for the entity at CitizenAudit shows the company the phrase “Nurturing Parent” is keeping as part of fields of practice associated with (at times) also responsible fatherhood funding….

From Guidestar NPRC (for short, I’ll call it) showing “Ruling date 2014” (See next “Revoked? Yr 2010” IRS status image. I posted this to include also the statement that this org. IS required to file (IRS forms) (bottom right)

IRS Exempt Org. Select Check (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos) I searched the word Nurtured” on “Eligible to receive tax-deductible donations?” and got an EIN#. NOTE: these results do not provide ruling date and do not guarantee that a different EIN# may represent a different though similar-sounding entity. CLICK nearby filename link to see it fullsized

(Nurtured Parent Resource Ctr A NJ Nonprofit Corp (EIN#200254072, P Lenowitz, featuring Bancroft, BGoldstein,DVLeap, et al.) is status ACTIVE per IRS Screen Shot 2017-03-13 at 8.41PM

I wondered if it might be a glitch, but I’d wonder less if any tax return (or statement of filed Form 990-N postcard) had been found for this group, which I see is still soliciting donations in NJ….).

I also spent considerable time reading through a featured testimonial about a Netherlands/Marin County California custody case, this century.  I am considering whether to respond to it as a separate post symptomatic of what kind of “help” activities are still taking place, instead of publicizing the financials of vested nonprofit interests, including of court-connected corporations and associations, making nightmares for parents of all income levels (this one apparently didn’t start out broke or low-income, like some do)….

(next two links refer to colorfully annotated images from a “CitizenAudit.org” search on the entity name “Nurtured Parent.” The other two are (1) showing that in May 2010, The “Nurtured Parent Resource Center, a NJ Nonprofit Corporation” (by EIN# search on the IRS site) WAS status-revoked in 2010 (but this wasn’t publicized until 2014; it was also re-instated).  Just in time for a public showing featuring the same authors over at a community college in NJ, as advertised by “MothersofLostChildren” blog and American Mothers Political Party (a social media campaign; I know some of the originators and was around when it was started up).

 CitizenAudit (#1 of 2) Searching Nurtured Parent Notice the FR context and SIMILAR entity names (Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 6.15PM (Annotated Image #1 of 2 below)

CitizenAudit (#2 of 2) Searched+Found Nurtured Parent Notice the context, See Image#1 of 2 re SIMILAR entity names (Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 6.16PM (Annotated Image #2/2 below)

[Image and Link provisions here to be continued, or moved to a more recent (2017ff) post on this blog….//LGH]]

Showing no returns under this EIN# for Nurtured Parent Resource Center found (searched 3/14/2017) at the FoundationCenter (“990finder.foundationcenter.org”)  Was a new EIN# obtained when it was reinstated after revocation, or did it just never file (with the IRS) at all?

The Nurtured Parent Resource Center “ever revoked?” IRS search shows YES — but re-instated same day (May 2010) and revocation not published by IRS til four years later. WHY? (<==Click for full-sized). Showing the IRS revocation of “Nurtured Parent” entity featuring Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, DVLEAP and standard “Broken Family Courts” rhetoric and suggestions throughout. Website lists a DV survivor, but is mostly promoting “SOP” for handling the family courts practices of stripping children from nonabusive mothers and re-allocating them to abusive fathers. NONE of this SOP encourages (understandably, given this entity’s track record) researching the involved nonprofits and tracking their networks, not to mention, funding, in a detailed, proven (to connect) manner moving the situation out of “hearsay” mode on specific cases, and (in the process) encouraging actual accounting /governmental operations literacy among the followers…

Annotated Image #1 of 2” (CitizenAudit Search of “Nurtured Parent”) <==Click to read full-sized.

[*This Starts with Orders (Stop Abuse Campaign, Sign petition, help us get Congressional Oversight Hearings for CPPA and friends’ agenda), and ends with PAGES from Mr. Goldstein’s latest blog.  I added green-font commentary, and at the end, notes on the MISSING IN ACTION information, plus some lookups showing that the Stop Abuse Campaign group, although I don’t doubt its founder (Mr. Itzkowitz) was indeed a survivor of child sexual abuse (as he says on-line), still has some utterly strange corporation and tax filings.  It is a “red-flag” situation in my opinion (corporation-wise) and is clearly following the Crisis in the Courts Crowd platform straight through, only with better social media.

Also see the site:  @2014Jan “Donate Online | Stop Abuse Campaign” (Make Checks to…).  Just, well, strange…..

Also (for follow-up, recent board member Sherri Rettew of Stop Abuse Campaign, LinkedIn cites connection with another Maryland nonprofit Stop the Silence:Stop Child Sexual Abuse, whose founder, a public health person (MPH) had gotten some DHHS grants for their cause).  After looking at how well-connected (but barely funded) this particular group is, with its international connections, many questions are raised about all the rich and famous people who are jumping on the Stop Child Sexual Abuse bandwagon, particularly when one of them has connections (prior) with the US Federal government,IntelligenceAgency, and the global nature of this little USA nonprofit from Maryland.

Most specifically, is the CPPA crowd (through Stop Abuse Campaign) attempting to hook up with their more powerfully connected friends here? (one of the board members is a chief of staff for a Minnesota Congressperson, Bill Luther)..



Here’s one from Time’s Up! blog, which towards its conclusion (in paragraph after unlinked paragraph) reads, with my text-changes (it has none, which is typical).  Mr. Goldstein is free to contact me to complain (if I got some facts wrong), or speak (I contacted him a few years, 2011, by email and have commented on some blog posts- and caught the censoring of other topics (not just mine) and actual evidence of comment removed.   While I can be sarcastic (to make points), I never threaten, and have a genuine cause to protest dissemination of One-Way solutions to the exclusion of reporting and debating the entire topic of, for example, welfare reform, interlocking directorates of nonprofits (by name, not just in vague reference) and the failure to encourage independent thinking in followers.

I know it’s important not to distract the mothers’ movement with conflicting evidence, or ideas that don’t go with the flow, but it’s 2014, and I figure TIme’s Up! for letting this topic slide further on down the unlabeled ( improperly labeled) primrose path of good intentions under the leadership of the assembly of the elders (at least of this particular tribe!)….  I will probably fail in the larger scope, but in the attempt leave some exit ramps for people who have more common sense (who are skeptical, and do lookups) and might like to hang out with some of their kind.

By the way, legally speaking (jurisdiction), I’ve never heard of a court called (by those who run it) “the custody courts.” There are other terms and these people have to know– but just will not use – them!


Daniel Saunders at the University of Michigan 

. . .The findings of the Department of Justice study, by itself, provides convincing documentation that the custody court system is getting a large majority of domestic violence custody cases wrong. It would be impossible for courts to get most cases right when most of the court professionals have inadequate domestic violence training, those with inadequate training tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, the courts are placing too much weight on mothers’ anger and emotion and the evaluators who earn additional money through appointment in custody cases are making decisions more harmful to children then those who do not have a financial incentive. This study was not made in a vacuum, but was produced in the context of a substantial and growing body of scientific research that establishes the custody courts are making bad decisions in contested custody cases that endanger children. The research also establishes that the standard practices used in the custody courts are deeply flawed and outdated.

I am hopeful that a study coming from the U. S. Department of Justice will be harder for the custody court system to ignore. They have a strong reputation and can only be considered neutral. Furthermore, the courts frequently seek grants and other funding from the Department of Justice. Protective mothers and their attorneys can cite this research and it should be harder for the courts to ignore. I can’t wait until it is published on the DOJ web site.


Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com 

That’s only one sample of so wonderfully vague (except the individuals and books being recommended), just leave it to the new expert rhetoric, cite our friends, and with us, hope for the best in your next pleading, or court appearances.  There are definitely more…from others…


The Saunders’ Study: Recognizing True Abuse Complaints

Daniel Saunders, professor of social work, University of Michigan, established one of the first intervention programs for men who batter and helped to establish crisis and advocacy programs for battered women in the 1970s

Daniel Saunders, professor of social work, University of Michigan, established one of the first intervention programs for men who batter and helped to establish crisis and advocacy programs for battered women in the 1970s

The disastrous impact on children of exposure to domestic violence and child abuse should require that psychologists and judges err on the side of safety and make sure they can recognize true allegations of abuse.  The study [PDF] **by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan was released by the U. S. Department of Justice in April of 2012.**  Dr. Saunders recommended that evaluators and other professionals receive training about the impact of domestic violence on children.  The ACE research confirms the importance of this information.

[[As BG apparently  is his friend, and wants to be among the trainers, that’s hardly surprising!!]]

**Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations

Final Technical Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice October 31, 2011

This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-WG-BX-0013 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.


The NIJ itself bears some understanding (which I don’t fully have yet) as the research arm of the USDOJ.  They recently signed a “MOU” with the National Science Foundation.  The NSF Signatory[?] Myron Gutmann was over the Directorate for “SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES,” which is a commentary on where our country’s at these days.

[From the UMichigan Page]

Daniel Saunders, professor of social work, established one of the first intervention programs for men who batter and helped to establish crisis and advocacy programs for battered women in the 1970s. His research, teaching, and service center on the problems of dating and domestic violence. His specific studies focus on offender program evaluation, the traumatic effects of victimization, and the response of professionals and the public to dating and domestic violence. His research has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Justice. Professor Saunders’ most recent projects involve an evaluation of supervised visitation programs for the children of battered women and a survey of child custody evaluators regarding their beliefs about domestic violence.

Daniel Saunders in 1998, I note many of the cites are AFCC personnel, they are being liberally quoted.

He is a social scientist professor.  He does studies (receives grants to do some of them no doubt) and writes them up; for example, “RISK ASSESSMENTS.”  They publish, we perish and take the risk full-on.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Feb. 1, 2014, Most Cited [Rankings based on citations to online articles from HighWire-hosted articles.]


Assessing the Risk of Severe Domestic Violence: The Importance of Survivors’ PredictionsJ Interpers Violence January 2000 15: 75-90,doi:10.1177/088626000015001006

Daniel Saunders, 2009, Transcript of Custody Evaluation in Domestic Violence Cases, at an NIJ Conference shows he was in a certain line of work and noticed women were fighting for custody after domestic violence.  I’d also like to mention that many women who are “after domestic violence” never get to the “custody evaluation” stage because they are broke, and/or their partners (other parents) also might be.  My case never had a custody evaluator, although it might have if the courts had figured out earlier in the game someone might have sprung for it.  I’m glad we didn’t, however, the “railroaded through mandated mediation” had a similar result, just quicker to get there and cheaper en route.  (or, Click link to listen)

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of JusticeThe Research, Development, and Evaluation Agency of the U.S. Department of Justice..

Daniel Saunders, 2009Transcript of Custody Evaluation in Domestic Violence Cases,

Bethany Backes: So I’m gonna be very brief and just say that today we’ll be hearing about two ongoing NIJ-funded studies on custody evaluation. Both studies will be concluding within the year, and the final reports will be available and accessible through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.  [[“NCJRS”]

So our panelists today are Dr. Daniel Saunders, a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Social Work; Dr. Chris O’Sullivan, who is a research consultant currently working with the New York Legal Assistance Group; and the honorable Dale Koche, Koch, sorry, a senior judge with the state of Oregon. And we hope that today is the start of many discussions on this topic. And at this time I just want to ask everyone to please turn off their cell phones or any electronic devices to vibrate or silent. And we’re gonna begin with Dan.

Daniel Saunders: Good morning, everyone. Hope you’re doing well. It’s good to be here with you. Thank you, Bethany, thank you for putting this panel together and for your introduction. And I wanna commend NIJ for making this move into a new area — the family law side of the law.

In the early days, the focus in helping survivors of domestic violence was to make sure that offenders were arrested just like any other offender and that there were restraining order laws and that we had good stalking legislation. And it’s been only fairly recently that advocates and researchers have become aware of the horrible injustice when survivors finally escape from domestic violence and then are faced with continued stalking, harassment, abuse and then, low and behold, the worst trauma that survivors, I think, can ever go through is to get that piece of paper in the mail that says your partner, your ex-partner wants custody of your children. And so the trauma is multiplied times three where women — it’s usually women — are faced with sometimes losing custody to a person, they believe, will continue their abuse — abuse of the children, abuse of them.

Credibility alert — “advocates and researchers” (whoever they were — this year is 2009 — that batterers were getting custody, or that the family courts were handling custody matters which involved survivors.   What does that say about their advocacy and research, apart from “excusitis” or a little dishonesty.  (How detached from reality have we been these many years, again?)

Sure, OK…… Next, here was Dr. Saunders’ field that helped him become aware of the situation — he used to work in batterers intervention.

And so my interest was piqued many years ago doing divorce counseling, working with men who batter and then more recently with the supervised visitation program evaluation that I helped conduct of safe havens. And there we saw on average across agencies about 20 percent, 10 to 20 percent of the noncustodial parents were women ordered now to come and visit their children. So the, the awareness I think within Office on Violence Against Women and NIJ has really been heightened, so I really appreciate the focus that’s now being given.

So I’m gonna present some pilot data of a survey of custody evaluators and then a little bit, I’ll give a preview of some of the interviews that we’ve done with survivors.

First, I have to find the right button. Oh, OK.

So my collaborators at the University of Michigan are Rich Tolman,** Karen Staller, Kathleen Faller, and then a whole team of research associates and assistants, and then consultants from, from law, from child custody evaluators, social scientists — about two pages worth of names that I could put up there for you.

3/8/2014, I looked up Staller and Faller.  They have published a book together (Columbia University Press)

There is so much to say about just this dynamic duo, and because it leads into such things as “constructivist epistemology,” and quite a bit more, I’m saving it for a separate post (that is, as usual, after looking it up and trying to squish it in this one)…

Seeking Justice in Child Sexual Abuse: Shifting Burdens and Sharing Responsibilities

Edited by Karen M. Staller and Kathleen Coulborn Faller

November, 2009 
Cloth288 pages, 6 halftones, 6 tables
ISBN: 978-0-231-14614-2
$55.00 £38.00


Testing out another model:

St. Mary County is a small rural midwestern enclave with a unique approach to handling accusations of child sexual abuse. Hoping to spare children the trauma of lengthy court appearances and probing interrogations, St. Mary’s professionals strive to obtain confessions from accused sex offenders rather than ask the victim to bear the burden of proof.

Treating this county as a critical case study, scholars from a variety of fields come together to analyze this community’s unique approach. They address relevant case law, innovative treatments for both victim and offender, and the social history of child sexual abuse as a national policy concern. They cover legal burdens and scientific methods, prosecutors and protocol, the interrogation of victims and suspects, the use of expert witnesses, defense strategies, and practice wisdom in videotaping. In addition, they examine the unfolding drama of a single legal case from incidence to conviction.

The result is a fascinating dialogue that confronts the unique complexities of child sexual abuse for readers on all sides of the issue. Introducing a model that makes enormous headway in the pursuit of justice, fairness, and trauma treatment, this interdisciplinary text is an indispensible tool for all communities seeking redress.

Author blurbs:

About the Author(s):

Karen M. Staller, Ph.D., J.D., is associate professor of social work at the University of Michigan School of Social Work and the author of Runaways: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped Today’s Practices and Policies. She has practiced public interest law with low-income senior citizens and at-risk adolescents in New York City.

Karen M. Staller

Staller is BA & JD Cornell, with MPhil and DPhil (Ph.D.) in Social Policy from Columbia U. She was an art history major, which goes to show that art history majors can make a very decent living (although perhaps not in, art history….).  Now she’s at UMichigan School of Social Welfare.  Generally speaking, this career path is going to entail a lot of writing, researching, and publishing…
1999 PhD Social Policy Columbia University, New York, NY
1995 MPhil Social Policy Columbia University, New York, NY
1985 JD Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
1979 BA Art History Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Karen Staller, PhD, JD, received her educational training at Cornell Law School and Columbia University School of Social
Work, where her dissertation on runaway and homeless youth was awarded with distinction. Staller practiced public interest law with low-income senior citizens and at-risk adolescents in New York City. Her scholarship focuses primarily on runaway and homeless youth (and other at-risk adolescents). She is interested in the complicated interplay between social problem construction, social service delivery, and social policy. Her book published by Columbia University Press, Runaways: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped Today’s Practices and Policies, entertains this interplay.

 “Her scholarship starts from a constructionist epistemological perspective* and is in the interpretivist tradition.”

That’s a whole other topic and relevant….

Kathleen Coulborn Faller,* Ph.D., A.C.S.W., D.C.S.W., is the Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Children and Families in the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan. She is also director of the University of Michigan’s Family Assessment Clinic and principal investigator on their Training Program on Recruitment and Retention of Child Welfare Workers, as well as principal investigator of their Hasbro Early Assessment Project. Among her many publications are Maltreatment in Early Childhood: Tools for Research-Based InterventionInterviewing Children about Sexual Abuse, and Child Sexual Abuse: An Interdisciplinary Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment.

Coulbourn Faller Education is Oberlin and UMichigan, political science, social work, and psychology, proving again, that there’s plenty of room for work in government, or servicing it, for psychologists:    

1981 PhD Social Work and Psychology U of Michigan, Ann Arbor
1971 MSW Social Work U of Michigan, Ann Arbor
1963 AB Political Science Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH

Kathleen Coulborn Faller

“Kathleen Coulborn Faller is involved in research, clinical work, teaching, training, and writing in the area of child welfare. She has written nine books and approximately 90 peer reviewed articles, conducted more than 300 juried international, national, and state conference presentations and presented more than 250 workshop addressing controversies of interviewing children about sexual abuse, the co-morbidity of child maltreatment and parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and substance abuse, cultural competence in child welfare, and child welfare workforce issues.

She is Principal Investigator on the University of Michigan site of National Child Welfare Workforce Institute.

[[May 2013 HHS/ACF Announcement for a $4.1 million grant for this….]]

co-morbidity of child abuse,parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and substance abuse. . . .  [[where does stopping the child maltreatment and domestic violence by separating the victim from the perpetrators (aggressors) come in, then?


3/6/2014 added:  Professor Tolman: **

Richard M. Tolman

Richard M. Tolman, LMSW, PhD, is a professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work. He received his doctorate in social welfare from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his MSW from the University of Michigan. Professor Tolman’s work focuses on [1] the effectiveness of interventions designed to change violent and abusive behavior, and [2] the impact of violence on the physical, psychological and economic well-being of victims

He began his work in this area as a practitioner working with men who batter in 1980. His current projects include research on the impact of and prevention of abuse during pregnancy and involvement of men and boys as allies to end men’s violence against women. He is currently co-Director of the Global Research Program on Mobilizing Men for Violence Prevention, a collaborative project between the University of Michigan and the University of Minnesota.

Professor Tolman teaches primarily in the interpersonal practice sequence. He also co-teaches a course focusing on community empowerment through creative expression. He is engaged in several projects, overlapping dimensions of research, teaching and service, that focus on the use of creative arts in social work efforts.

This “MMVP” site involves Erin Casey, Ph.D. (in social welfare), an associate professor at Tacoma Washington, Dr. Tolman here, and the University of Kansas:

Casey, Erin

Curriculum Vitae (publishing alongside Tolman and Edleson)

Erin Casey joined the Social Work Program faculty in 2006. She has over 10 years of practice experience doing intervention, prevention and administrative work in the fields of sexual and domestic violence, and her research interests focus on violence prevention and engaging communities in prevention endeavors. Erin’s current research projects include examining men’s involvement in anti-sexual and domestic violence movements, and investigating intersections of violence and sexual risk-taking.

Collaborators in the “MMVP” show its founder is from Berkeley, and well-known:



The Edelson factor is a MINNESOTA connection, see also Sheila Wellstone Institute.  Understanding this may help us understand that the “social welfare” viewpoint on being “anti-domestic violence” in general is not going to include complete separation (for purposes of safety) when there are children in common.  It just ain’t gonna happen in this context — and programs have been adjusted accordingly….

Who Dr. Edleson is matters,

I found another of his bios on a board he’s joined “Children of Domestic Violence” a 501(c)3 whose street address is:   1500 Broadway, Suite 3200 New York, NY 10036, and whose persona include Tony Robbins, Marketing Specialists, and others… Hopefully you can see that this is straight marketing, spinning off one adult survivor (Brian F. Martin).

Apparently “Domestic Violence” and “Children” sells better than some other marketing terms — look at the Asset$$ column:

Search Again

Children of Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2011 990 23 $965,915. 20-8258250
Makers of Memories Foundation Inc. NY 2010 990 25 $110,295. 20-8258250
Makers of Memories Foundation Inc. NY 2009 990 18 $1,935. 20-8258250

[strange tax return, I remember this one:

“TO HELP THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE CHILDHOOD DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY INTRODUCING UNIQUE, INNOVATIVE AND VARIED SOLUTIONS.”  (Yr. 2011, to top row above).   Someone was paid $96K salary (not Brian Martin) and they listed over $833K as Intangible Assets, meaning; “FILM BOOK AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.”   (“whatever….”)

Jeffrey Edleson bio (at the CDV website):

Former Professor and Director of Research at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work and Director of the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse). Dr. Edleson is one of the world’s leading authorities on children exposed to domestic violence and has published over 120 articles and 12 books on domestic violence, group-work, and program evaluation. He has been cited over 4,500 times and has an h-index of 35.

Dr. Edleson is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and received his Masters and Ph.D. in Social Work from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is a Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker in Minnesota and has practiced in elementary and secondary schools and in several domestic violence agencies. Prof. Edleson’s research, policy and practice interests have earlier focused on research on batterer intervention programs.    …

 Dr. Edleson is also the Co-Principal Investigator overseeing the Violence Against Women Online Resources website, and Co-Prinicipal Investigator of the Global Research Program on Mobilizing Men for Violence Prevention.

Prof. Edleson was recently appointed to the National Institute of Justice’s Scientific Review Panel on Family Violence and Violence Against Women. This is the first time such a standing review panel has been convened. He was also appointed by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. Prof. Edleson has been elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. Prof. Edleson was a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Research on Violence Against Women, helped plan the Academy’s January 2011 Workshop on Preventing Violence Against Women & Children, is a consultant to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [[NCJFCJ]  and has consulted for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He is a founding member of the Sheila Wellstone Institute.

SHEILA WELLSTONE helped get the VAWA pass, we should know she was married to Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, and that they were both killed in 2002 in a plane crash.

The Sheila Wellstone Institute was established as a core component of the Wellstone Action Fund with the goal of continuing Sheila’s work to end violence against women and children. Sheila began her work soon after Paul Wellstone was elected to the United States Senate in 1990. She chose to use her role as a public person to advance an issue that was increasingly making headlines and for which few solutions were offered: domestic violence. Having read countless articles while working in the Northfield High School Library, Sheila recognized that women, children, and families were experiencing outrageous levels of violence, and that abuse and homicides were being identified as crimes with no attention at all to ways to prevent or intervene in the violence

2012 article on the 10th anniversary of their death points out that she never completed college, but helped put her husband through college; later; while supporting her husband as a professor and working in the library, became aware of this issue, and adamant about handling it.

Sheila Wellstone: ‘driven by passion and principle on domestic abuse issue.‘   By Kay Harvey | 10/25/12 (Minnesota Post)

Paul and Sheila Wellstone

Friends and admirers of the Wellstones will celebrate Paul’s and Sheila’s work and legacies at a10th Anniversary Remembrance at 1 p.m. today at the site of the Oct. 25, 2002, plane crash in Eveleth, Minn., that took the lives of all aboard. The couple’s daughter, Marcia, three other Wellstone staff members and the plane’s two pilots also died.

Ten years later, the work that Sheila Wellstone fostered is still very much alive. Vice President Joe Biden, then a senator, complimented Sheila for her work on passage of the Violence Against Women Act. Sheila’s photograph hangs on a wall in the office of Lynn Rosenthal, White House adviser on violence against women, in recognition of Sheila’s accomplishment.

‘Well-educated, well-read, highly informed’

Paul and Sheila met as teenagers on a beach in Maryland and fell in love. They went off to college in different states and married at age 19. Sheila never finished college but instead helped to put Paul through school, said Marcia Avner, coordinator of the Sheila Wellstone Institute, a part of St. Paul-based Wellstone Action, which offers several programs, projects and training opportunities for people who share the Wellstones’ goals. “Sheila was really well-educated, well-read, highly informed,” Avner said. Sheila was proud that she and Paul worked together on these issues. She discussed everything with him. He often said she was his “best adviser.”

The Wellstones moved to Northfield, Minn., after Paul’s graduation from college. He was hired to teach political science at Carleton College, where he also earned a doctorate. Sheila juggled care of their three children with working in the Northfield High School library. . . .

“Sheila, like Paul, was driven by principle and passion,” Avner said. She looked at the domestic-abuse issue from a multidimensional view. “In 1990, this was taboo in some ways. A lot of people said the subject was ‘private.’ What happens in our home isn’t your business. Or some priest would say, ‘It’s your marriage. Go home and make it work.’ ”

The more Sheila learned, the more appalled she became, Avner said. She met with police, judges, clergy and educators. She chose to take a public-health approach, a need for the entire community to establish a level of no violence. At virtually every appearance, Avner said, “Sheila said this: ‘We can no longer tolerate the violence. And we can no longer say it’s somebody else’s business.’ ” As she learned more, Sheila spoke on college campuses and elsewhere against human trafficking that forced some immigrant women into sex or hard labor.

Watching out for the kids

Sheila has been called a strategist, advocate and organizer. She thought intensely about the issues, Avner said. She appeared in court often to observe child-custody hearings. It was no secret that she favored those who became known as “Sheila’s judges,” those who made every child’s safety and welfare a priority over other considerations.

Just in case we think this anti-domestic-violence stand carries over into marriage and divorce issues, it doesn’t.  Think again.  two years before the plane crash, Sheila Wellstone and her husband were presenting the “Meyer Elkin Address” at an AFCC conference entitledALIENATION, ACCESS AND ATTACHMENT: BALANCING LEGAL ISSUES WITH THE NEEDS OF THE FAMILY. Winter 2000, Vol. 19, #1 (I’ll add link to blogroll). So, can you see how someone could take an Anti-Domestic Violence stance, and still be warning against parental alienation, and pushing for father involvement no matter what?

AFCC Winter2000Newsltr, SenPaul&SheilaWellstone give MEYER ELKIN ADDRESS, NOLA, Alienation; Ron Mincy, Kelly,Johnston, the Gang’s all there.  This should help us understand why people who are anti-domestic violence could still be endorsing co-parenting with batterers, increased noncustodial parenting time, and simply NOT splitting up the family anyhow — which takes some people by shock.   Please look– however, I’m typing out the segment on Dr. Mincy — as at this time he was working for the Ford Foundation:

Click on the link (hover cursor) to see more of his reasoning and methdology, let alone FOCUS; and realize that by surveying attitudes of custody evaluators they hope to incorporate into the training, something that will produce an attitude shift.  Sure, that’ll work….

What we have done so far is to complete two pilot surveys with a total of 62 evaluators. We used Web-based and mail-based administration. And we were able then to hone down and refine our measures, to improve on them because we also asked them at the end, “What do you think of this survey? Was it any good? What are your reactions? How could it be improved? What questions couldn’t you understand?” But we learned a lot. You know, evaluators don’t like responding to a little case vignette that we had. They said it would be unethical for me to put down a reaction because I would have to do the entire evaluation; you know, I cannot respond to your vignette. So we changed that. We said what hypotheses would you have, not what recommendations would you make? So we learned a lot through these pilots. And we’re about to launch the major survey.

We have measures of history of practice, practice experience with domestic cases, training, the, the scope of training, but also the modality — do you go to workshops or do you read articles? So. And then we have this vignette, which is at the end of your handouts, was modified from a journal article by   Claire Dalton

Clare Dalton studied in England and in Florida before she earned her certification in Five Element Acupuncture.Clare Dalton is a familiar name:
Clare Dalton, 2007 Wingspread Conference on ‘Domestic Violence and the Family Law Courts” with Nancy Ver Steegh, the joint participants were AFCC and NCJFCJ, both of them trade association nonprofits with judge memberships, obviously they know about themselves, and their own courts!  Further writeups

(photo to right shows she’s now turned to acupuncture, however:  from “Life Points” (Boston.com) ”

For legal scholar Clare Dalton, a sharp turn from academia to acupuncture was a natural fit

By Bella English  Globe Staff / May 24, 2011 …

…Those hands belong to Clare Dalton, who made a name nationally when she sued Harvard in 1987 for sex discrimination in denying her tenure at the law school. Usually such suits are aimed at gaining tenure, but Dalton had no intention of returning to Harvard. In 1988, she went across the Charles River to Northeastern University Law School and used her settlement money to start a domestic violence institute devoted to research, education, and service on behalf of victims. She oversaw law students who represent battered women in court, and she has received numerous awards for her work in domestic violence law and feminist legal thought.

A year ago, however, Dalton left academia for acupuncture, an odd career path for a distinguished legal scholar. “As a teenager, I was really interested in Eastern philosophy and alternative healing,’’ says Dalton, 60. “Now I feel as if I’ve gone back to the 17-year-old me and am taking the path I didn’t take then.’’  … her native England, where she had attended Oxford University. Three years ago she cut back to teaching part time at Northeastern and began studying part time in England … Dalton — who since 2005 has been legally separated from her husband, Robert Reich, the US secretary of labor in the Clinton administration — says their two sons have had different reactions to her metamorphosis.  …Adam Reich, 30, a doctoral student in sociology at the University of California Berkeley, says he was able to adjust to his mother’s transition because it was gradual. …her younger son views her leaving academia as a vindication of his similar decision.

“I dropped out of high school when I was 16 in order to pursue show business,’’ says Sam Reich, 26, who is head of original content for CollegeHumor.com. “I’d like to think that I inspired her to be braver, but she’s always been brave. I mean, this woman sued Harvard. Maybe I just inspired her to be more reckless.’’

Who else was there? See testimony from Chris Sullivan, Ph.D. (or, M.D., but “Dr.”) as described, a research consultant with the New York Legal Assistance Group.”  Briefly, let’s look at this NYLAG

Founded in 1990, the New York LegalAssistance Group provides high quality, free civil legal services to low-income NewYorkers who cannot afford attorneys.  Our comprehensive range of services includes direct representation, case consultation, advocacy, community education, training, financial counseling, and impact litigation…

  • We help victims of domestic violence to escape their abusers.
  • We assist chronically ill and disabled patients to access lifesaving healthcare.
  • We enable immigrants to achieve their dreams of citizenship.
  • We fight for elderly New Yorkers to receive the public benefits and homecare they need to live dignified, independent lives.
  • We help children with special needs to attain school placements where they can learn and flourish.
  • We prevent foreclosure and eviction by advocating to keep people in their homes.

NYLAG is unique for its ability to serve not only the abject poor, but also individuals and families who earn slightly above the government-designated poverty threshold. We’re able to serve this population because we neither apply for, nor do we receive, FederalLegal Services Corporation (LSC) funding. NYLAG relies heavily on private donations to enable us to serve the lower middle class and working poor individuals who still cannot afford private counsel.

NYLAG has 76 intake sites located in courts, hospitals, and community based organizations in all five boroughs of New York City as well as Westchester and Long Island.  We also partner with over 300 health and human services agencies across the City to provide cross-referrals and ensure holistic care for New Yorkers in need.

In addition to a paid staff of more than 200, NYLAG leverages the services of over 1,000 pro bono attorneys and other volunteers.

(of interest).  NYLAG founder Yisroel Schulman is President of a Lubavitch Congregation:

Mr. Schulman is the President of Congregation Tzemach Tzedek, a Lubavitch synagogue in Monsey, New York.  His J.D. from Yeshiva University (linked in) Benjamin Cardozo School of Law:

…As the Co-Founder, President and Attorney-in-Charge of NYLAG, Yisroel has led the organization from just two attorneys to eight legal divisions staffed by over 150 full-time paid professionals and more than 800 volunteers. The agency has received many honors for the provision of innovative and comprehensive civil legal services to low-income New Yorkers, including the New York State Bar Association’s 2012 Denison Ray Award. Additionally, Yisroel has served as lead counsel on over a dozen federal and state court class actions.

Faculty Member Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Educational Institution; 51-200 employees; Higher Education industry1987 – 1990 (3 years) Greater New York City Area Instructed second and third year law students in Public Benefits and Entitlement Law. [and more…]

NYLAG leverages resources. In 2013-2014:

  • NYLAG’s $20 million budget will be supplemented by partnerships with law firms and volunteers that donated over 100,000 hours in pro bono services, valued at over $15,000,000.
  • NYLAG’s overhead expenses are just 9%, dramatically less than other similar nonprofits.
  • NYLAG is able to provide services for the low cost of only $175 per case

[Under Board of Directors/Executive Staff, there is no “Domestic Violence” or “Protection Order” unit]

Kim Susser  Director, Matrimonial & Family Law Unit (Read Bio)  [Salary Yr 2011 (top row) – $111K, not bad…]

[[Kim Susser just lost her mother this past 2013; NYT obit, sounds like an amazing woman and a real role model]]

1994 article http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol27/iss3/4/

Lisa Rivera  Associate Director, Matrimonial & Family Law Unit (Read Bio)



New York Legal Assistance Group NY 2012 990 $9,139,545. 13-3505428
New York Legal Assistance Group NY 2011 990 31 $10,368,910. 13-3505428
New York Legal Assistance Group NY 2010 990 32 $2,797,557. 13-3505428

The Lubavitch/Yeshiva U. connection, plus the NYLAG representative on this NIJ panel (above) reminds me of the Aug. 11, 2013 supervised visitation incident in Manchester, NH (father shot 9 yr old son and self to death, per reports IN the session.  Father Muni Savyon was attending a Lubavitch synagogue, and had just returned from Israel (death of brother).  As I’d not heard of the group before (I’m in California, for one!), I looked it up and found some of the communities (at least in Brooklyn) were renowned for “Mafia-like” tactics on people who actually reported their abuse; i.e., “we’ll handle it within our own ranks.”

[[sounds like my family, for domestic violence! and in general insisting on boundaries, being a single woman and mother]].

Contributions yr 2012 (ax yr 2011) shows $10 million of contributions ($3.9 million gov’t grants, $5.5M other, $701K court attorney fees)  Matrimonial law isn’t top project listed, but 4th under (Section III, Program Service Accomplishments).


Chris O’Sullivan: I’m at a terrible disadvantage behind these podium, which were designed by men, I think, very tall men — sort of disappear back here.

The study that we’re doing is pretty complementary to what Dan is doing. We’ve got a very eclectic group here. Michael is a parent coordinator, clinical psychologist, and divorce researcher in, in Boston with very little domestic violence background, which he’s getting very quickly. Marjorie Fields is a, is a former family court and Supreme Court judge who left the bench because she wanted to become a lawyer in private practice advocating for 

families in which there was domestic violence in custody cases. And Kim Selcer [[I think this must be “Kim Susser,” above]] has been our savior; she’s the one who sort of instigated this study by saying we’re having a real problem with our, our cases in family court and with the evaluators. So that was sort of the basis for starting this. April is an custody evaluator in New York City who’s a consultant on the project. And then we have people from various agencies in New York City who have cases in family court who … these are mostly, they do, they represent victims of domestic violence, primarily women, in contested custody cases and only indigent clients, so they’re, they’re free legal services.

OK, this is, this is a, this is a really difficult area. I don’t know how judges stand it. I hope to hear from Judge Koch.** How is a judge to know what’s going on in a family and how can you tell from what, what, how they present themselves in court who is a good parent? So it’s really an impossible task to begin with, and then you add to it a domestic violence allegation, and how do you, how do you know if that’s really going on? So they rely a lot on custody evaluators. And then what do the custody evaluators do is really the — oops — the question for this study.

(You know I’m going to look – and yes, this Judge Koch is AFCC)

And we’ve got two different contexts for these cases. The legal context puts the best interests of the child first, parental rights second, and then they have to factor in the impact. In New York State, it’s a factor, in some cases a presumption that a parent should not get custody if they’re perpetrating domestic violence. And then there’s the social clinical context of, you know, what happens to the child in these situations if the parents are fighting just to begin with. If there is domestic violence the custodial parent has to be safe in order to provide a good home for the child, and domestic violence has an impact on parenting as well.

So, we’ve got these two dynamics going on. The custody battles set up one kind of dynamics. In divorce there’s a lot of conflict. It’s a time when evaluators and judges might suspect that, that one party will make false allegations of domestic violence. There may be violence that is just due to the heightened emotions around the time of separation and fighting over custody. And then there’s the issue of whether one parent is trying to turn the children against the other parent  [[[i.e., “alienation”]]

Marjorie Fields bio, special counsel now to a lawfirm, background, Family Court Judge with a special interest in protecting women from domestic violence:

Marjory D. Fields Beldock Levine & Hoffman, LLPBELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP is a leading New York City boutique law firm. Our areas of practice include civil rights, employment, entertainment and intellectual property, art law, family law, criminal defense, real estate and estate planning.Our entertainment clients include award-winning musicians, singers, writers, actors, artists, filmmakers and producers, as well as managers, record companies and promoters.. . . .Marjory D. Fields became special counsel to the firm in 2002 after serving for more than sixteen years on the bench, first as a Judge of the Family Court of the State of New York and then as a Justice of the Supreme Court Matrimonial Part.Before being elevated to the bench, she was in private practice, specializing in matrimonial and family law matters.  Throughout her entire career she has been a devoted advocate for the rights of victims of domestic violence and has led efforts to reform and draft new legislation to protect victims’ rights.  She has also published and lectured extensively around the world on the topic of domestic violence, human rights of women, other legal issues effecting women, as well as other areas of family law and international jurisprudence.[2002 –  16+yrs= pre-1984.  She was around during welfare reform, access/visitation, marriage-fatherhood promotion, and all this.  Somehow that hasn’t made a mention yet in Daniel Saunders’ transcript, above.]

Let’s look at a different federally-funded study (NIJ, done in 2011, the grantee was the NYLAG, above)

Custody Evaluations When There Are Allegations of Domestic Violence: Practices, Beliefs, and Recommendations of Professional Evaluators   Michael S. Davis, Ph.D.; Chris S. O’Sullivan, Ph.D.; Kim Susser, JD; Hon. Marjory D. Fields, JD  Grant 2007-WG-BX-0001, Doc’t 234465.

Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice by New York Legal Assistance Group

The grantee was the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG). Kim Susser, JD, Director of the Matrimonial & Family Law Unit, was involved in planning the project and had general project oversight. Data were collected by former NYLAG staff, Elana Bildner and Rebecca Grekin.

The team involved in developing the research methodology, coding and analysis of the data consisted of Michael Sean Davis, Ph.D., a clinical and research psychologist, Chris O’Sullivan, Ph.D., a social psychologist specializing in domestic violence research, and Hon. Marjory D. Fields, JD, a retired judge with 16 years of experience ruling on child protection, domestic violence, custody, and matrimonial cases in the Family and Supreme Courts in New York City.

April Kuchuk, Ph.D., a forensic psychologist, served as project adviser. She assisted in development of the proposal and the evaluator interview questionnaire, which she also piloted. Nancy Erickson, JD, an attorney who represents victims of domestic violence, has a Masters degree in forensic psychology, and has published on custody issues and psychological testing in domestic violence, helped develop the coding scheme, drafted sections of the literature review, and suggested interpretation of findings.

{{Nancy Erickson is a frequent? presenter at BMCC, and a member of the Leadership Council}}

Project Advisers, attorneys specializing in domestic violence issues, provided feedback on hypotheses, methods and findings. They included:

• Liberty Aldrich, JD, Director of Domestic Violence and Family Court Programs at the Center for Court Innovation • Dorchen A. Leidholdt, JD, Director of the Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services at Sanctuary for Families • Emily Ruben, JD, Attorney-in-Charge, Brooklyn Neighborhood Office, The Legal Aid Society, Civil Practice • Sharen Stapel, JD, and Anna Maria Diamanti, JD, successively Directors of Family Law Unit, South Brooklyn Legal Services

Wow.  69 cases from four legal services centers, and what are the attitudes of the custody evaluators?

Custody Evaluations When There Are Allegations of Domestic Violence: Practices, Beliefs, and Recommendations of Professional Evaluators  [intro & some conclusion + references, excerpts]

The purpose of this study was to investigatethe impact of the beliefs and investigative practices of psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers who had been appointed by a court to evaluate families in disputed custody cases when there were allegations of domestic violence. Objectives were to examine the relationship between the evaluators’ beliefs and practices and their recommendations for custody and visitation, and to examine how the evaluators’ recommendations influenced case outcomes, including settlement agreements and court orders following trial.


. . . . .[I’m not going to read this whole thing now, it’s 90 pp (before the Reference pages…)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Given the overwhelming influence of custody evaluators’ conclusions on the court outcome, there should be greater consistency across evaluators: a family’s fate should not depend on which evaluator is appointed. Recommendations include screening of court-appointed evaluators for knowledge of domestic violence and training of evaluators on risk factors for ongoing and potentially lethal violence. It is also recommended that courts conduct fact- finding regarding the domestic violence rather than relying on the custody evaluators to conduct investigations.

(from References);

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them, Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-480.

[Thumbnail to right, Dr. Holzworth-Munroe is your OFI Stanley Cohen Awardee** for 2012 (1997 — Joan Kelley; later, Judith Wallerstein) and your “Kinsey Institute” connection.

Amy Holtzworth-Munroe

See link… The Oregon Family Institute (OFI) is like an AFCC outpost — early newsletters had Stanley Cohen’s address (scroll down to see, look at the list!).

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Header

(This Dept. now is under the Kinsey Institute; adjunct Professor Erick Janssen, interesting background for an AFCC awardee (He’s and Adjunct Professor in Holzworth-Munroe’s dept. too).

PAUSE to reflect on this one — why would an AFCC group (essentially) be giving a Stanley Cohen award — am I missing something, or do they need more scientific validation of the agenda?


Since its inception in 1888, our department has made countless impactful research contributions to our understanding of the psychological and brain sciences. …In 1888, after studying in the leading European centers of a newly emerging discipline, future IU president William Lowe Bryan planted the seeds of the “new psychology” in his native state by setting up a single psychological laboratory in the IU Department of Philosophy …Its strong bent toward educational theory, the science of learning, and child development would set the stage for a future school of education and remain consistent pursuits

in the department. ..That single, original laboratory-now the longest continuing psychology laboratory in the US-laid the ground for an expansive enterprise that now extends beyond a single building and into multiple research facilities. That laboratory’s single piece of equipment, a Hipp chronoscope used to measure human reaction-time in early experiments on sound, likewise paved the way for a host of sophisticated new experimental technology-neuroimaging techniques, tools for genetic analysis, virtual reality and other sophisticated internet technology designed to investigate the cognitive and physiological underpinnings of behavior and brain functions, social and developmental psychology, theories of cognition and contemporary neuroscience, all of which ignite the interests of the psychological and brain sciences department today.


Judith Reisman narrates the connection, how Kinsey was getting his data on child sexual responses from a Nazi man wanted by Interpol, and refused to expose him for “scientific” standards:

Kinsey’s “Brief” Visit to Frankfurt Before von Balluseck’s Final Arrest

Kinsey interviewFor some time, long-time Nazi party member, Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, mailed his on-going child abuse crimes to Kinsey.  Von Balluseck’s diaries appear to date from 1936 to1956, revealing Balluseck’s regular correspondence with Kinsey.  In fact, Kinsey sent his sympatico Nazi aide books about child sexuality–books that would have supported and encouraged the serial child predator’s incestuous and pedophile crimes. 

In the mid 1950s Interpol contacted the Kinsey team for help in locating a child sex killer the team had interviewed. The Kinsey Institute protected their WWII Gestapo agent (as they have always protected all their pedophiles and pederasts). They refused to give his name to Interpol under cover of shielding a possible child murderer from investigation based on “scientific” ethics.


The Kinsey Institute, of course, wasn’t going to take this lying down….

Attention has focused on Dr. Alfred Kinsey recently because of the institute’s celebration of the 50-year anniversary of his book and reports that a Hollywood film company is interested in producing a film about Kinsey.

This attention provides an opportunity for long-time anti-Kinsey crusader Judith Reisman to put forth, once again, her opinions on Kinsey and on the Institute. Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children’s sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman’s lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman’s case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).


Anyhow, I’m with Reisman — this has too many Nazi connections.  Child Sex Experiments of Nonce Alfred Kinsey (UK mag, I quoted it earlier; it points out Rockefeller funding ,and some origins in eugenics from the time Kinsey was at Harvard, etc.  Perhaps this indicates, in part, why custody of children is being given to batterers and molesters? [hover cursor for excerpt], or read:

Kinsey studied at the Bussey Institution at Harvard in the 1920s (at the time a hotbed of eugenics research), then moved on to teach at Indiana University, where his work in cultural deconstruction would ultimately succeed in decimating American sexual mores, help to fragment the family, and would leave the population far more vulnerable to reproductive, cultural, familial, and mind programming.

Kinsey, always portrayed in the press as a wholesome “leave it to Beaver” style family man, was “one of the scholarly eugenicists of pre-World War II”, according to biographer James Jones. Kinsey recommended that a portion of the “lower classes” be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.

Among his intimates was Dr. Ewen Cameron, the infamous CIA-funded mind control doctor.

Another of Kinsey’s influences was Dr. Herrmann Muller, one of his colleagues at Indiana University. Muller, who had begun receiving Rockefeller funding from the National Research Council in 1925, received a Guggenheim grant in 1932 to pursue his work in the genetics department of the Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Resarch Institute in Berlin.

Muller studied under Ernst Rudin, who was to become the head of the Nazi Racial Hygiene Society. One of the benefits of Rudin’s policy for the extermination of hereditary undesirables in Germany was that it provided a continual harvesting of fresh brains for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

 Influenced by the Great Beast  Another of Kinsey’s apparent influences was the occultist Aleister Crowley, “the Great Beast,” known in the press as “the wickedest man alive. . . . [etc.]

More references from the NYLAG Grantee Study of Custody Evaluators —

Arean, J. D., & Davis, L. (2007). Working with fathers in batterer intervention programs: Lessons from the Fathering After Violence Project. In J. L. Edleson & O. J. Williams (eds), Parenting by Men who Batter: New Directions for Assessment and Intervention, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 118-130..

{{Juan D. Arean is program director at a Futures Without Violence Fathering Initiative, advisory board to “Full Frame Initiative,” etc. }}

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (1994). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 504.

Bancroft, L. & Silverman, J. (2002). The batterer as parent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage….

Edleson, J. L., & Williams, O.J. (2007). Introduction: Involving men who batter in their children’s lives. **J. L. Edleson & O. J. Williams (eds), Parenting by Men who Batter: New Directions for Assessment and Intervention, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-18.

{{**says book is a result of a 2-day mtg. in SF (look who was there) about women who WANT men who batter in their lives because of shared parenting.  Sure….I was in the area at this time trying to get a protective order re-instated.  Did this influence the locals???}}

Erickson, N. (2005). Use of the MMPI-2 in custody evaluations involving domestic violence. Family Law Quarterly, 39, 87-108. …

Erickson, N. & Zorza, J. (2005). Evaluating the handling of domestic violence cases by custody evaluators. Domestic Violence Report, 10(4), 49-50, 62-63.

Johnston, J. R. (1995). Research update: Children’s adjustment in sole custody compared to joint custody families and principles for custody decision making. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 415-425.

Johnston, J. R. & Campbell, L. E. G. (1993). Parent-child relationships in domestic violence families disputing custody. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31(3), 282-298.

Kelly, J. B. (1993). Current research on children’s postdivorce adjustment: No simple answers. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31, 29-49.

{{Janet Johnston, San Jose State, and Joan B. Kelly are AFCC seminal influences, both from California, or at least working from there}}

Neustein, A., & Lesher, M. (2005). From madness to mutiny: Why mothers are running from the family courts and what can be done about it. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

New York State Board for Psychology. (1997). Guidelines for child custody evaluations. Albany, NY.

O’Sullivan, C., Levin-Russell, K., King, L.A., & Horowitz, E. (April, 2006). Supervised and Unsupervised Parental Access in Domestic Violence Cases: Court Orders and Consequences. NCJRS: NCJ213712

Pardue, M. G., & Rector, R. E. (2004, March 30). Reducing domestic violence: How the healthy marriage initiative can help (Backgrounder #1744). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Cited in J. L. Edleson & O. J. Williams (eds), Parenting by Men who Batter: New Directions for Assessment and Intervention, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 17.

{{CITED how?  Seriously?  The Heritage Foundation?  that’s had ties with the Unification Church and represents the ultra right??}}

Pence, E. (undated). Origin of the Power and Control Wheel. http://www.powerandcontrolfilm.com/pdfs/transcript-ellen-pence.pdf

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model..

Rempel, M. (2009). Batterer Programs and Beyond. In E. Stark and E Buzawa (Eds.),

Violence Against Women in Families and Relationships, Vol. 3, Criminal Justice and the Law. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Report of the Matrimonial Commission to the Chief Judge of New York State (2006). Downloaded 2/26/2010 from http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/matrimonialcommissionreport.pdf

Report of the Family Court Advisory and Rules Committee to the Chief Judge of the State of New York (2006)

Rosen, L., & O’Sullivan, C. (2005). Outcomes of custody and visitation petitions when fathers are restrained by protection orders: The case of the New York family courts. Violence Against Women, 11 (8), 1054-1075

Silverman, J. G., Mesh, C. M., Cuthbert, C. V., Slote, K., & Bancroft, L. (2004). Child custody determinations in cases involving intimate partner violence: A human rights analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 951-957.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N.* (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: NIJ.

Tubbs, C. Y., & Williams, O. J. (2007). Shared parenting after abuse: Battered mothers’ perspectives on parenting after dissolution of a relationship. J. L. Edleson & O. J. Williams (eds), Parenting by Men who Batter: New Directions for Assessment and Intervention, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 19- 44.  [[FN 36 in this BWJP “Mind the Gap” publication cites to this. “Appendix A” at back lists participants.  Many (Incl. Judge Koch, above) are AFCC, but don’t say so on their listing…]]

Ver Steegh, N., & Dalton, C. (2008). Report from the Wingspread Conference on domestic violence and family courts. Family Court Review, 46, 454-475

Clare Dalton as above, Ver Steegh is AFCC.  Oliver J. Williams is on the IDVAAC, Minnesota School of Social Work, “Oliver J. Williams, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, and a Professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota, in St. Paul. He is also the Director of the Safe Return Initiative that addresses the issues of prisoner reentry and domestic violence. He has worked in the field of domestic violence for more than twenty-nine years. Dr. Williams has worked in battered women’s shelters, developed curricula for batterers’ intervention programs and facilitated counseling groups in these programs.

Johnny Rice II (to bottom  right) , notice his professional position — Senior Program Associate – Center on Victimization and Safety, Supervised Visitation Initiative

Vera Institute of Justice Nonprofit; 51-200 employees; Public Policy industry October 2010 – Present (3 years 6 months) Director – Office of Grants Management Maryland Department of Human Resources   

I think the bottom line is, they are going to write and study and write and study, but I doubt the day is ever going to come when the concept of attempting to reform Batterers or Ditching Supervised Visitation as a field (as should, in my opinion happen) — will be considered for an across-the-board budget cut!

Why would they, when just these elements — and training judges — was traded for safety for battered women (and children) in the first place, decades ago.   Instead of getting free from serious abuse (and raising the kids alone, and better for the absence of that type of sociopath in their lives) — we get, some women, forced into supervised visitation and exorted ourselves, and the men get out of jail time with the BIP stuff.  “Great Work,” DV advocates!

In hindsight, if I’d known about the forces at work in the system when I separated (since none of these jokers brought it up, nor did my dv agency or anyone else; I only found out in 2009 after it was too late….) — I’d NEVER have been so nice after throwing him out (legally).   It has truly destroyed a number of lives (and negatively affected both my children — for one, they lost a mother AND a father growing up AND child support, and the one nonviolent parent they had, that role model and example became a public example (from the family tribe) of “what happens to people who say NO to abuse!”

You don’t know this when you’re still a parent in shock (in part at not being subject to sudden assaults during the night, or attempting to leave the home, or coming back home, etc.) — at the time.  But given another chance, I’d have left the state.  How ignorant we are of our own government policies..

ANYHOW:  Regarding all this:


SUPPOSE [SUPPOSITION #1] the bedrock elements of:

1. the Founding Families [and their bedrock principles & practices,

literally the origins] of

AFCC (Conciliation Court model) Meyer Elkin, Stanley Cohen, Judith Wallerstein, Joan B Kelly, Janet Johnston, et. al.


2.  the Founding Families [and their bedrock principles & practices, literally the origins] of

the origins of the primary professions whose names begin with the four letters “PSYCH” (particularly PSYCHOANALYSIS), including among some of the most respected and decorated and published:  MD’s, Ph.D’s, Psy.D’s at some of the most respected and influential Universities in the USA

are, both of them individually and together, are essentially (in their essence, fundamentally, expressed most concisely) about two things:

1. “An Assault on the Truth,” as per my “Stunning Validation” post of Feb. 5, 2013 —

  • (i.e., suppose they exist to reframe reality; they are the “crime-scene cleanup crews” of contemporary reality that there is just no social will to change, it being too traumatic for most people even to think about, let alone talk about),

Which, if essentially true, leads to an important, reasonably true corollary (i.e., if A is true, then so is this):

  • when it comes to the truth vs. professional respectability and continuity, these groups will consistently prioritize their prestigious professions over “the truth,” which is to say, given  choice to STOP THE TRAUMA (abuse) by outing their own assault on it, or LOSE PROFESSIONAL STATUS, FACE, AND EVEN INCOME, they’ll keep their place in society.  They would rather (immorally) continue sacrificing kids to their professions than sacrifice their professions to save the kids.   Even if this cost is a constant stream of abused children, and women, including sexually traumatized and physically assalted by their intimates, or assigned caretakers, and has a ripple effect on future generations, including people that get murdered who might not have been otherwise, or kids being exposed to that kind of senseless murder.

  • To do this includes a  high degree of refined rationalization / justification of the perpetration of evil in the pursuit of “science,”  framed as service to humanity.

AND they are also (groups 1 & 2):

2.  “JOINED AT THE HIP”  [who:  1. the Founding families of AFCC-crowd and 2. Founding Families of the Psycho-crowd (psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, psychodyamics — “PSYCH” get it?)

  • In-bred, inter-related, overlapping, self-referencing, common belief systems, simply different FUNCTIONS in service of the same goals, collectively.

There are certain truths we want to find out, formulas may apply.  If it were the relationship to line A, to lines B & C, below, the problem to solve is, “How long is that line?”

I’m not squaring anything.  But I’m presenting a version of Supposition 1 (if true) and Supposition 2 (if true), THEN the logical conclusion in relationship to Reality 3 is, what it is.

A better mathematical theorem? is probably

“if a = b and b = c, then a = c.”

(I’m too old to remember what it’s called, but do you remember that one?  “Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.”)  The idea here is, for “equal to” we want a “What IS this?” that’s true, not false — when it comes to Who ARE these courts, anyhow? and after identifying who, what the are, then the next questions would be, for example, can we live with that, and if not, what to do about it.

BECAUSE — right now, all creation, at least assents to being “against” such things a father/daughter (or, father/son) incest — with a few notably and highly positioned exceptions, and we have a lot of federal, state, and county task forces saying they are against it, are preventing it, are stopping it, and are going to put a stem to the horrible trail of trafficking kids so others (not just relatives) can do really really bad things to them.

It seems society is, in this matter, truly stuck on the horns of a dilemma.  We are caught in a paradox.  We are between a rock and  hard place, and stranded on the island of denial.  We’re at an impasse (perhaps at the Donner Pass*). We’re in some social quicksand.  We’re paddling, but for the most part, up a creek without a paddle.

Either society adapts (and goes down, according to our own stated beliefs, making us hypocrites), or we take the tough personal consequences, and do not descend into, when it comes to Donner Pass (and I’m speaking figuratively here) cannibalizing our own (consigning sectors of the population to an “other” which is for some, a fast-death sentence, and for the rest, a death-of-humanity, starved for the truth scenario).

*Californians may be familiar with the story.  The Donner Path got stranded in winter, a long time.  Some made it through, with a little cannibalism; others obviously didn’t, and some made it through, without.  None made it THROUGH, unchanged.

Summarizing SUPPOSITION #1 (it has a compound subject and compound predicate, connected by an verb from of the verb “to be.”  My SUPPOSITION (that I intend to prove) IS that:

The AFCC crowd  (shorthand for Meyer Elkin et al., the Conciliation Court Crowd — in short,the individuals creating, lobbying for legislation to expand and sustain, training, staffing, publishing, conferencing and planning more and more professions to inhabit these courts, the Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Unified Family, Problem-Solving, Collaborative, Cooperative, FAMILY GROUP DYNAMIC-model courts) + the (this is my shorthand) Freud’s Friends and Family ~ International Psychoanalytic Association and their friends, affiliates, off-shoots/progeny, brain-childs, extended family members, including the clinical forensic psychologists and those who wish to mainstream “mental hygiene” (behavioral health) and its funding) ARE both: An Assault on the Truth [and corollary, who they will sacrifice rather than lose professional status and income] and Joined at the Hip.

That’s my paragraph version of “a2 = b2 + c2” to figure out what is the length of the hypteneuse of a right triangle.  We haven’t got to a2, I just presented Supposition 1, b2:

Some of this I didn’t find out til recently (within the half year).  However, I only found out at ALL because I quit reading, re-blogging, hanging out on-line with, and to tell the truth, listening to the same old rhetoric from the same old individuals, once I knew they’d engaged in what most PR business does — reframing reality according to the marketing goal.  How HARD is it to figure out, really?

Next problem — who’ll bother to read up and pay attention, not I was just indoctrinated and became a convert style — but I actually did some independent (at least not “emotionally validated by the Kool-Aid”) lookups?

We can either forum-shop which fast-foods franchise to buy our worldviews from — or we could take some time to develop them.  One will result in more sustainable thinking, the other is more likely to result in joining a cult.  One clue of whether you are talking to a cult members (there are many, but here’s one) is when they attempt to speak a different language then the chosen guru’s, or challenged on the facts — or, on the character based on behaviors (facts) about their leaders — they get angry, go silent, or launch into personal attacks, sprinkled with quotes from their communal storehouse (not a large one) of phrases. As to online behavior, this also can result in “excommunication” (refusal to re-blog), lest the desperately needed and wanted moral and social support evaporate, and the world turn out to be as frightening and empty of other sources of (energy, connection, help, conversation, and in general, life) as it is though to be as viewed from the inside.  Which, a some level, is due to having self-isolated into the cult to start with, which can also result in poverty, and other codependent relationships.

After all, when cults are developing and seeking personnel, where are they going to be recruiting?  From among the contented and stable in life and society, people pursuing meaningful to them life purposes?

Suppose I’m Right, and it’s Extremely Relevant to y/our place in society, to the future, what I’m about to show, in this post?  

What would you do differently- anything?

  • Not, WWJD,                                  =>=>=>
  • but what would YOU do?
  • Would you take moral and ethical responsibility for changing your habits?

Typically, people don’t engage in major change unless something “gets to” their heart, which is a reflection on their heart (center of decision-making that goes deeper than mood, intellect, etc.), or some sort of epiphany.  Maybe a crisis of the conscience, awakening, or when the lights (of understanding) go on

My question is, if the lights go on, would they STAY on?  Or would the room go darker than before the light was temporarily on, the choice made (denial, dissociation, distraction, amnesia), and then go off.

I ask as someone who knows from experience what it means to people under attack when bystanders see [click the lights on], then go back to business as usual, perhaps for lack of figuring out another alternative, or the habit of believing, “it’s not my responsibility, that’s what we have laws, law enforcement social services, government authorities, jails, courts, …. (etc.) for — I paid my taxes!”  I can see what might happen to ME and MY family (household, kids, self) if I got involved.  Or, perhaps through simple habit.  [See  FN1, bottom of post].  

Would you have a”men and brethren, what shall we do?” moment?

Or, appropriate here, a “women and ‘sisters/mothers’?

Would you take responsibility for knowing, or not?

Here’s what…    Suppose (Supposition #1):

(IF/Then.  Like any good proposition, there’s an A and a B, and their relationship = the logical conclusion.  I’m talking basic logic, this is partly just “math,” one reason math is so beautiful (in my opinion).  Vocabulary.  We’re trying to get back within the range of reason” when it comes to tough topics that demand sensible acknowledgement.  The topics run across the type of topic where emotions (some of them instinctive, some of them I think collective) WILL drive the response — and an emotionally driven false response will get (more) people hurt, maybe killed, kids trafficked, children to grow up witnessing their own or their sisters or brothers (etc.) being raped or otherwise harmed, and then have to grow up and function in a society tht doesn’t want to talk about it — or at least talk about it truthfully.

FAMILY COURT MATTERS overlap highly with scenarios with huge social ramifications, and in these categories where it’s almost impossible for those involved, those witnessing, those attempting to help but not authorized to, those who might be also arrested (incarcerated, or otherwise badly harmed — and their kids) for helping, reporting, or challenging the status quo also.  In these fields, TRUTH matters, and DENIAL OF IT matters even more.

There are two parts to severe abuse –one it the assault, the control itself, and the other is the lies that support it.  I have become sensitized to LYING over the years.  I have pathological liars (sociopaths in the classic terms) in my life, right now (current tense) and in the situations regarding my children, as we find often in the courts, there are so many varieties of lies and circumstances, methods of delivery.

Sampler (from recent experience and past):

There’s the “to whom” the “in response to your last communication” the “in accompaniment with the most recent attack/incident, escalation.” There’s the “through a third party” lie.  There’s the “hint, not quite stated” and there are the “big whoppers” (full-frontal assault on the truth).  There are the “warning shot” lies. All in all, to be exposed to the extent of lying in a long-term CHRONIC and with only one reasonable predictable outcome (death  to one or more individuals, pre-ceded by long-term tortures (plural) and the fear that one might die and others, particularly offspring, might never know this particular truth (set of truths), and/or one might also die, or be forced into a situation where one might never know certain truths — about what happened to one’s kids.

The abuse comes with lies, and intentional, deliberate lying is also a control tactic.  

One of the most dangerous things to be done is to call someone (or some system) invested in pathological lying over time, in those lies — say stop it, post the counteracting truth (consistently), tell them to stop and narrate “what I will do next if you don’t stop” — and then, following through and doing this, which also necessitates having a “Plan B” depending on the response.

Therefore those who truly want to stop abuse (versus saying they do) will either be dealing with fundamental, essential, foundational truths (forsaking the most common lies around) — or they will not.  in Family Court Matters, “TRUTH” matters — and truth is not relative, all dependent on one’s point of view (and all points of view have an unalienable right to be heard and “taken on faith,” potentially, forever).  One of the most wonderful and empowering (though challenging) activities abused individuals can go through is not just telling THEIR truths — but discovering the truths about those they tell them to, seek hel from, or want social change from.  … Even though doing so will further alienate such people (often) from transitory sustenance or help offered from those who know they’re “drowning.”

So, very briefly, here’s some of the language TRUTH comes in, at least logically and mathematically:

*no, I hadn’t heard of “lemma” before today, but I’ll bet you also have heard the word “dilemma.”  Now we know where it came from, I guess.   This is short, with a photo — so deal with it!

Mathematical Ramblings:  Lemma Theory Proposition or Corollary?*

Lemma, Theorem, Proposition or Corollary?*[above]

A student recently ask me about to explain what mathematicians mean by a corollary, so I thought I would quickly explain here.

confused student
Image by Free-StockPhotos.com

The four labels given by mathematicians to statements that can be shown to be true are Lemma, Theorem, Proposition and Corollary. They all basically mean the same thing: some mathematical statement that is true, given some starting axioms or previous true statements. Showing that these statements are true constitutes a proof. I will say something about proofs another time.

Everything I say here will be rather informal.


A lemma is some statement that can be shown to be true, starting from some previously accepted statements, that is used to show that some other statement or statements are true.

In essence, a lemma is a “stepping stone” to some other statement or statements that are regarded more important in the current context.

However, lemmas can turn out to be very important statements in many cases. They often develop some line of attack that can be applied to a wider context than they were originally intended. Some of the most famous results in mathematics are lemmas.


A theorem is some statement that can be shown to be true, starting from some previously accepted statements.

This is almost the same as a lemma, but a theorem is deemed to be of primary importance within the context it is established. Though note that one theorem can be used to prove another theorem, so the distinction between lemma and theorem is loose.

You can find a list of theorems here.


A proposition is some statement that can be shown to be true, starting from some previously accepted statements.

Hang on a moment, is this not just the same as a theorem?

In short, yes a theorem and a proposition are the same thing. Though, and this is rather subjective, a theorem is deemed to be a more important result than a proposition.

So the distinction between a lemma, a theorem and a proposition is rather loose.


A corollary is some statement that is true, that follows directly from some already established true statement or statements.

Typically, a corollary will be some statement that is easily derived from a theorem or a proposition. Often corollaries are “specialisations” of a theorem or a proposition. They key thing is they follow naturally from some established statement.

But again, this is not really any different to a theorem or proposition, or indeed a lemma if the corollary is used to establish some other statements.

In conclusion

So we see that the distinction between a lemma, a theorem, a proposition and a corollary is not very strict and depends largely on the context as well as the whims of the mathematicians writing papers.

One man’s lemma is another man’s theorem.

Let me also quote where I to that from, to re-iterate. For a famous “theorem” see “The Pythagorean Theorem,” i.e., that famous “triangular” formula as shown below and probably you memorized it (I hope) somewhere between 4th and 8th grade in school, or earlier or later. If we are going to “triangulate” where we are in 2014 regarding some of these volatile matters, we should figure which languages of proof apply, before “Jumping to Conclusions” where:
1. Lives are at stake; or 2. Public policy affecting billions of dollars, and the nature of life in the USA will be affected (negative or positive) depending on the conclusions.

I am alone in so MANY different conclusions I’ve come to (in these volatile) matters over time, through having adopted certain basic habits of truth (fact-finding), comparing results, and once some is reasonably disproved, I don’t reconsider it again without cause. While this odd blog is long, and may look complex, it access more than one kind of (data) on organizations and situations — I call it “3D” because it’s lateral (more than geography/political jurisdiction), , historical (back in time, who started these movements, and sponsored these courts and their corps?) AND often takes core samples across related professions (examining similar personnel or characteristics), uses different diagnostic tools (clumsy, not 100% reliable — but then, compared to the fields of psychology, social science, and child support research and demonstration projects — I’d have to say, they hold their own! I say, LOOK IT UP FIRST! — get that organizational corporation background — and screen for Honest/Dishonest. Etc.) People get screened for are w walking into some courtrooms, right? So if groups are walking into your inbox, group mail, chatroom, FaceBook, or running conference of which YOUR situations are the topic — what’s so hard about a little consistent lookup?).

Practing the PITA (Pain in the @ss) look-it up approach, short-term, is profitable in the long run because of fluency, and developing awareness of patterns, not to mention a workable database of honest versus dishonest advocacy groups, a prime interest here.

So, here’s another link from which I got “Mathematical Ramblings,” above, at “Grad Studies in Control” (July 2013 post).  I am obviously working on-line and looking for definitions of the elements of LOGIC (reasoning) coming to some CONCLUSION (understanding, turning the lights on) with a goal of STRATEGY (which, in this field, requires collaboration with others –or, if that’s not available, then a different way for survival):

Lemma, Proposition, Theorem and Corollary

 If you read a lot of papers in control theory, then you have probably come across the following words: (a) Lemma, (b) Theorem, (c) Corollary and (d) Proposition. These are terms that are used a lot in articles that uses mathematics a lot. When I first saw these terms, I had no idea what they meant which makes me miserable whenever a read a paper. However, once you understand these terms, it will allow you to understand a paper much more easier. So, I decided to write a post to explain what these terms means and how to read and write them in a paper.In order to present the meaning as precisely as possible, I have check my understanding of these terms with several references as listed below (which I found it to be similar) :  [=livelinks:]

 The least important term is Lemma. As a rule of thumb should be a statement that will used in proving a Theorem (the main result(s) of a paper) or another Lemma. Sometimes, mathematician refers it as a stepping stone. The purpose of presenting a lemma is to make the proof of a theorem more readable. By proposing a Lemma and its proof separately, you essentially make the proof theorem shorter and easier to digest. So, when you are writing a long proof for a theorem, consider partition part of the theorem into Lemma(s). In particular, making statements that will be used often in other proofs into Lemmas would improve readability of a paper significantly. When skimming through a paper, you can usually safely neglect the proof of Lemmas. But make sure you read the statements of the Lemmas, as they will be used in the proofs later on.

The well-known 
Phythagorean Theorem

Next, comes almighty term, Theorem. Any statements that are labelled as Theorem(s) are the main result(s) of an article or a thesis. Before you read a mathematical paper, you always want to look for the Theorems to take a look at the paper’s main results. This will give you an idea of what the final results are and does it relate to what you want to read. Often to write a theorem is easy – it is not that hard to figure out which of your results are important. However, to write a good theorem is hard. Keeping in mind that a lot of people will first read the theorem, it is important to write a theorem statement as self-contained as possible. For example, all (important) assumptions and equations related to the theorem should be mentioned in the theorem.Sometimes, Theorems are followed by Corollaries. Corollaries are statements that are easily derived from the Theorems. The key point is EASILY DERIVED. Typically, corollaries would be useful statements that one can use for computational purposes or it is a statement when you “specialized” your theorem into certain situations or problems. While skimming through a paper, after you read the Theorems, try to read the Corollaries. It will usually provide you with additional insights or it will make abstract results into something more “concrete” (something that you can compute). As for tips on writing corollaries, I would say just make sure you are stating a useful corollary. There is no point in describing something useless.Finally, you have statements called Propositions. From reading the comments on Math Overflow, there seems to be a little bit of disagreement to how Proposition should be used. But, in current trend, it is general safe to say that Propositions arestatements that somewhat important but not as important as the main results. Usage of propositions can get pretty confusing. As a writer, I trying to avoid avoid using the label Proposition. I feel that labeling proposition it is rather subjective because the proposition maybe presented as a Theorem too. It is hard to distinguish the importance based on individual view. However, when you are reading a paper, you should try to look for Propositions too and pay some attention to them. Sometimes, they just might be important results for you. Also, I have read somewhere that there are some people who use Proposition rather differently. For example, some people might used as a conjecture. So, when you come across the word “Proposition”, becareful…This basically wraps up this long post of mine. My advice is try to get familiar with these terms so that you can read a mathematical paper more easily. Also, when possible, avoid the usage of proposition. Often, I just find it confusing how important is a particular proposition in a paper. It seems that it creates more questions than answering it. I hope you guys find it useful.

If I can convince you that the Meyer Elkin and in short, that the (AFCC, we created the courts crowd)[1] was not just related to but collaborating with the “Assault on the Truth” crowd [2], from which psychoanalysis itself (and all that goes with it and has sprung from it),

[1], Judge Pfaff, Stanley Cohen, Joan Kelly, Judith Wallerstein, Janet Johnston, many prominent (state supreme court) Justices, law school professors, and originators of The Family Court Review, leadership in the Administrative Branch (“AOC”) of the largest court (not just family court, but COURT) system in the country, which California’s is,

[2] Although people not in psychoanalysis, under psychiatric care may be less than aware of how influential this sector is, perhaps understanding that they are the handmaidens of society’s need to “make war, not love” and helping society function (and their professional classes prosper) when “society” is never going to stop abusing children in the home, violence against women, or for that matter, waging war for profit.  And that the origins of this came from STUDYING traumatized populations who show up seeking healing from counselors, end up captive in institutions, and etc.

through affiliations, in one case through marriage, and through the SYSTEMATIC reframing of violence against individuals (often children, often sexual, sometimes battering, and often of women) as something only experts are to treat — who would you bail on reblogging [quit, boycott, etc.] the groups censoring the discussion, and put some energy into exposing that censorship — and this material, instead?

AND, after establishing the connections and collaborations between AFCC & Assault on the Truth, that the essence of BOTH groups are now, as they have been historicallycollaborating, together, in a self-selecting and self-censoring conspiracy (yeah, that word, or as a societal very large cult (no quotes)), to Reframe Reality (massively so)  for professional purposes (including profit, and preservation of their own kind, FIRST), to enable continual and ongoing violent assaults upon children, and others (particularly the subset of all women called
mothers) under the (dis)Guise “healing” [therapy] and “science” (understanding, in precise, accurate detail, what makes and breaks human beings individually and collectively),

And suppose also that I could prove,

not just assert but show (document, give unrefutable evidence)

that what I’m going to call group [3], is

and that based on this, we can absolutely document that [3] the current and ongoing (expanding, developing) coalitions of “Crisis in the Courts, Our Broken Courts, SafeChildCoalitions, Protective Mothers Alliance, the mainstream (faculty/presenters) at “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” (BMCC), anyone who’s referencing “58,000 children a year” (still), and quite a few more associations making a name for themselves in Stopping Abuse (or “Abusers Getting Custody”)

are in on it too, including the reframing reality for profit while publicizing the concern for traumatized and abused children.

What does that say about the standard GroupThink in, particularly, ‘Crisis in the Courts’ crowds?  What does that say, if you’ve bought this stuff for years, and in fact helped excommunicate people who are talking truth (principles), not just tactics and how to get attention?

If this essential truth about the “Crisis in the Courts” crowd’s relationship to the the other two crowds

AND suppositions 1 and 2 (as I believe they are, while all parts are still in motion, as in, rapid expanding, and planning to ride the wave of the future [next 50 years]) still fundamentally the essence of the matter, then the remaining question is —

AFCC 50th Anniversary Conference

Riding the Wave of the Future:

Global Voices, Expanding Choices JW Marriott Los Angeles L.A. LIVE • May 29-June 1, 2013

What conclusions (logical) are then also true, and, “What’s it to you?” (who gives a damn beyond their own households, and their own lifetimes).  WWJD?  I DNK (I do know what people saying they represent him ARE doing and have done, which is one reason I had to file a DV order with kickout long ago), but my question is not what your chosen leadership would do [what some kinds of leadership HAVE been doing is already in evidence], but WWYD.

WWYD (What Would YOU Do?)

While I have a few ideas on that, the first business at hand is, IS THAT TRUE?

After all that, I’m ready to go to the next post — DISCUSSION and PROOFS… As the PROCESS of Proof is required for access to TRUTH, (even if preceded by a little “take it on faith” — another word for, supposition).   I had to discuss it.

Even when we’re talking collective influence from internet-based and personal affiliations-based propaganda, can still take place (and should).

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 5, 2014 at 9:48 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] more, see March 5, 2014 post “Suppose I’m Right Here ….What Would You Do When the Lights go on?” Seeing the Wallerstein-Wallerstein connection, and the consistent practice of re-framing […]

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: