Apparently I am not showing solidarity within “the movement,” said a comment below (see “Comments”).  I responded to the assumption that the “movement” (coalitions, groupings of professionals towing traumatized parents around for show-and-tell, and encouraging them to tell their stories as a platform to the reforms wanted by the groupings of professionals [“Let’s get yet more Technical Assistance and Training (domestic violence consultants — aware of the custody issues) in there” — like us and our friends”] was really “the movement” and that those so engaged had battered mothers’ or the public best interests even as a priority.

Enough was found to move to a separate post, however I’m leaving one of the referring agencies, nicknamed “CASES” and showing its recent increases in Total (Gross) Assets for a joint of reference.

Total results: 5.** Search Again.

(**Above: I added two more years, YE2016 and 2017, of search results during Aug. 2018 (slight) post cleanup).

Here, an Initiative is called “Center for Court Innovation”

Here a “Center for Court Innovation “Initiative” through Agency “CJC” is allocated $400K. Notice also the Adolescent Portable Therapy Program (APTP) by the Vera Institute — this is an “import” from a UK group (Anna Freud Centre), or at least featured by it.

Commentary:

This link and discussion added below under the post’s’ heading “Center for Court Innovation.” [Click through to the website and bookmark, please!] Making for one very long post indeed, but covering some very important ground….

This NYC 2014 BUDGET link above (the adjustments to a NYC budget) shows that the name “Center for Court Innovation” was identified with an EIN# that matches the $86 million (in assets) tax-exempt corporation called “Fund for the City of New York“ as a fiscal item on the NYC budget, and having been characterized as running several types of courts in the city, while receiving budgetary contributions from the City for this service.

I think this should interest readers from both the size of operations and the setup (see pp. 7, 8, 9). It takes some sustained attention, to grasp, however.

Question:  Why would writers of the NYC Budget Adjustments who surely know the difference between a corporation or nonprofit organization (such as Fund for the City of New York) and a project which is not a corporation (such as “Center for Court Innovation”) forget to use the correct name when listing the budget adjustment of, that year, $400,000, with (it says) funding having begun in 2005 and this CCI being the designated lead for that type of project?  More visuals below under that Title.

Neither the CCI nor this Fund should be ignored, for what they represent to USA and, it’s been made clear, the internationalization of justice reform according to “best ideas, as defined by those in power to fund demonstration projects, AND evaluations of the same demonstration projects” via tax-exempt fund and tax-supported court system.

(2017 Update from the table below, showing must current assets had grown to $86M.  Look at the more recent version, up from $86M to $115.8M in a few short years):

As displayed (far) below in this post, in the company of other Ford Foundation tax returns, Years ending 2011, 2012, and 2013:

CCI is self-defined as “a public/private partnership.” That means both public and private funds go into it and moreover, that those funds are not easily traceable by looking at EITHER the public (NYS Unified Court System) budget OR the tax returns of the Private (Fund).  And yet they are also self-defined as innovative, and systems change oriented.

An attempt is being made to engineer this change, obviously, without public awareness of who, really, is paying for it, although depending on what type of change, we  ALL pay the price if it’s in a more, versus less oppressive direction.  So which direction the money and which direction the change IS going, should be watched.  You watch the influence by watching the organizations; and you watch the organizations, in good part, by getting tax returns where available (or other financials) and considering what’s seen, who’s involved, and WHAT is the organizational or corporate purpose.

CCI is an item on others’ tax returns and budgets, but not being a specific corporation OR arm of government, it would be quite a project to get a picture (layout) of its finances, and from that, its influences, on a major court system such as the NYS UNIFIED Court System.

We are supposed to take it on faith that being in the hands of the experts is good news.

I have been in such hands (in California, but with similar flavor and programming) and know better than to accept “just trust us” when it comes to bright new ideas on how to change the courts bypassing regular public input, because the public is too broke to get that input in there, and those pushing the ideas are, well, the opposite.

Founded as a public/private partnership between the New York State Unified Court System and the Fund for the City of New York, the Center for Court Innovation seeks to aid victims, reduce crime, strengthen neighborhoods, reduce incarceration, and improve public trust in justice. The Center combines action and reflection to spark justice reform locally, nationally, and internationally.

Fund for the City of New York was (funded/incorporated as a nonprofit) in 1968 by the under-funded (?) Ford Foundation, with significant involvement in other systems-changes elements of the courts around the country; CCI is hardly its only project.

To my 259+ “Followers” who just received an email notification of this trust (and other viewers)…. You were just mailed a post in DRAFT status, when “yours truly’ hit “Publish” instead of “Save Draft” while editing it.  Right now, my version of WordPress, or my input device, simply will not let me put a published post back into draft or pending status.  When I attempt, the system simply refreshes all windows.

However, even incomplete and in draft, this post on this material is still timely, and relevant. It proves who (by group name, including Executive Director), while valiant in reporting troubling matters,  was still systematically and uniformly covering up, or had abandoned from all significant public discussion the role of the federal grants (access/visitation  in particular) in influencing INDIVIDUAL  custody cases where child abuse had already been identified.

The information surrounding the creation of the family and conciliation courts, plus its relationship to “welfare reform” is significant enough it puts an entirely different light on the whole subject matter. There are  MANY corollaries (logical conclusions) from the information about the Who, What, When, Where, How and even Why  that make sense of the current situations in the court and enable people paying attention to  even see, document , changes continuing to happen along the same lines.

There is literally  NO EXCUSE for this degree of  OMISSION from DISCUSSION of THIS MUCH relevant information.  

This post also again PROVES that the organization in question, through  its at least 2004 Executive Director, and as I have asserted often enough in person (email, phone) and I believe on this blog, has had access all along — and chose to siderail that information, if not [just about] eliminate it from their email alerts, co-sponsored conference topics, summaries of the situation and assessments — as do the professionals and other organizations they tend to support, promote and help publicize.

With the information from Liz Richards nafcj.net alone, a logical  conclusion  would QUICKLY lead [as it did me] sensible people to understand (better) the events leading up to and following from the 1996 PRWORA welfare reform and, by NAMING them, which significant organizations and individuals were restructuring not just the courts, but the entire US Government (economically, through radical changes to the Social Security Act). Please note, from NAFCJ.net website, front page: “Fifth Step – Change your Reaction Mode” which is still good advice!

Fifth Step: Change your reaction mode: Learn how stop being fooled and manipulated by dishonest people who are supposed to be helping you ! Learn about unique responses to this problem.

I’m not sure I agree at this point with the recommended responses, which could and have produced retaliatory action (extreme) upon individuals.  I DO, however, agree with researching and finding out WTF is going on — in those areas!

Also see, June 2010 Testimony Liz submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee prior to another fatherhood bill authorization (I alerted the group emails I was on at the time to this, not having regular internet access (or a laptop, or a car, or income) at that particular season).…  Read “An Expensive Remedy in Search of a Legitimate Problem”  And, in June 27, 2012, Anne Stevenson, as an individual (not representing a nonprofit or organization) gave another fantastic testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, <=<=<=VERY well documented!  Anne since then has begun to take the AFCC apart at the seams, and properly so, as individuals did in prior years.

There is a full generation (at least) of ignorance to dispel in this arena — meanwhile (since), I’ve come to learn (too much) more about who’s been backing this particular nonprofit and have come to my own conclusions about WHY marriage/fatherhood programming was set up to start with (and it’s not, FYI, just for custody matters.  It’s about the system change!! And not the good kind).

[So, Liz R. wrote in 6/2010]

My research and findings have been included in a DoJ study on the negative impact of the fathers rights movement on domestic violence victims. My group is also listed on the Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Resource Center (NCJRS) web site as an official resource.

(http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/topics/Topic.aspx?topicid=36 )* All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him

**scroll down to the bottom..

Right on top of that link is a link to AFCC.net.

• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
  http://www.afccnet.org
• National Alliance for Family Court Justice
  http://www.nafcj.net

So, “Congratulations” for the Protective Parents Movements that don’t want to deal with EITHER of those websites, and follow the evidence to some logical conclusions…  In 2013, the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference (BMCC) invited a participant that AFCC calls one of its “partners” — and AFCC is promoting PAS that BMCC protests.  This is beginning (once you look at the details) to look more and more like a farce (carefully scripted puppet show) in the macro view.  But that will not become clear without sorting through organizations, corporations, and their relationship to each other (and federal government).  

At this point I am no longer dealing with Liz by phone or email; one reason had to do with compromise of confidentiality on email lists; another was, basic phone courtesy, (i.e., listening to at least one complete sentence before shouting it down), and a few other reasons.  I also do not know what is the current information loop of people who contact NAFCJ.net with the justice system; and I do not buy the many excuses for not blogging this material so that other mothers could see it closer to the beginning of their court cases, and be warned. But essentially, at least she put out valid, LIVE information that others had sought to coverup, AFTER it had been exposed, and published!

By the time people have gone through the “protective parents” material and figured out something (possibly including their children) was MISSING from the information provided them about PAS (like, which groups were pushing it, by name), and run across NAFCJ.net (or now, other material we have been blogging consistently), the cases are going, going, GONE!

It truly takes a network of “don’t and won’t talk about it” conferences, professionals, and social media experts to keep this many women (and men) this clueless for this long. I think reform has to come from OUTSIDE the legal and psychological professions — and one standard I have is, anyone or group who has participated in censorship or derailing of conversations for personal or professional profit, is a “no-deal” proposition.  

Judging by conference materials of collaborating groups since (i.e., the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference/”BMCC” which met from 2003-2012 in New York, which met May 2013 in Washington, D.C. and who for Year 2014 is (I gather) doing a “mini-BMCC” again in D.C., while Mo Hannah (one of its two co-founders) takes a year off, there is still NO INTENTION on the part of  this collaboration of advocacy groups  to concede any  past errors, to relinquish any undeserved credibility as having the best interests of:

Battered Mothers, Protective Parents, Abused Children, or Courageous Kids and Incest Survivors at the center of their concerns, rather than retaining “NextGen Expert Status” and getting a personal piece of the federal grants pie.

It’s 2014, and Time’s Up! for Censorship, Derailing Conversations, and Failing to Disclose Conflict of Interest Relationships to ‘Followers’

Then again, no nonprofit corporation or professional has a legal duty to disclose all conflicts of interest (with the exception of sitting judges, or as a profession may require it).  What about the enablers of this — people who simply don’t (won’t) check facts before jumping on board a strategies to produce Safe Children, and refusing to exercise personal discretion and a little vigilance?

It’s simply wise to get more information before jumping in the car with strangers, even if your dearest friends are already in that car.  Teens have been kidnapped, lives hijacked, in the same manner.

It’s also “Time’s Up” (IMHO) some Followers to Keep their Leaders more Honest, by running at least a minimal “background checks,” on their related organizations, and conferencing habits — and taking that evidence into consideration before pledging one’s hopes, times, and children’s futures on the agenda that is being sold.    This isn’t “hostile” it’s simply sensible!  Doing so should not prove a problem for any group whose platforms and agenda are what they say they are (i.e., for upfront and honest groups).

Contrary to appearances (IF you’re one of the long-term followers of these groups selling HOPE, fronting men who came out of the Batterers Intervention Program profession (well, not that they’re all the way out yet), which is a fathers’ rights creation and a superb mis-appropriation of public money, and much more — who have declared themselves as leading a “mothers’/protective parents’ movement” with the assistance of some spokesmodel TOKEN mothers, and aged-out children with legitimate tragedies and tales to tell), my reporting background information (relevant truths) with a reasonable interpretation of them in light of what’s going on NOW — is not attacking people — it comes from the deeply held and very healthy respect for the truth, and from a concern for others beyond my own family line, and even lifetime.

It’s time for THIS issue to be handled — not, like child abuse, or domestic violence in ongoing specific cases — covered up.  Truth or Falsehood — which is better for the children at risk or being harmed now, and for survivors?

The truth is the groups I’ve named herein are displaying the characteristics of the groups they wish to reform — including less than honest fiscal transparency (throughout), and one of the worst characteristics around for any reform group — blatant censorship of critical information to their followers, and which if made public, would probably lead to different conclusions and and entirely different strategy in protecting children.  There IS no valid excuse for this behavior!

As troubling as it usually is, truths about WHO we have been dealing with in advocacy groups is as important as the truths based on psychological characteristics and theories some of these are disseminating about the “The Batterer as Parent” or “Our Broken Courts” or “Flawed Custody Practices.”

Many of these various organizations claiming (loudly) concern about children experiencing incest and other forms of perversion, including violence, or neglect and abandonment, and claiming that this is because of the family courts (which I hardy disagree with),  and their concern and support for, now for several years, young adults who survived this when their care and custody was transferred to the parent (or other relative) who committed, or enabled the commission of this outrage upon them growing up, continue to SELL their SOLUTIONs, and SOLICIT the STORIES, and CENSOR THE CONVERSATIONS ON WHY THIS IS HAPPENING.

The Stories, while let’s assume they’re true (and I have no reason not to), are the hook to legitimize the agenda; the habit of soliciting the stories is essentially trawling for the traumatized.

All of this information requires a different focus and a different KIND of attention span:

This information requires a different kind of attention span and for most people (particularly people who may come to this blog because of a custody horrors case) the ability (which is basically just a decision) to look at this very large, very complex problem with nonstandard vocabulary.  I assert that this vocabulary MUST include the economic/corporate-government factor (the “Operations”) in terms that convey meaning to those who use them.

I have been in so many conversations (and read them) about Judge so and so, or Custody evaluator so and so. What system are Judge so and so part of, please?  Unless we want to be like Santa Claus  and keep very, very long lists of who’s naughty and who’s nice (without convincing outsiders there is a solid standard of measurement), this is going to be very time-consuming.  An example of this character trait, which I found less than helpful while fighting to prevent some bad things happening in my own case (which then happened anyhow):  “Distinction in Family Courts“:

Grades Given to Family Court Professionals July, 2013 Congratulations to those awarded A’s for doing their utmost to protect children

This links to a PO Box at a UPS store in Sacramento (State Capitol) and further on the site, solicits participation in a “National Survey,” trawling (literally) for abuse cases and “protective parents” which link leads to “Mothers of Lost Children.”

which then advertises for:

California Protective Parent Association and Our Future Charitable Foundation [WHO??]] are conducting an ongoing collection of data for a national research project. The project involves cases of children placed by family law courts into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with their identified abusing parent.

Referring to this (suspended) “Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation” out of Los Gatos? [This link from Seth Goldstein confirms the relationship of the corporation to the BMCC movement. Undated, it appears that the incorporator (E.T. St. Charles) and Lynn Crook edited  “EXPOSE:   THE FAILURE OF THE FAMILY COURTS TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM ABUSE IN CUSTODY DISPUTE:  A HANDBOOK FOR FOR LAWMAKERS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGES, AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS”  Also on the link (found by searching the incorporator name, although I’ve seen this before) is the footer “ASPAC Advisor” for the newsletter, with a Chicago Address.]

ASPAC current and past Board of Directors,  I notice a current one, Karen Faller, PhD (UMichigan) is cited as an associate of the famous (if you follow Time’s Up! Blog or some of this crowd) Donald G. Saunders’ Ph.D. whose “new, improved, scientific evidence” is (supposedly) going to revolutionize the training of judges to recognize child abuse when they see it…  Not the main focus of this post however.  I simply confirm that the organization below is probably the one Ms. Anderson referred to above, following a common (too-common) pattern of groups advertising themselves in print, at conferences, and now on-line under their “corporate” names when a corporation either doesn’t exist, or no longer exists although at one time it did..

2018 Update: Next two images: Later versions of the same (Registry of Charitable Trusts at California OAG, light-blue, above) includes the field EIN# also, and still shows it as “Not Registered,” but having an EIN#770531066 which (copied from the RCT website) was not found on the IRS (as having ever filed, or been revoked for non-filing) “tax-exempt organization search”

In the year 2000 (this took a while to find)

a California Senate Bill SB 2124 protesting the filing of reports to the mediator (context – mandatory mediation in custody disputes) when parents failed to reach an agreement, which was then often taken by the judge intact as the custody ruling.   “Our Children Our Future” was on the “Family Law Task Force” at the time this was before the “Senate Judiciary Committee” and/or Rules Committee,” as was NOW.  However, the same committee also had Hugh McIsaac, of “Oregon Family Institute” and an AFCC original, plus the “CDRC/California Dispute Resolution Council” who is committed (see my table of contents page, hugely expanded post from 5/16/2013 on this group):

Family Law Taskforce on SB 2124 (Author, D. Figueroa) (source)

• Association for Children of Enforcement of Support
• Family Law Section of the State Bar of California
• National Organization for Women
• Hugh McIsaac, Executive Director of Oregon Family Institute
• (former director of Los Angeles County Family Court Services)***
• Coalition for Family Equity (see p.2, a 1988-formed group)
• Professor Carol Bruch, UC Davis School of Law
• YWCA of San Diego County
• Our Children, Our Future, Charitable Foundation
• California Dispute Resolution Council

***The articles on the “Los Angeles County Judicial Slush Fund” were coming out around this same time.  It was indeed possible to have known the significance of Hugh McIsaac being on this task force considering the possible restraints and restrictions being put on the very access-visitation-grants-funded professions other (fathers’ rights groups, so  had worked hard over several years to put in place)

(Commentary on this bill is interesting; hover cursor on the bill.  One recommendation was to bypass mediation entirely and go straight to a custody evaluator!  Although the year is 2000, and “Access Visitation” was funded by the US Congress since 1988 (and, at $10 million/year nationwide since 1996), somehow this doesn’t rate a passing mention in the bill?

{{Quick Reference from ACF.HHSgov, BOOKMARK IT IF YOU HAVEN’T YET!! 1999 Action Transmittal on a federal rule, gives some history of these grants as well}}

OUR CHILDREN OUR FUTURE FOUNDATION info, cont’d. –

Turns out it was suspended – by California Secretary of State as quickly as 7/18/2002:

Transaction Amendment  ID Transaction Type Comments 07/18/2002 Secretary of State Suspension

• Which didn’t stop, in 2002, Lundy Bancroft and Jay Silverman citing to Stephanie Dallam, citing to this “Expose” and organization, anyhow, in “The Batterer As Parent.”  (search, or see “References” at the back (p.216), under D for “Dallam”)
• Which didn’t stop “Kathleen Colbourn Faller” (thumbnail @ year 2014, right, UMichigan Social Welfare)

from citing to this OCOF foundation (several times) in a book published in 2003, “Understanding and Assessing Child Sexual Maltreatment.”  That book is still for sale:  $79 paperback, $119 hardback, 2nd edition:

For relevance to this discussion, see 2009 transcript of the National Institute of Justice “Custody Evaluation in Domestic Violence Cases” which begins by Donald G. Saunders thanking the USDOJ for (finally) noticing there are issues in the family law venue (hover cursor for excerpt) and identifying which fields he came out of, also drawing off federal funding.
(Putting that “hover cursor to read” into a quote, any paragraphing is lost:)

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. 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.

UMichigan School of Social Welfare Faculty Page, Dr. Saunders (thumbnail photo):

“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..“

Article, on “When Battered Women Lose Custody” (several articles on this page) is not cited as to SOURCE (from a Ph.D. scholar?) or even date other than “2008,” but the footer page says “Supervised Visitation Network, p. 14ff.”  Excuse me – it is shown below as published by Supervised Visitation Network of Jacksonville, FL):

Saunders, D. G. (2008). When battered women lose custody: Dangerous parents or systems failure? Sitting In: Newsletter of the Supervised Visitation Network. Jacksonville, FL: SVN – Supervised Visitation Network.

Significance?  That’s a state-skipping, doesn’t stay incorporated NONPROFIT, whose boards of directors are from what I can tell attempting a vertical monopoly on the profession.  No Way are they going to bring up the topic of ELIMINATING the profession in order to protect boys, girls men, women and others — and admitting that the safest place to be when a Batterer IS a parent is — somewhere else, in particular away from people who don’t “get” that, and would rather be supervising…

(I have several posts.  Try this one from June, 2013, “Supervised Visitation Sucks (Federal Millions) Don’t let the title mislead — this is about an audit of certain grant that found SIGNIFICANT fraud, and a DETAILED look at that network).  I looked up the nonprofits, found them NOT FILING then SWITCHING LOCATIONS and having CONFLICT OF INTEREST RELATIONSHIPS with administering the grants, and, for example, the California Judicial Council.   etc.  TRANSLATION:  this won’t stop from within the system, or from people trying to get their feet in the door (or who’ve had it in that door) and wishing to just refine and “best practices” the profession).  Protecting that profession (and writing up studies about the effects on the victims) is obviously more important than saving lives….  Moreover, that particular profession goes high, wide, and deep (with fathers’ rights groups — another reason, I’ll bet, Mr. Goldstein and Dr. Saunders are not about to name, names of certain fathers’ rights groups — which would point directly to places they’re getting published and sources of people in distress to study and write up…) 

[SVNetwork Board of Directors as of that post, summer 2013 — notice Joseph Nullet (Florida) at the bottom, and the “Nurturing Parenting Programs” (that’s a USDOJ writeup).  There are always TRAININGS, that’s where the money seems to be, and the franchises/certifications — and hooked into, where possible, the US federal government….   Here, also, is the Batterers Intervention Services Coalition of Michigan (BISC-MI) which dates itself to 1994 or so (although batterers intervention as we see coincides, approximately, with the women’s rights movement; as of 1970 in California, with no-fault divorce, it was at least one way (until the mid to late 1990s) to actually exit violent relationships without people getting killed… The paradigm of one MUST co-parent with a batterer is now system-entrenched…. (this banner is from a 2008 conference):

Who is the NIJ?  It’s part of a USDOJ government agency:

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

[pause, I couldn’t restrain my sarcasm. Pls. understand this comes after seeing this entire scenario develop over time, and the strategy involved in putting together this last book, just as the original Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation’s initial “EXPOSE” itself also had a clear strategy and purpose, which of course eliminated discussions of the federal grants as a factor in custody situations — amazingly considering the times…A few words about this Saunders/Goldstein hookup (a match made in heaven), which has to also be considered with the Goldstein/Mo Hannah (incidentally Dr. Hannah ALSO knows about the marriage/fatherhood funding, and has all along, but didn’t feel apparently, it was appropriate subject matter for the BMCC conference. Again (as with others), one has to ask WHY NOT?? What’s Up with That??] Next section, different background-color:

Well, the “not Registered” probably explains the “Suspended” factor.  Here’s:

 Elize St. Charles, Ph.D., CNC, BBP, MBA: (recovered from Lyme’s Disease, chronic trauma, the theme of recovering from trauma also laced throughout CPPA associations)

Elize St. Charles, PhD, CNC, BBP, MBA, has been involved in alternative and complementary healing modalities for more than 30 years. With her extensive understanding of the natural healing arts, Elize has provided health care to people in all walks of life including star athletes, executives, mothers, babies, the brain injured and the chronically ill…  [Associates include]:

Subhash Garg – Yogi

The Healing Atelier is honored to announce our affiliation with Subhash Garg, yoga therapist and teacher from Mumbai, India. He will be offering stress management and pranayama workshops at The Healing Atelier when he is in California. …As a youth, Subhash trained for five years in hatha yoga with Swami Dhirendra Brahmchari, the private yoga teacher to the late Indira Gandhi, and won the first yoga competition he entered. His interests lay elsewhere however…

A google search provided an EIN# and a description showing that the “Expose” was the first project of this group. By ALSO providing a PO Box in Los Gatos, I also learned that a foundation under a (different) name was “nonprofit status provoked” in Year 2010.  Nevertheless, this text will sound familiar to many:

http://greatnonprofits.org/org/our-children-our-future-charitable-foundation
PO Box 1111 Los Gatos California 95031 USA

Programs: Our Children Our Future’s first project, Expose: The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes is an anthology written by eighteen professionals from diverse fields and describes the profound and entrenched problems in the nation’s family courts.

Perhaps it’s BECAUSE of the “professional” mentality that none of these professionals are expressing much interest (or even curiosity about) the origins (and whose ideas) were “the family courts” even though some Family Divisions were being formed still, as this was written?  And, no curiosity about the role of welfare reform (1996) Child Support transformation into promoting responsible fatherhood (etc) — What So Ever?  What’s that about — don’t rain on our saving the children parade?  Click on St. Charles’ resume and notice the emphasis on her degree — several times, “Dr. Elize T. St. Charles, Ph.D.” — both titles are important (but filing tax returns isn’t?)

We work with renown[ed] professionals including attorneys, appellate court judges, media analysts, mental health professionals, sociologists, medical professionals, child advocates, journalists, university professors and filmmakers amongst others, in collaborative projects that address this broad-based miscarriage of justice (and common sense!) We lead a coalition of major nonprofit organizations, National Campaign to End Child Custody Injustices (NCECCI), in efforts to implement a policy of ZERO TOLERANCE FOR FAMILY VIOLENCE in family law courtrooms. We have developed a public awareness and media education campaign which includes a Speakers Bureau, educational conferences, presentations to key organizations, a national survey, documentary films, websites, Internet marketing, media exposure, artificial intelligence software design for legal professionals working with protective parents and their children as well as educational and professional publications including a solutions-oriented anthology. The goal of these projects is to build a national constituency of support for substantive change in family law courts as the first stage of the reform process.

---

Mission:
OCOF is dedicated to the prevention of the perpetuation of family violence by exposing and promoting reform of policies and practices in family court vis a vis child abuse and domestic violence. As a result of misinformation, discrimination, inadequate education of professionals, corruption and misguided government policy, family courts throughout the nation have been awarding custody in ‘at risk’ custody disputes to identified abusers. According to the American Judges Foundation, Inc: “Studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or under serving of sole custody in approximately 70% of these challenged cases.”

Framing this as “misguided government policy” (which is an assumption that, in my opinion, doesn’t hold water — at all) indicates that the solution is better guidance. Meanwhile, what about the economic factors?

EIN# 770531066 seems to be association. Here’s the “IRS Select Exempt Organization Select Check” Search for groups whose nonprofit status was automatically revoked, ARE eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, or have filed an 990-N (electronic filing) — and it doesn’t show under any of the categories.  Guidestar (that first link) shows it as “not registered with the IRS” but kindly provided me with an EIN#…

From the very start, we can see (Yahoo Groups/FamilyCourtReform email list Sept. 25, 2001) people are being told what to do:  SIGN THIS PETITION — (for a nonprofit which never bothered to register with the state of California as a charity, that I can see….).  WHY??  Corporation status was revoked the following July in California, and as I said, it NEVER registered as a charity properly…. although it wants to ReForm the Family Law Courts to protect kids — what about protecting taxpayers from tax fraud by nonprofit foundations???

 Dear Friends, Women’s & Children’s Advocates:

Many of you have asked from time to time in what ways you can help with issues of family violence and child abuse, particularly as it affects the injustices to victims occurring in family courts across the country. Signing the below petition for this organization is an simple start.

For more information about this group, visit the website at http://www.ocof.org

Thanks for your consideration.

____________________________
Join us….
Our Children Our Future Charitable Organization is looking to build a significant constituency. The intent is to influence the current family law system to adopt more humane treatment of children subject of custody challenges. We hope you have learned in reading this website and other linking sites, that the entrenched problem of family violence is a societal issue none of us can ignore. We also hope that you will become a member of a growing body of concerned citizens willing to address this issue by demanding that family law courts in our nation protect children from the identified abusers.
Please take a moment to print or copy the following Petition and send it via regular mail or email to:
Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation
PO Box 1111, Los Gatos, CA 95031-1111
or
Email: ocofcf@…

. . . There are a myriad of factors that impact judicial outcomes in family law courts. The articles in Exposé: The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes describe some of the factors that influence the court ordered placement of children with identified abusers. I support full public and legislative inquiries into the factors that enable such egregious judicial decisions.

Linkedin for Elize T. McCharles shows a Congressional Certificate (2001) from Mike Honda for the “Expose”:

Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition
US Congress – Member Michael Honda
March 2001
In recognition of outstanding and invaluable service to the community
This award was received for my work with abused women and children at, Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation, a non-profit working to improve outcomes for victims of abuse in disputed child custody cases. OCOF published: Expose: The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse.

Here is a description of that book, found at “Dept. of Gov’t and Politics”  (Univ of Maryland) under Book Notices (April 2000), which make it sound like 19 chapters of a pot-pourri of already published articles, plus some court records:

EXPOSE: THE FAILURE OF FAMILY COURTS TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM ABUSE IN CUSTODY DISPUTES by Elize T. Charles and Lynn Crook (Editors). Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation, 1999. Paper $25.00. No ISBN.

This book contains nineteen chapters on the protection of children from abuse. The volume’s selection focus on issues related to the law and judicial, prosecutorial, and administrative behavior in abuse cases. The chapters reprint court records, government documents, newspaper accounts, and professional social science journal articles. Original commentary also is contained in certain chapters. The materials support the objectives of the Foundation, but scholars of domestic relations law and policy might find them useful.

Again, the foundation existed for less than a few years — from Sept. 1999 through Sept. 2002 (as a corporation in Calif. at least) and never filed a tax return or registered as a 501(c)3, that I can see, with the IRS.  As such, it put the word “foundation” in its corporate name, appended to, face it, one of the most over-worked phrases about children to be found, and which has been applied to dozens of other scenarios.  In 1999, IN CALIFORNIA, there were some very live topics proceeding directly from switching the entire child support system over to the PRWORA-based model, with a centralized distribution unit.  Somehow this all misses even a passing mention?

Around this time also (“Case Dismissed” 8/11/2002) in Los Angeles (in addition to a special series being published by Insight Magazine on the potential “Judicial Slush Fund” influencing, it was claimed, custody matters  (I have links to it on this blog, see Top Ten Posts or thereabouts, also see post “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption“), Richard Fine was taking on the County of Los Angeles in two major issues — county-paid bribes to judges, and Silva v. Garcetti, in which a noncustodial father (John Silva)’s attempts to find out WHY the mother o his children wasn’t actually getting the money he was sending them — uncovered the Los Angeles County DA’s office sitting on $14 million of undistributed child support.  Eventually, Richard Fine was disbarred and tossed in jail for 18 months (2009-2010) over this issue — and CPPA didn’t connect the dots (YET), and OCOF didn’t for the brief one to two years of its existence, see fit to deal with the subject matter.

I see Mr. Fine (now must be 70-plus) is out of jail and hasn’t given up; see “Campaign for Judicial Integrity” (c.2013) for a one-page summary.  The primary topics he has been dealing with all these years involve the same TYPE of subject matter Ms. Anderson discovered in 1999 — Conflicts of Interest in the Judiciary and Economic Fraud of the taxpayers (and others), corrupting an entire justice system.   This man put his life, house, reputation, and income on the line, went to jail for it, was disbarred  — and virtually the entire “Crisis in the Courts”in the courts crowd is salivating after another disbarred attorney who says, the judges just don’t understand child abuse, and domestic violence?  Let’s make sure they get better training?

CPPA Corporate and Charitable Return Records — in context of 1999 discovery of the federal grants fraud:

(IRS listing shows yes, is a 501(c)3 eligible to receive donations — but for some reason it doesn’t appear to be receiving many, at all, these days:

Timeline, from the letter above:

• July 1999, letter to California Judicial Council about Federal Access/Visitation GRANTS FRAUD and CONFLICT OF INTEREST in FAMILY LAW CASE, requesting action and copying the cc’s listed.
• September 1999, “Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation” incorporated,  and
• October, 1999, CPPA is formed — and to this date has essentially dropped teaching women what Karen Anderson already knew in 1999, while as a nonprofit, essentially failing to produce any program service revenue (i.e., show much business sense, other than to hook up with groups who have more of it, and more bucks to rub together, (and who likewise do not teach people about these grants systems properly, or about AFCC, CRC, NACC, etc.) and solicit mothers,’ some fathers’, and kids’ stories focusing on the drama.

CPPA Char Details (EIN#943341470) Scant Filings,YE Aug2003,04,05 OnlyYrs Rev >$25K) NotFound,NoArticles of Incorp, only Forms for Yrs 2009,10,11 uploaded <=<=<=<=  This link has a story to tell, or people with eyes to see.  Ask WHY?  Why would a California group with next to no money hook up with groups who have some, for publicity, and then hook up with a group on the other side of the country (BMCC).  Who are the friends’ friends, really?

May 2004 appeal (1pg ltr, READ!) shows CPPA Board, Advisory Board (Lundy Bancroft et al.) and related organizations, encourages people to support the Courageous Kids Network:

California Protective Parents Association is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to helping protect children in custody disputes through education, advocacy and research. Ongoing national research by Geraldine Stahly, Ph.D. demonstrates that children who disclose abuse in the context of custody are at risk of being placed in the unsupervised custody of the identified perpetrators. In more than half the cases studied, the non-abusive parents are placed on supervised visitation or are denied contact with the children. . . .

Since our non-profit organization must show a broad based public support to maintain our tax-exempt status, we urge you to donate any amount – it all will help. Please make a check out to CPPA and send it to P.O. Box 15284, Sacramento, CA 95851-0284. Thank you in advance for your help and support for the Courageous Kids Network.

Karen Anderson, Executive Director

The first link above (“CPPA Char Details”) shows the barely-funded 501(c)3 did file its annual required charitable return or tax return with the State of California in 2004 (although about six months late), but the California OAG hasn’t bothered to upload it for public viewing?  Why not?

What’s with the Silence on What Was Known Since 1999?  From a Protective Parents Organization that was incorporated in 1999 just three months later?

2018 update — currently “SOS” Suspended, a situation which can be corrected; it did file an “SI” report two years ago last April, 2016, I see:

That’s the Secretary of State filing, 1999.  Here are (source NCCSdataweb.urban.org) a series of tax returns (not made available to Californians, for reasons unknown, by our Office of Attorney General) for CPPA which (as tax returns are supposed to do) tell, what it’s doing for how much, and financial details (year name, followed by “Download” meaning, link to that year’s tax return; click on “Download” not the checkmarkes).

Form NameFiscal YearForm 9902010Download Form 9902009Download Form 9902007Download Form 9902006Download Form 9902005Download Form 9902004Download Form 9902003Download Form 9902002Download

---

CPPA at Calif OAG RCT (checked Sep 5, 2018<~~ during "A Diff't Kind of Attention" (March 2014) blog update (Details, Top))

CPPA at Calif OAG RCT (checked Sep 5, 2018<~~ during "A Diff't Kind of Attention" (March 2014) blog update (Details, Bottom)

CPPA at Calif OAG RCT (checked Sep 5, 2018<~~ during "A Diff't Kind of Attention" (March 2014) blog update (Search Results)

Essentially, CPPA is serving to promote various conferences, and at times as a fiscal agent for other groups.  What most disturbs me about the timing of all this is the rejection of information it had its hands on, as did the “other groups” it conferences with, and their professionals.  In short, almost everyone involved in PRE-SENTING would reasonably have known (collectively) about the two primary topics surrounding:

1.  Welfare reform (and its leadup), and 2. the various nonprofit trade organizations running the courts, and their characteristics.  PARTICULARLY coming from California, there is no excuse for not knowing, or publicizing this material. 

BACK to the (one-page) May 2004 CPPA appeal letter, Executive Director, Karen Anderson..

Though this was in 2004, as I have often explained on this post, Karen Anderson (same woman, same case) had known at least as far back as 1999 that Access/Visitation grants (federal) were involved in this situation, and not just THAT, but WHAT the financial influences were in this situation, including fraud and double-billing, conflicts of interest in the courts and more.  I do not know that she had connected it with Welfare Reform issues, however here is link (still at “johnnypumphandle.com” under “corruption Crusaders”) showing Ms. Anderson’s research on her own case’s fiscal misdeeds.  This was under “SUPERVISED VISITATION” link, with this graphic:

Supervised Visitation

“Visitation Fraud reported in Amador County“

The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how federal “family” programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in the family law courts. Liz Richards, of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice has contacted you regarding these abuses in the courts. These family programs, and those who abuse them, need to be fully investigated by competent persons who have no vested interest in protecting any involved in the abuses. . . . .

Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program (hereinafter “Facilitator”) and the Federal Access to Visitation Program (hereinafter “A/V”) were directly involved in my private family law matter before Amador County Superior Court (“Court”). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.

During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive, in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of the A/V program is to “encourage contact between children and both parents,” to “facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children” with a criteria for a “step-down” in supervised visitation. . . .

My investigation of records revealed that $6200.00 was paid to a winery out of A/V funds for “supervised visitation training” in Nov. of 1998. An additional $2500.00 was paid to Marsha Nohl and her separate visitation business, A.F.T.E.R. for this same “training.” However, when I requested supervised visitation services in Jan. 99 and March 99, Page declared in court that I could not be provided services because there was no supervised visitation program in Amador County. The contract between Amador County Superior Court and Judicial Council for the A/V funds states that a supervised visitation program was to be operative by Jan. 99. How is it legitimate to spend over $8,5000.00 for supervised visitation training for a non-existent program? Failing to have a program in place by Jan. 99 violates the A/V contract. Furthermore, an attendee of the supervised visitation training declared to me that different programs were presented and that the A.F.T.E.R. program was tremendously more expensive that the other program presented. So why was A.F.T.E.R. chosen as the sub-contractor for the A/V grant, and why were their supervised visitation rules, which exceed the standards set by the Judicial Council with wholly unconstitutional parameters, determined to be the standard for the A/V program? I could prove quite readily with audio tapes of supervised visitations at A.F.T.E.R that their rules, as implemented, are punitive and suppressive to any normalcy in a relationship between parent and child, thus violating the entire intent of the A/V program, which is to encourage positive relationships between children and non-custodial parents.

This Sept. 7, 1999 letter to Bonnie Huff at the California Judicial Council goes on (there is more evidence), posted still as it has been for years at “JohnnyPumphandle.com” (what a strange blog name) which also apparently hasn’t been touched for years either, per the “cc” block was ALSO sent to the following people.  Please note, including Karen Winner:

Please advise me in writing of what action the Judicial Council plans on taking as a result of this complaint.

Sincerely,
Karen Anderson

cc: Senator Jackie Speier Citizen’ s Commission on Human Rights
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Susan Hanks, Judicial Council
Governor Gray Davis
Board of Behavioral Science Examiners
Chief Justice Ronald M. George
California Judicial Investigative Task Force

Colleen Callan, Inv. Reporter
Michael Lesher, Esq.
J.Kruger, Inv. Reporter
Karen Winner, Inv. Reporter
William Vickery, Judicial Council
Judicial Watch

Ms. Winner now has “Esq.” after her name, and has presented at the “BMCC,” she has published a well-known book as of 1996, Divorced from Justice.  I have just, here, presented evidence (which has been on-line for many years now, even IF she was indeed not cc’d as it says, this letter from Ms. Anderson, which I doubt.  She was informed, and does know, about the federal access/visitation grants and that fraud was found as well as conflict of interest, in the administration of them in a custody case.  Is she LEGALLY obliged as either an investigative reporter, or now as an attorney, to tell the world about these thing?  I have to say, No.  See below for who Karen Winner is (biographical blurb on BMCC site).

Sacramento Street address matches current Ohana Counseling,  I’m including this primarily to show the personnel on the left side of the letter.  Unfortunately one of them (Rev. Glenn Straith Fuller, if I have the right one) has since died, in Oct. 2012.  Generally speaking, the professionals involved (though several have J.D.s) are dealing with the trauma aspects..  This group also made a name for itself protesting PAS theory (reviewed 2011).

Please note that there is a solicitation of PERSONAL CASE HISTORY, without promising anything specific in return… which is a consistent characteristic:

PROTECTIVE PARENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Re: Custody Outcomes of Children Reporting Incest/Battery

Rescooped by Protective Mothers’ Alliance International fromThe War Against Mothers onto The War Against Mothers

Scoop.it!

BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA PUTS CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

AND THE AMERICAN MOTHERS POLITICAL PARTY OUT OF THE STALKING AND THREAT BUSINESS.

September 12, 2013 9:55 PM

Well, how about this for a standard — no continuous censorship of major topics that explain the courts behavior, and if a group is posing as an organization, particularly a nonprofit, it has to actually BE one, and stay current with its filings and, as required, charitable returns (990s).  Under this standard, and several other related ones, I put “Protective Mothers Alliance” (Executive Director in Florida last I heard) under “Naughty” for acting like a corporation without filing for one (that I can see) other than when in 2009, it let CPPA (California) become its fiscal agent in the noble agenda of promoting Lundy Bancroft books, speaking engagements, and in general, causes.

And, I put CPPA for encouraging women to send in their stories (ceaseless thirst for case histories, to this day) while failing to alert them to the impact of 1996 (!!) Welfare Reform on their current situations, and for allowing men proceeding from the batterers intervention field, plus a bunch of psychologists, and a public relations consultant or so, to issue orders, but put mothers (not themselves) actually on the front lines.  And for reducing the ranks of coherent mothers I can converse with about things that these coalitions of associations refuse to talk about!

•  “CPPA alert emailed 8JAN2014 [StopAbuseCampaign, etc.) (w LGH Commentary)8pp
• CPPA Email Alert Recd13FEB2014 [NoteStyle,Contents,Personnel]

[The one link combined with the other shows that the solicitation of personal case histories has been going on for over a dozen years now…]

And for encouraging Barry Goldstein (a former, disbarred attorney) to talk on, and on, and on, and on, and on . . ..  without citing to links, really, and as if half the nonprofits contracting with the courts I know exist, simply do not & without ever actually picking up on what this agenda is.  For encouraging submission (intellectual, emotional, social and as to advocacy) to anyone who claims to have a Congressional Connection or sounds authoritative, and for telegraphing to the public at large that distressed children (and under-informed parents) are virtually for sale HERE! while asking the family courts to do something they were never formed for, or even said they existed to do — which is protect children!   

Those are among my definitions of “naughty” and if groups named something else, with other leaders, did the same thing, it’d still meet that basic definition.

More people who pulled a “I know, but I’m not going to TELL (let alone publicize or educate) distressed mothers about welfare reform, access/visitation grants designed to increase noncustodial parenting time, financial fraud involved in their administration, and conflicts of interest with practicing family laywers — in fact, I’m not going to educate people for that matter on how family lawyers, judges, and mediators (roughly characterizable in this context as “Association of Family and Conciliation Court membership, including State Supreme Court Justices and people heading major administrative positions in state-level ruling judicial bodies, OR at law schools putting out new generations of family lawyers, OR in creating professions, OR, etc.):

http://www.batteredmotherscustodyconference.org/karen_winner.htm

 Conference Presenter

KAREN F. WINNER
Attorney at Law
233 Fifth Avenue
4th Floor
New York, NY 10016**
646-633-4533

gooddivorcebaddivorce.comwinner@gooddivorcebaddivorce.com

Attorney and author Karen Winner will give an hour-and-a-half pre-conference workshop on FRIDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 7TH, from 4:00 – 5:30.  Open to all BMCC attendees.  Get to the BMCC VIII early enough to hear this invaluable information!

How nice of “BMCC VIII” website here, to add the year for people who may drop by the site anytime between what looks like about 2011 (BMCC began conferencing in 2003) and now, 2014.

But, either way, Karen Winner was copied, apparently before she became an attorney? in 1999, the evidence from California of Access Visitation grants use in Supervised Visitation.   I went to find out when she was admitted to the NY Bar.  There’s a strong disclaimer for linking even to the lookup site (why??), so without doing that, here, however, is the information, notice Year Admitted 2009:

From the site “gooddivorcebaddivorce.com” it’s clear that “legal and consultant advice” on child support, custody and visitation are offered under “practice areas.”  No mention is made (in re: practice areas) of child abuse or domestic violence — protection from, or defending from allegations of.  That’s simply not the focus.

To avoid being accused of “linking to this site,” I deleted the link.

**However, the details show currently a different street address (in New York) , so I looked up the Fifth Avenue address showing on the 2011 BMCC conference ad, above.  I can see why she probably moved — because currently that’s New York’s “MoSex,” aka “Museum of Sex.”  I don’t think it would look well hanging out with a crowd protesting familycourt-enabled incest, and one of the pre-conference presenters and well-known participants having a law office in the same building as a tourist attraction such as this one!  The current address (per this Look Up a NY Attorney website, shows an address which is a half mile (or a ten-minute walk) away from the MoSex.  Either way, no question that for some reason, in BMCC Year 2011 — the Museum of Sex street address was showing.  I wonder if anyone else even noticed, or thought it odd, in context! New York is a large city — why there?

On the other hand, the museum opened in 2002 — was this the only digs (mailing address) Ms. Winner could get, or mailing address, as of 2011, or was it a “do they look up street addresses?” gullibility test?  (just kidding):

Wiki

IThe Museum of Sex, also known as MoSex, is a sex museum located at 233 Fifth Avenue at the corner of East 27th Street in Manhattan, New York City. It opened on October 5, 2002.

Founder Daniel Gluck wanted to start a museum dedicated to “the history, evolution and cultural significance of human sexuality.”^[1] The official mission of the Museum of Sex is “to preserve and present the history, evolution, and cultural significance of human sexuality. In its exhibitions, programs and publications, The Museum of Sex is committed to open discourse and exchange, and to bringing to the public the best in current scholarship.”^[2] The museum focuses on a variety of sexual preferences and subcultures, including lesbian and gay history and erotica,BDSM, pornography, and sex work. Although the museum’s exhibits are presented in an educational format, they sometimes feature explicit content. Because of this, visitors must be 18 years old or older.

In 2009, the Museum began an expansion project moving its entrance from 27th Street to Fifth Avenue. The Museum also doubled the square footage of their store and increased the size of the museum by one floor, as well as adding an additional gallery. They expanded even further with an aphrodisiac-themed cafe and additional gallery space.^[8]

Well, I don’t know why that address.  Moving on to the Bio Blurb from the conference, again the question is — why didn’t this investigative reporter turned lawyer, REPORT on the news from California about the federal grants?  Did becoming an attorney somehow compromise the right- to-tell-the-truth?

Bio

For more than 23 years, Karen Winner has been exposing injustices, advocating for  consumer rights, and pioneering the struggle for government accountability in divorce courts. Before she became a lawyer, Ms. Winner earned a name for herself as a nationally acclaimed book author of  Divorced From Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges. Published in 1996 by Regan Books/Harper Collins, the book exposed the inner workings of the divorce court industry. The book was based in part on a report she wrote while working as a policy analyst with the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. (See gooddivorcebadddivorce.com for more on this work.)  Her style of watchdog journalism on matters of public concern resulted in significant reforms in New York, California, and South Carolina.

 Ms. Winner is the original author of the Statement of Client Rights,  (New York’s Court Rules, 22 NYCRR 1210.1) which can be seen by going to the Statement of Rights at gooddivorcebaddivorce.com.

On the need for transparency and government accountability in the nation’s family courts, Ms. Winner has been quoted in or appeared onCNN, Court TV, Inside Edition, The Today Show, Geraldo, and McCalls Magazine , among other media outlets. Her articles on consumer and social justice issues were syndicated nationwide by American News Service through Knight-Ridder Newspapers.

Ms. Winner is licensed to practice law in the State of New York. She is also admitted to practice in federal court in New York.

Ms. Winner has received public praise:

—————————————

“Karen Winner is “[the] catalyst for the changes that we adopted.” 

— THE HONORABLE E. LEO MILONAS, former Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York

“Karen is much in the tradition of Mother Jones. . . .I hold her in enormous regard for her talents and intellect as well as her character. She is a superb investigative reporter, an excellent writer and a kind and caring human being with a rare ability for helping the persons whose paths she crosses to

‘actualize’ themselves.”

— BARBARA SEAMAN, book author, The Doctors’ Case Against the Pill& co-founder of the National Women’s Health Network

THE QUESTION IS, WHY?

Why, with all this investigative talent, did Karen Winner drop the ball on the federal funding to the court, taking the book recommendations from a famous New York State Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York?  Perhaps this recommendation is a clue.  Other than, just how far in practicing in federal court in the State of New York might Karen Winner go — IF she started reporting on federal grants fraud to the family courts through the supervised visitation industry?

I’m not a New Yorker, and didn’t recognize his name, however, here’s the Hon. E. Leo Milonas, Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York, complete with his background, prominent associations, and areas of emphasis.  I’m including the entire bio blurb from this link; there are many indicators of his connections and areas of interest, once I saw his relationship with activist Judge promoting AFCC policies, Judith S. Kaye:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad1/centennial/Bios/elmilonas2.shtml:

E. LEO MILONAS
Associate Justice 1982-1993, 1996-1998
Born: October 23, 1936

E. Leo Milonas was born on October 23, 1936, in New York City, the son of a Greek immigrant who operated a restaurant in Harlem. The E. is for Elias, a name he never uses and once called “a little sophisticated for the kids I hung around with” as a boy. He graduated from City College of New York in 1957 and received his law degree from Brooklyn Law School in 1960.

He spent 12 years practicing law before Mayor John V. Lindsay appointed him to the Criminal Court bench in December 1972. Nine months after he assumed the bench he became the Supervising Judge of the Bronx County Criminal Court. In October 1974 he became Supervising Judge of the Manhattan Criminal Court, and in January 1976 he was made an Acting State Supreme Court Justice. In 1978 he was elected Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Milonas was named Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of New York City courts in 1979. His tenure was marked by heated exchanges with Mayor Koch as well as a disagreement with Chief Judge Lawrence Cooke over a plan to reassign lower-court judges temporarily to sit in State Supreme Court on a rotational basis. Judge Milonas was quoted as saying, “Judges are about the least effective people in the world at defending themselves. Part of this job requires that you occasionally take a position that brings you into controversy.” After two years as Administrator, he was named by Governor Carey to the Appellate Division, First Department, in 1982.

Several times, Justice Milonas had been among those nominated by the Commission on Judicial Nomination to fill vacancies on the New York State Court of Appeals, but he was passed over each time by Governor Mario Cuomo — including 1985 and 1993, when he was on the “short list” of seven vying for Chief Judge. However, in May of 1993, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye named him Chief Administrative Judge, her “right-hand person” in managing the State court system. In the 2-1/2 years he spent as Chief Administrative Judge, Judge Milonas was at the forefront of Chief Judge Kaye’s jury reform efforts.

He also played a major role in improving court facilities, bringing computer technology into the courthouses; establishing new rules governing the conduct of lawyers; and creating the Commercial Divisions of the Supreme Court. He stepped down at the end of 1995 and returned to the appellate bench.

Interrupting for input from that timeline — which was RIGHT before PRWORA was passed, i.e., the landmark 1996 welfare reform bill, which instituted TANF (BLOCK GRANTS TO THE STATES for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and with it, the Purpose 4 of TANF (which itself Title IV-A of the Social Security Act….) — to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.)

Creating the Commercial Divisions of the Courts (how it was done involving Kaye and Milonas, 1993, 1995).  Among overlap areas.  Included here to point out (just) a few events simultaneous with welfare form:

A Brief History (of the Commercial Division)

In 1993, the Supreme Court, Civil Branch, NY County, under the leadership of then-Administrative Judge Stanley S. Ostrau, established four Commercial Parts on an experimental basis. The aim was to test whether it would be possible, by concentrating commercial litigation in those Parts, to improve the efficiency with which such matters were addressed by the court and, at the same time, to enhance the quality of judicial treatment of those cases. The court’s experience with the Commercial Parts was positive and the reaction of commercial practitioners to the Parts was very favorable.

In January 1995, a task force of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association recommended expansion of the Commercial Parts. Specifically, the Section proposed establishing a Commercial Division of the Supreme Court in those areas of the State in which there are significant amounts of commercial litigation.

To re-phrase that, this is a Bar Association involved in some of the most profitable deals around, through influence with a Chief Judge, suggesting a restructuring of the court system, and getting it, administratively, too.

Shortly thereafter, then-Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye created the Commercial Courts Task Force, headed by Hon. E. Leo Milonas and Robert L. Haig, Esq., to examine the Section’s report and make recommendations. . . . . .

The Commercial Division has been a leading force in electronic filing of court documents in New York State. Electronic filing began in commercial cases in the Commercial Division in New York County and the Division has been very active in the expansion of e-filing since then. All newly-filed Commercial Division cases in Erie, Kings, Nassau, New York, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, for instance, are subject to electronic filing pursuant to the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (“NYSCEF”). This expansion of e-filing has been recommended by many Bar groups over recent years, such as, in 2007, the New York State Bar Association, the New York County Lawyers’ Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

The Commercial Division also utilized an Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (“ADR”) first established in New York County in early 1996. Justices may send matters to ADR at any time upon an order of referral. Detailed rules and protocols and rosters of seasoned ADR neutrals have been established in many jurisdictions around the State.

Hopefully you picked up on why I included this section:  </> how courts or divisions of courts at the State Level can be and have been created particularly when there is a Unified Court System [no, I don’t know when New Yorks became a “Unified” system, but it is one now…], and an Administrative Judge is presiding over that unity;  </> the ADR factor and how “Justices may send matters to ADR at any time upon an order of referral” and, still relevant </> How much centralized control can be exerted, and power transferred over many years, by forming Task Forces, and appointees to them.

I’m not questioning that there should be a Commercial Division — after all, NYC is in many ways considered the financial capital  of the country, if not necessarily the world.  Commercial litigation is among the most expensive and affecting millions of people across the planet as well.   HOWEVER, Once centralization processes START, they rarely are controlled when that centralization is in the judicial and courts sector, it seems including “Task Forces” and “Focus Groups” (keep reading on that post).

Here (just one web page) you can see the transfer of power from Administrative Judge Stanley S. Ostrau (1993) to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye (1995) creating the commission, and appointing E. Leo Milonas and Robert L. Haig, Esq. to it, to successor Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (2012) appointing Judith S. Kaye to a Focus Group from the newly created Commercial Division (with Robert L. Haig, Esq. on it).

TIMING:  CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION

SIMULTANEOUSLY, almost, the “Center for Court Innovation“which is a hybrid creation starting with a single experiment in “Judicial problem-solving” was also expanded (under the same judge) into an, in its own words, “engine for justice reform in New York.

All (well, combustion) engines need, obviously, gas or at least a fuel source (sorry ’bout that politically not very green-conscious reference to the OLD automobile industries), and in this case the Fund for the City of New York , established in 1968 by the Ford Foundation (here are its current board members, rather international, do you not think, and highly placed?) definitely put some gas in that tank.  In case the numbers aren’t real clear, this is in the billions ($11 billion) not millions…

(Includes update — search re-run summer 2017 to see how assets may have changed):

(As previously shown)

If you’d like to see what “Millions,” looks like, and how they are preserved under private control, see The Ford Foundation VEBA Trust (VEBA = “Voluntary Employee Benefits Association”).  The tax return I looked at briefly, showed $35M held in “other securities,” almost $1M in investment income, and it paid out $3.7M benefits, plus a conservative $32K for management — to Vanguard Fiduciary Company – Trustee.”

The Ford Foundation VEBA Trust i$ a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association
whose primary exempt purpose is to fund medical, life or dental benefits for eligible retirees (and their dependents) of The Ford Foundation.

Tax returns for trusts and public charities have a section for “related tax-exempt organization” and this one is related, of course.  Among the various “Ford foundations,” The Ford Family Foundation is smaller, and decreasing slowly in assets:

Whereas the “Fund for the City of New York,” is larger, and increasing, obviously, dramatically so, although these are merely millions and not, like the Ford Foundation, billions.

(FIRST TABLE — updated taken 3-14-2017.  Second table:  as shown originally in the post:

I learned recently (summe 2014) that what’s called “Center for Court Innovation” (but is actually a function of the above FUND and the NYS Unified Court System) since 2005 has been receiving donations (they must be hard up for cash flow?) from the City of New York– taxpayer-funded budgets, public money, right? —  for a “CCI” project.   This information is squished inconspicuously (in an alpha listing of initiatives) in a NYC budget between the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9, under “Criminal Justice Services,” as:

Initiative: Center for Court Innovation (CCI) Agency: Miscellaneous Budget – Criminal Justice Coordinator (098) Unit of Appropriation: 002 – Other Than Personal Services Amount: $400,000 Boroughs Served: Citywide First Fiscal Year Funded: 2005 Population Targeted: Community members and court-involved individuals.  {{Broad enough population description??}}

Description/Scope of Services: CCI operates a variety of community courts, drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, and school justice centers and youth programs throughout the City. This funding will support CCI’s overall operations, as well as its Family and Youth Initiative. Designation Method: The City Council has designated CCI as the provider for this initiative.
EIN#: 13-2612524

Why would the words “Fund for the City of New York,” who owns that EIN# 13-2612524 and has been increasing its assets in one year, by $10 million, and the next, by $14 million, not be properly named in a city proposed budget when allocating $400,000?   Perhaps this should be re-named fund FROM the (taxpayers) of the City of New York, with startup-funding from the Ford Foundation decades ago?

This is a 439 document representing a 2014 budget ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY (@ 6/23/2013) for NYC.   I encourage people to read and look for and look up familiar organizations in the DV or family court field, or become familiar with them (!!)

FISCAL YEAR 2014
ADOPTED EXPENSE
BUDGET
Adjustment Summary / Schedule C

Hon. Christine C. Quinn
Speaker of the Council
Finance Division
Preston Niblack, Director Jeffrey Rodus, First Deputy Director
Amended June 26, 2013
Hon. Domenic M. Recchia, Jr.
Chair, Committee on Finance

The chart is at the top of page 7.  The initials represent “Agency” and the words, “Initiative” column, followed by “Funding” for a total of $4.95 million for 2014.

DOP
Adolescent Portable Therapy Program
$250,000
CJC
Alternatives to Incarceration (ATIs)
$3,350,000
CJC
Center for Court Innovation
$400,000
CJC
Child Advocacy Centers (Safe Horizon)
$500,000
CJC
Initiative to Address Sexual Assault
$200,000
DA – RC
Staten Island Drug Treatment Court
$250,000

In 1974, the Ford Foundation (and a group of federal agencies) also established what’s now called “MDRC” to better help more Americans, more efficiently.  MDRC is of course for low-income Americans, who without this public/private (foundation) set of adventures, would be voiceless, and restricted to merely dealing with their elected political representatives, not a very efficient way of doing business governing themselves:

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor. MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale demonstrations and evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people. We helped pioneer the use of random assignment — the same highly reliable methodology used to test new medicines — in our evaluations. From welfare policy to high school reform, MDRC’s work has helped to shape legislation, program design, and operational practices across the country.

With government counsel, and funding for the advice, run this precisely, and fantastically run Administrative Offices of the Courts coordinated through international nonprofits (LOTS of them, however, they work pretty well with each other — see NCSC), who needs state legislatures, the US Congress, or that old outdated warhorse, the US Constitution?

(Anyhow, back to the Brief History of NYS Commercial Divisions….):

By 2006, there’s now a Focus Group figuring out how to expand the “Great Ideas” (best practices, including electronic filing (can’t really protest that, it seems necessary — but comes with drawbacks to the legal process as documented by “Joseph Zernik” and Janet Phelan years ago in California/Los Angeles, i.e., one system for elite access, and the public does NOT have access to even all its own legitimate court dockets, or information; a dual-docketing system, is now a live issue within family courts also)…  Another “best practices” is apparently forced “ADR” and yet another, justices on certain cases can control to which department their case goes when ADR is involved.

Here’s a paragraph re: the 2006 issues:

In January 2006, the Commercial Division adopted Statewide Standards for Assignment of Cases and Rules of Practice. These Standards provide clarity as to which cases are heard in the Commercial Division and which are not and established uniform practices and procedures for cases once they are within the Commercial Division. As the foregoing indicates, the Commercial Division has benefitted from extensive communications with the commercial Bar and Bar associations across the State over the years. In 2006, this process of exchange of ideas saw the completion of an important step with the release of a report by the Commercial Division Focus Group Project. The Office of Court Administration structured the Focus Groups to promote candid dialogue among judges, lawyers and clients to generate new ideas, identify potential areas of improvement and assess application of “best practices” that have evolved in the Commercial Division to the court system as a whole.

of course, what’s a Focus Group without a Focus Group report?  So, in 2006, the Focus group (members not named on this brief history summary page), there you have it.  But by 2012, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (Judith Kaye successor) created the “Chief Judge’s Task Force on Commercial Litigation — Co-chaired by former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and commercial practitioner Martin Lipton– and the Hon. Judith Kaye shared how they wanted to set “a new vision” for the state’s courts….after all that work, it’s only natural that what’s good for business (in this Commercial Division) is good for everyone and practices ought to be exported to other parts of the system (including those parts that deal with little kids and safety matters, i.e., custody):

The Report contained two types of findings: a list of “good ideas” that had developed within the Commercial Division that could be considered for exportation and use elsewhere within the court system and suggestions for improvements to the Commercial Division itself.

By 2013, Justice Lippmann is working on implementation and made a permanent council for just this type of ongoing improvement:

In 2013, Chief Judge Lippman, following one of the recommendations of the Task Force, established a permanent Commercial Division Advisory Council to advise him on all matters pertaining to the Commercial Division. The Council is composed of distinguished commercial practitioners and Judges from around the state and is chaired by Robert L. Haig, Esq.

At present, the Council is working on implementation of ideas contained in the Task Force’s Report.

What goes around comes around; Robert L. Haig, Esq. was on the original one in 1995….  here’s last year’s (March 26, 2013, in fact) NYCOURTS.gov/Press release of who’s on this Advisory Council:  Chief Judge Names Members of Commercial Division Advisory Council.

Where I learned that Robert L. Haig is Partner at Kelley Drye & Warren, an international law firm that’s been around since 1986 with professionals in:  New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Stamfort, CT, Parsippany, NJ and Brussels (Belgium)… “additionally offering a full scope of legal service through our affiliate relationship with the Mumbai-based independent law firm, Fortitude Law Associates.  Kelley Drye helps clients reach their business goals by providing legal advice in more than 30 practice areas.”  Here’s a summary of Haig’s work on behalf of his clients.  Notice which clients.

Back to the timeline on E. Leo Milonas:

E. Leo Milonas and the Quirk Family, a Window into the business of justice (criminal prosecutions, clerks of courts, political, unions, etc.):

11/20/1995 New York Daily News, by Salvatore Arena:

Top State Judge to Quit after Run-ins on Union

The judge who heads the state court system is quitting just weeks after facing a near-mutiny by fellow jurists upset over his handling of alleged insubordination by court officers. E. Leo Milonas has told colleagues he will step down next month as chief administrative judge and head of the Office of Court Administration to return to his seat on the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court. Milonas declined comment on the matter, but his plans were confirmed by several court sources, who said the move has been in the works for some time. It follows months of criticism from judges who say Milonas has been too lenient in his response to the confrontational behavior of some court officers and their union boss, Dennis Quirk. Quirk, whose 1,200 members work in the Criminal, Civil and Family courts, was docked nine weeks’ pay earlier this year for leading an October 1994 courtroom uprising against Manhattan Civil Court Judge Margaret Taylor, who had long feuded with officers over security issues.

Quirk led a two-day protest in response to Taylor’s insistence that officers remain seated in her courtroom and clear any security actions with her. They also accused the judge of mistreating black court officers. Quirk admitted cursing at the judge during the protest after she allegedly called his men “black gorillas.

” Two other union officials involved in the incident got shorter suspensions, and 11 court officers received official reprimands. Charges against a number of others were dropped. Last month, Quirk, who has led his union for two decades, launched a diatribe against Ruth Pickholz, president of the Criminal Court Judges Association, at a budget hearing. Quirk ridiculed Pickholz for requesting laptop computers and not wearing robes and accused her of compromising security by allowing a defendant to jump over the rail during a court appearance. “She should be a social worker,” Quirk said. After Quirk spoke, Pickholz charged that rude court officers have caused problems in the courtroom by tying up phones and chewing gum. A few days later, Quirk raised tensions even more when he unveiled a plan to have court officers monitor how judges perform and make their findings public, an idea he has since dropped. “The man ought to be fired,” said one judge speaking on condition of anonymity. “He has a long history of acting like a thug.”

Pardon me for filing this information here, but I looked up Dennis Quirk; here are some articles showing Quirk’s involvements (and in-law relationships) via his daughters, at a minimum, to  . . . well, read it for yourself.

• Aug 3 2003 He’s $1.8 million King of the Courts, a Union Boss, Biz Whiz, and Political Animal (Douglas Feiden, NYDaily News)  [gives a flavor of the many hats one person can play, legally.  That said, how many relationships can one’s daughters, and in-laws, play in a single court system, within a DA’s office, and politically?  See “Ice Rink” and other businesses…
• Sept. 9, 2003, “Is Hynes letting the Case against the Mafioso Lanni Languish due to a Quirk?” by Yerachamiel Lopin in “Frum Follies” (whatever that is!):

Last week, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles (Joe) Hynes was busy walking back his comments about the Hassidic community being worse than the mafia when it comes to witness intimidation.

Meanwhile he is having a hard time summoning up the will to deal with a real Mafioso, Joseph Lanni, who is a made guy with the Gambino crime family. Lanni just has too many connections to Hynes.He is the brother of Anthony Lanni, a Detective Investigator (DI) who is married to Susan Quirk, Director of Legal Hiring at KCDA. She, in turn, is the daughter of Hynes’ four-time campaign manager, Dennis Quirk, head of the New York State Court Officers Association. Dennis is a pugnacious guy. When a judge criticized him he responded, “”If they want a war, I don’t take prisoners. I take body bags.” I suppose his son-in-law’s brother could be handy if it comes to that.

Yes, Dennis Quirk’s son-in-law is brother to a mobster, and D. Quirk’s daughter, Susan Quirk, who (per FailedMessiah.com):

Susan Quirk, licensed to practice law since 2005, is an assistant district attorney in Hynes’ office, where she has the prestigious title of “Director of Legal Hiring.” The resumes of the last three people to hold that position in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office have been far longer and more illustrious than Susan Quirk’s.

The title “Tangled Web of Patronage And Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars In Contributions And Loans Call Hynes Campaign Into Question“** (Aug 2013 post; Shmarya Rosenberg, FailedMessiah.com, “Covering Orthodox Judaism since 2004“) pretty much describes it; far be it from me to attempt a summary on the first few readings.  HOWEVER, Quirk’s family, and a Mob/D.A. relationship, his daughter hiring for the Brooklyn DA Charles J. Hynes, and his family members contributing to the DA Hynes’s campaign (and, bid for governor of NYState), and a brother who is or was a Family Court Chief….

** Staten Island Family Court Chief Clerk William Quirk* is the brother of Dennis, the pugnacious head of the New York State court officers union who also plays a leading role in Hynes’ campaigns. Janet, now a senior court clerk, works under her uncle.*[to confirm, see below]

[2011 April 11, Staten Island Advance, “Supervising Judge Credited with cutting out Family Court Chaos”  and 2011 November 17, “New York Family Courts say Keep out Despite Order” both mention Wm. J. Quirk; the first positively and mentioning 30 years (yes, three decades) in the position, the second, in passing, an article which starts out (hover cursor or click and read for more/ the article also mentions Chief Justices Kaye and Lippman making a public statement about this rule)

New York State’s Family Courts were ordered to be opened to the public with much fanfare in 1997, supposedly allowing anyone to witness the cases of domestic violence, foster care and child neglect that inch through by the hundreds of thousands every year. But now, 14 years later, the Family Courts remain essentially, almost defiantly, closed to the general public. …   Recent visits to the courts across New York City revealed officials and security officers routinely disregarding the open-courts rule in ways both large and small, direct and implied, insistent and even hostile.

….

[Tangled Web, cont’d]:

Janet’s father Dennis also contributes significant amounts of money to to Hynes – and so does the court officers’ union that he heads. It has contributed to Hynes’ campaigns, including $10,000 – a Quirk family ‘lucky’ number – in July of this year.

Dennis Quirk also loaned the Hynes campaign a lot of money – $50,000 in 2005, a hotly contested campaign year, to cover “campaign expenses.”

Hynes paid at least $24,000 of that loan back along with $3,830.63 in interest, but it does not appear that the entire $50,000 was repaid.

BACK ON TOPIC:

11/30/1995 in the New York Times (Archives)

Judge Jonathan Lippman has been named New York’s new chief administrative judge, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye announced yesterday. Judge Lippman, who is to take office on Jan. 1, 1996, succeeds Judge E. Leo Milonas, who is stepping down after two and a half years to return to the appellate bench.

In his new position, Judge Lippman, who was appointed a Court of Claims judge by Gov. George E. Pataki in June, will supervise the state court system, which has an annual budget of $1.2 billion and includes 3,200 judges and 13,000 support employees.

In a statement, Chief Judge Kaye described Judge Lippman as “an extraordinary person of proven competence, creativity, industry and dedication.” She added that he was “well known and well respected throughout the judiciary and throughout state government.”

In the state court system, Judge Lippman, 50, has a reputation for being the workhorse of the system, in which he began as an entry-level lawyer in the Law Department. Over the next 24 years, he rose steadily through the ranks

Justice Milonas remained at the Appellate Division until 1998 and the following year joined the firm of Pillsbury Winthrop as partner, specializing in litigation, complex commercial litigation, appeals and alternative dispute resolution.

In 2003, Judge Milonas joined the Board of Directors for the National Center for State Courts (he had been a member previously from 1974 to 1980).  [[See below]]  In addition, he is active in numerous organizations that contribute to improving the judicial system. He is a former president of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (2002-2004), a past member of the Conference of State Court Administrators, member of the Governor’s Departmental Judicial Screening Committee, member of the New York State Board of Law Examiners and member of the State advisory panel on school funding, to name a few.

Justice Milonas and his wife Helen, a psychiatric social worker, are the parents of two grown children.

2002 notice (PRwire 6/6/2006) of the event of a Pillsbury partner becoming President of the Bar of the City of New York):

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Elects a New President; Pillsbury Winthrop Celebrates Their Partner’s New Appointment

NEW YORK, June 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Over 200 lawyers, federal and state
 judges and other prominent figures in the legal community gathered at a recent
 meeting of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (The
 Association) for the installation of Pillsbury Winthrop Partner, Judge E. Leo
 Milonas, as President of the Association. . . . . 
"Leo is fiercely devoted to the legal profession and a man of the highest
 integrity," says Donald Kilpatrick, managing partner of Pillsbury Winthrop's
 New York office.  "His legal knowledge and talents are limitless.
 Undoubtedly, he will serve his new office well and remain committed to his
 goals."
     Prior to Milonas, the following four partners in the firm now known as
 Pillsbury Winthrop served as President of the Association: firm founder Henry
 L. Stimson, Elihu Root, Allen T. Klots, and Merrill E. Clark, Jr.
     Pillsbury Winthrop sponsored a reception for Milonas at the Century
 Association on May 23 which included speeches by The Honorable Judith Kaye,
 Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals and The Honorable 
Jonathan Lippman who succeeded Milonas as Chief Administrative Judge of the State of
 New York.

     The Association of the Bar of the City of New York was formed in 1870, and
 has grown to include over 22,000 members.  ...

In 2008, Milonas returned the praise for Justice Judith Kaye: Unfortunately, the NYT is no longer posting this information, it’s only available through lexis nexis!

E. Leo Milonas honors Justice Kaye New York Law Journal, 12/15/2008, “There is no doubt that Judith S. Kaye shall be recognized as one of the greatest chief judges of our time.”

NOTE: PORTIONS OF THIS POST BELOW ARE STILL “UNDER CONSTRUCTION,” PARTICULARLY LOOKUPS ON VARIOUS JUSTICES.  THE BOTTOM PART, HOWEVER, WAS WRITTEN PREVIOUSLY AND IS INTACT.   

I QUOTE SO MUCH BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE ARE THINGS PICKED UP VISUALLY EVEN IN VIEWING A QUOTE THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE MISSED IF REFERENCES WERE LEFT IN “Click to see” mode.  And that by actually exposing the words to one’s eyesight on the post (even peripheral, if it’s not all read carefully), people can still pick up on some of the language patterns, get more context for situations, or people – -and eventually start connecting the dots).   

For example below, in the background of ret’d justice Judith Kaye, we see not only (per this) she  had a strong work ethic, was academically smart, and switched from journalism to law, graduating among only 10 women in a class of 300, but that she also early on met and within two years married her husband of many years at a law firm, and while being super Mom and superWoman, did this (after one year at IBM legal) working part-time  — as assistant to the Dean of the Law School she’d graduated from; I’d call that highly placed…

After having three children (pregnancies) in four years (1965-1969), it was “back to it” and she then went from part-time associate to partner at another law firm which (amazingly) as of 1996 was still around with the same partners named:  Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell & Weyher (law firm suing for fees).  Harry F. Weyher, Jr., died in April 2002, his NYT obit shows he was: from North Carolina, a decorated “First Sargeant” in WWI, Army; Harvard summa cum laude, and “From 1951 to 1952, he served as Special Assistant Attorney General to the NY State Crime Commission. In 1954, he co-founded the law firm of Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell & Weyher. He was also an Adjunct Associate Professor at NYU School of Law.” (ret’d Justice Kaye graduated from there in 1962)…

Judith Smith Kaye (b.1938), Court of Appeals 1983-2008, Chief Judge 1993-2008 (detailed biography by Stephen C. Krane @ “nycourts.gov/legal-history-new-york/luminaries..”)  Recommended reading! I’ve picked out the parts which show her progression into law and up through appointment to be Chief Judge.  

INTRODUCTION

She initially rose to prominence simply as the first woman ever to be appointed to the New York Court of Appeals. As the years passed, however, it was widely recognized that Judith Smith Kaye was one of the preeminent jurists in the country, regardless of gender. But perhaps her most lasting legacy will be the fruits of her term as Chief Judge, a position in which she has served longer than any of her 21 predecessors. In that capacity, Chief Judge Judith Kaye has overlaid nearly a decade-and-a-half of forward-looking leadership and nationally acclaimed judicial innovation upon her more than two decades of service and unquestionable prowess as an appellate judge.  ….   {{No question about hard work and academics; she originally wanted to be a journalist, but Barnard didn’t offer a degree in journalism; she got interested in law, got the degree, started working, …}}

Graduating in 1954 at the age of 15, having skipped two grades, Kaye was admitted to Barnard College. Although she hoped to fulfill her ambition of being a journalist (she had spent summers during high school working at The Evening News, a local paper, in addition to the family store), Barnard did not offer a journalism degree. Instead, Kaye majored in Latin American Civilization while serving as editor-in-chief of the Barnard Bulletin and as a campus stringer for the New York Herald Tribune.

Although Kaye graduated from Barnard in 1958 with the ambition of becoming a foreign correspondent, her first job was as a reporter for the Hudson Dispatch, a daily newspaper in Union City, New Jersey, where she was assigned to the society page. Thinking that a law degree would enhance her chances of becoming an international reporter, Kaye entered the New York University School of Law. She took classes at night while working by day as a copy editor at a news service syndicate. Eventually, the law began to interest her more than journalism and Kaye devoted her efforts to her legal career. Having served as an associate editor of the Law Review, she graduated in 1962 from N.Y.U. cum laude and a member of the Order of the Coif. She was one of only 10 women in a graduating class of nearly 300.

Kaye’s first legal employer was the Manhattan law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, where she worked as an associate for two years. It was at Sullivan & Cromwell that, in April 1963, she met Stephen Rackow Kaye,**{{that’s his 11/2006 NYT obituary}} whom she married on February 11, 1964. After leaving Sullivan & Cromwell, Kaye worked for one year in the IBM legal department in Armonk, New York. Then, while carrying, giving birth to and caring for the Kayes’ three children, Luisa, Jonathan, and Gordon, she returned to New York University where she served as a part-time assistant to Russell Niles, then the Dean of the School of Law. She held that position through three pregnancies, from 1965 to 1969. . . . . Kaye joined the law firm of Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell & Weyher in 1969. Initially a part-time associate, Kaye was named the first woman partner in the firm in 1975. … (accomplishments there)…. President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the United States Nominating Commission for Judges of the Second Circuit, and she also served on the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society and on the New York State Bar Association’s Judicial Selection Committee. . . .

In 1981, she was appointed by the New York Court of Appeals as a charter trustee of the Clients’ Security Fund (now known as the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection). . . .