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

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

1. It amazes me, the level of ego, self righteousness, and elitism that exudes from all of this gobbledygook. No parent wants to read any of this crap; let alone all of it – as the authors suggest. Go do our own research? Why? When a parent has spare time they help with HOMEWORK not research. The answer is simple enough that any 1st grader can explain the merits: Custody is only fair when shared 50/50. We don’t need more study, research, special interest groups, courts, coalitions, victims or champions. What argument does either party have when the custody is 50/50. How much more obvious could it be? Any suggestion to the contrary can dominate your valuable research time; but not mine. I don’t give a damn about the whole lot of you. I just want the same thing every family court loser wants – EQUAL CUSTODY – EQUAL VISITATION – EQUAL SHARE OF EXPENSES Any dialogue outside of this solution is a distraction and waste. Do you expect that some study will eventually provide concrete evidence to support anything other than balanced, fair, equal responsibilities (aka rights) to both parents? And if so, would it settle this? Never. You continue to exacerbate the problem while you avoid implementing the solution. We don’t need any more of any of this bullshit.

   One thing I learned along the way – There’s really three sides to every story: His, Hers, and the truth. That’s not to imply that He and She are incapable of truth. Merely that perception and reality are not the same – yet we as humans can’t escape the unfortunate universal principle that dictates that you can only be in one place at a time. Your personal reality will always be flawed, as it will always be subject to your unique perspective. Throw out her bullshit, throw out his bullshit, and the reality remains. Without Serious uncontested irrefutable evidence to prove that a parent seriously jeopardizes a child’s well-being; each parent should carry 50% responsibility for caring for that child, including custody, visitation, expenses and decision making (otherwise known as parenting).

   As for what to do with all of that money that is being wasted in these stupid pseudo-welfare programs when they no longer sway the outcome? Simple – give it to the economically disadvantaged parent to help them bridge the gap where “child support” used to be.

   Focus on the solution. If you think 50/50 isn’t the right solution (in your exalted opinion), then you are the very organization you demonize. Special interests, in it for someone other than – The Family.

   So what’s your beef with 50/50? Why isn’t the discussion around implementing that?

   Potheads got marijuana legalized with petitions and voters. Why can’t disenfranchised parents accomplish the same with their children?

   

   C Noble

   June 26, 2015 at 5:09 pm

   Reply
   • ____________
     I haven’t published a post (here) for a year now. Some delay in approving your comment because I do have an ongoing life outside this volunteer, one-person, word-press blog. Spent too long responding, but I didn’t feel that just because it’s a rant, it shouldn’t be aired. You sound like someone who needs to feel heard.

     Even though you started with an insult, and then moved right into several assumptions about how many authors this blog has, and about ALL parents (which the traffic counter- over 202,000 — and a modest, but still there – 314 followers, I assure you many actually ARE parents, and in addition, I know several other parents who have actually been reading this blog and re-blogging it (men and women both). Someone even put a link up under “Issues” on a campaign site for a state supreme court state justice not too long ago, not that I lived in that state, or particularly endorsed that candidate. (http://www.macdonaldforjustice.com/issues.html, the link is right under the large word “REFORM.” I did not write the surrounding material on that page and was not involved in the campaign.) It’s been commended (despite the format) by strangers (people who don’t know me at all). Per another service which bloggers can use, which puts up html to show Who was visiting, this blog was for a while being watched by number of state bar associations, the Executive Office of the President at least a few times, and district attorneys’ offices and a number of law firms. I think one of the “About” links on the sidebar here has posted some samples.
     ___________________
     If you think putting others down raises you up somehow, spout on and attempt to exalt yourself in this manner. I don’t, and this blog was not about me and in fact was necessary because people were more interested in “telling their stories” (and others, with private purposes behind this, as shown on how, when, and (financed) by whom their organizations were set up, and what tax-exempt purpose were declared on them, I’m referring specifically, but not only, to “Center for Judicial Excellence”) had an agenda for getting them to talk about their court cases, and allow it to be branded by the groups in question to demand system reform IN A SPECIFIC, EXCLUSIVIST MANNER which any discussion of the federal grants would show to be self-defeating. I put this blog together specifically to take the discussion OUT of “He said/she said” mode into “THIS ORGANIZATION IS” and “THOSE GRANTS-STREAMS ARE” mode, which is a more solid, more objective ground, and one in which some insight leads to more insight into government itself. I wanted it out of “anecdotal evidence” and you should too.
     __________
     I put this blog together for a record of what was done and has been done through the creation of a hybrid jurisdiction (which family courts it seems are) under which NO individual rights seem to exist, and as a resource for people who have the attitude and stomach to face some hard truths about this country.

     Many of us had to face these when we lost contact with our children overnight and read the “rationale” why in the courts, and THEN learned about the federal incentives to the states, and to the courts. The justice system is being internationally aligned in a certain way, which I blog on. That way involves public/private collaboration in the tax-exempt sector. It has everything to do with the relationship between business entities (and their tax-exempt status) + government entities (of all kinds and levels) + individuals who, in working, provide a tax base for those who entities which are tax exempt. This allows, over time, collective accumulation of wealth and influence — after some point in time, the word “justice” is just window-dressing.

     _________________

     I do not write “gobbledygook,” Lifelong habits of not sorting or processing information very well, especially when one set of information contradicts cherished beliefs, can result in internal gobbledygook, which judging by your comments, you are struggling with and instead chose to take it out in the form of a (harmless to me, though antagonistic) comment. Another condition in which people are sometimes confused to the point of lashing out at others is ongoing personal trauma.

     I am not a computer genius, and am writing from a free word-press platform which, when I quote from other websites, often has formatting issues. But what I write, I research, have pushed myself to understand, though I have experience (personal), acquaintance with others’ experiences from years of communications with both mothers and fathers on the issues they have dealt with, where this blog differs is that I’m saying, look at the operational structures — follow the money. This is public money blended with private, and where private money is driving the court system through tax-exempt foundations (and the nonprofits they fund) to set up shop right IN the courts, this is like a criminal syndicate calling itself “justice.”

     I acquired — I did not have this to start with as a noncustodial single mother (gender does matter in federal policy, and in the courts), or even as a cut-off-overnight parent, an above-average understanding (acquired from a combination of diligent attention, and using my mind to comprehend what I was seeing — it’s called Understanding) of the Operations, Practices, and History of the Family and Conciliation Courts. See title of blog.
     ___________________________
     I approved your indignant rant with its inane premise that 50/50 custody will solve all issues. I have no reason not to — the comment speaks for itself of the mindset of whoever wrote it.

     Presumptive 50/50 custody by definition ignores the reality of child abuse, wife-(or husband-)battering, economic realities of raising children and sustaining a work life/what it takes to jump-start one which may have been put completely on hold, and a denial of the profits involved in setting up a caste of professionals and court-connected problems to push co-parenting on everyone, except where one parent is “punished” — often for standing up for their own flesh and blood to protect them, or to demand that a history of felony behavior including domestic violence, not be swept under the carpet post-divorce as is so often attempted and condoned (especially by religious groups) during marriage.
     _________
     Your comment demonstrates anger, and a mental laziness with a simplistic solution, based on ridiculous claims of what “family court losers” want. I thank God that there are, I think, still a few requirements for elected office.

     I encourage people with some intelligence, diligence, and understanding to understand who the family courts are, how they got here, and what they have been doing since arrival, with public funds and private lives.

     I live in communities, and many Americans do, where entire families have been murdered by one partner who didn’t get a 50/50 and in some cases, where they did. Public property and private has been blown up (houses), windows smashed, kids gassed in cars and set on fire, kids of all ages stolen, women stabbed and dropped by the side of the highway to die, and we have even in California had a tollbooth shooting by a jealous ex. In a supervised visitation session — based on the premise that no matter what fathers, (specifically) MUST have contact with their offspring, regardless of behavior, regardless of — and in fact because of — threats to kill — two people indeed did die — by bullet — DURING the supervised visitation session (Manchester, NH, August 2013). Within one month of the same court-ordered visitation exchange (weekly, and I always complied in bringing the children to see their father, regardless of his behavior towards me, or mounting child support arrears, although the amount was set at WELFARE level and never increased), another couple in this same area called the Reisers also had a routine exchange. She was then never seen again, and only AFTER this man was convicted absent a body of murder, did he agree to go show the authorities the shallow grave where he had buried her. Within just half a year, another woman attempting to safely leave a controlling ex, was shot to death on a weekday morning in a church parking lot, in the same area where I was dealing with multiple court hearings attempting to re-gain contact with my stolen children. About a half year later, there was a triple homicide — in the same, post-divorce context and with a history of domestic violence — in our area. A relative of the wife, a cop, and the husband, was involved. A few years later, same state (California), a man who DID have 50/50 custody (more than, in fact) STILL went after not only the wife and mother of his child, but also innocent bystanders, in a beauty salon — and eight people died, as I recall. It was cold-blooded murder.

     The family court authorities know these things are happening (so does the public), and STILL continue to push for co-parenting for all, and where one party is incompetent — heck, let’s just run classes for everyone, if possible, every time there is a custody motion. I think it is fair to say, they are not going to report on their own colleagues profiting from this, or the federal grants systems blended with private money, promoting it.

     Moreover, the family court advocacy groups (which this post is about) aren’t going to “fess up” either about the grants systems THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT FOR YEARS. Instead, they push for more trainings, certification, and specialized courts, dockets, and procedures to ensure that (allegedly) fathers are not discriminated against — although decent fathers in this program ARE being discriminated against, and law-abiding mothers too. People are forced into situations where they know their lives are

     The more people are hurt, the more money is poured into “problem-solving” what problems occur, some of it over the insistence in THEORY that “The best parent is both parents” (Children’s Rights Council) when in fact, in some situations, the best parent is ONE parent, and in others, two.

     FROM THE COMMENT ABOVE”
     “The answer is simple enough that any 1st grader can explain the merits: Custody is only fair when shared 50/50.”

     Bullsh*t. This blanket solution cannot be applied to all cases, doesn’t fit with economic reality, or real life, or much else. There is nothing “fair” about demanding regular exposure of children to parents who have threatened to injure, injured, threatened to kidnap, etc. the other parent of the children — and these situations really do exist. Some of know personally, others know when the “roadkill” shows up afterwards. Besides the “roadkill” there are the economically devastated lives, that go on for sometimes YEARS afterwards.
     _____________
     What’s more, if you take some time (Don’t read my blog if it doesn’t make sense. Go figure it out on your own, from information available) to comprehend what these courts were originally set up for, and by whom, you will understand that despite their operating on the same general premise (anti-single-parenting), in effect they are often completely cutting off children from contact with a parent innocent of any crime. This is part and parcel, apparently, of “no-fault-divorce” (first state to pass it, California in 1970, I believe). Previously, in 1963, AFCC claims (it may not be accurate: 1975 seems more legitimate) to have formed themselves for the purpose of reducing conflict in families (see their website for the motto). This organization represents civil servants forming private trade associations, involving judges, who can then order (FORCE) consumption of services to, in effect, their cronies (“colleagues”) in the form of nonprofit corporations set up and taking business from those courts. There are MANY moving parts to this situation — and they move through time and they move in private and public circles. There is an agenda which has nothing to do with parents, or the public interest, being carried out here…. and if you want “fair” (however it’s defined) you want “fair” enforced. Why then wouldn’t you look at the institutions you want to enforce it and seek to at least try to understand them?

     Quote from comment, continued:
     “We don’t need more study, research, special interest groups, courts, coalitions, victims or champions. What argument does either party have when the custody is 50/50. How much more obvious could it be? Any suggestion to the contrary can dominate your valuable research time; but not mine. I don’t give a damn about the whole lot of you. I just want the same thing every family court loser wants – EQUAL CUSTODY – EQUAL VISITATION – EQUAL SHARE OF EXPENSES Any dialogue outside of this solution is a distraction and waste..”

     Expenses occur over a time-span as does the ability to produce income. When in a marriage there has been complete inequality in access to income-producing work, or acquisition of any other income-producing assets which might support a separated spouse who had little to none during marriage and while caring for children — then “equal expenses” only accounts for now — it doesn’t account for the past, and it doesn’t account for the future. If one has lived with a control-freak abuser, that control-freak is often smart enough to start shutting down escape routes early on. This happened in my situation. When I overcame this, as to at least producing enough for household expenses, shortly after the separation, I still did not have credit, or savings accumulation of any sort– this is often not possible for women in violent relationships and hadn’t been in mine. He had stolen my credit with an implicit threat sustained over years (assault and battery behavior was established as a pattern, and once established, puts a “survival mode” dynamic onto the whole relationship). I needed temporary help to get housing. Once others involved (and he) saw that I was actually self-sustaining, with our children, not restricting weekly access as ordered by the court, but restricting HIS access to mess with MY life, i.e., work and parenting both — then “round two” in the family courts was initiated. This “Round Two” in only a few short years, and despite my attempts to forestall the process, effectively eliminated protections, added “litigation” in a court which doesn’t respect or really even acknowledge the language of criminal law, and it drove work away. This impoverished my household, and did nothing to particularly encourage the father to sustain a work life minus the privilege to beat up on someone when frustrated, or when he wanted to).

     There is nothing “equal” about “equal” treatment in the present after years of such work-trashing and aggressively, systematically, eliminating another human being’s economic foot print — work history, banking history, access to credit, etc. I’m not talking normal situations in which there is by choice a life-long stay-at-home mother (I was a combination of both), but abnormal situations. Although, I will say I’ve run across too many women, often in Christian marriages, who to this day do not understand basic household economics and are on an “allowance.” Apart from domestic violence, or criminal/accident events, women tend to live longer than men, and to fail to provide for this makes to me, no sense.

     ALL responsible citizens need to make an effort to understand not just their household economics, but government economics as well. We need to understand the close (incestuous) relationship between corporate wealth, tax-exempt wealth (which is where families or individuals pour inherited or business-acquired wealth) and government institutions that the public funds. We need to understand how we are being controlled and governed through institutions we fund (through taxation) with a purpose to keeping us dependent upon that Public/Private sector “for our own good.” We need to be able to talk about systems of control in terms not limited by those in control as “acceptable.”

     re: One thing I learned along the way – There’s really three sides to every story: His, Hers, and the truth.

     That sounds wise and says nothing substantial. Again, this blog is not focused on his and her stories, but the truth expressed in systems and economic terms. It exists as a deliberate departure from groups which focus on cause-based rhetoric, and says that the “LCD,” the lowest common denominator, of this cause versus that cause (speaking systems change groups, advocacy groups — and not individual custody cases) — is going to be expressed terms of flow of resources, information, and finances FROM “here” TO “there” and THROUGH xyz government or business entities along the way. It is a matter of public financing through taxation and government’s power to tax, and control citizens who don’t pay up, and control the distribution of what is acquired from them through taxes.

     There’s a basic and different vocabulary to learn — the difference between public and private, for-profit and not-for profit. What, really is a philanthropy but a tax-exempt entity, created by declaration in some state, and attracting donations INCLUDING government funding, and private (some have more of one type than another). You cannot short-cut through what really does exist and involves billion-dollar outfits who want to re-align the justice system, and have been doing this successfully (for decades), to their purposes — not the common good. We are expected to assume that the public/private alliance is for our good, and complain when institutions don’t produce it. Where’s the personal effort to understand what they are there for in the first place, and how they are funded, before complaining about outcomes? That is actually an irresponsible attitude. This is not elementary school, and life is not a version of elementary school, only larger. No adult should be wanting this, but many adults DO want that dynamic across society — prosecute the bad guys, save the good guys, tell right from wrong, and make life “fair” for all. “We’ll continue paying taxes (without paying attention to what was done with them) and you (government, courts, police, prisons, schools, etc.) continue making life good, fair, safe, just and equal.”

     re: “As for what to do with all of that money that is being wasted in these stupid pseudo-welfare programs when they no longer sway the outcome? ”

     So you admit there are some pseudo-welfare programs that you believe should sway some outcome?
     Which stupid pseudo-welfare programs? Name one. In fact name, three as you are talking in the plural. Which out-comes? Do you believe that the courts should be “out-come based” or due-process based?

     Re: “The whole lot of you.” — I am not a member of any “lot” that you have identified. People that write on these economic topics quickly find themselves “ex-communicated” because the content exposes where others have withheld information and betrayed the very people they are claiming concern for and wish to be considered advocates for. (See title of the post you chose to comment on).

     If I were, there would be a group name on this blog, and I wouldn’t have had to work so hard at putting it together.

     re: “Focus on the solution. If you think 50/50 isn’t the right solution (in your exalted opinion), then you are the very organization you demonize. Special interests, in it for someone other than – The Family.

     So what’s your beef with 50/50? Why isn’t the discussion around implementing that?

     Potheads got marijuana legalized with petitions and voters. Why can’t disenfranchised parents accomplish the same with their children?”

     I’m not an organization, I’m an individual. My opinions aren’t “exalted” they are researched, but they are opinions — and I have a right to them and to put them on-line. I don’t know what “the organization you demonize” refers to because I am talking about interlocking relationships of organizations, PLURAL, with identifiable systems-reform objectives I do not agree with. I do not represent a special interest group.I am not on the payroll of any nonprofit, and I have not been appointed to speak as a volunteer for any of them. I report on them because they have engaged in cult-like behaviors, censorship and using the group dynamic to discourage independent thinking which might reveal just how large IS that historic censorship of discussions, and because some of the smaller ones are piggybacking upon giant enterprise invisible UNLESS one looks up business identities and reads tax returns, etc. Pretending to be small and helpless (and so empathize with already victimized individuals as a class) while in fact being the recruiters or spokesperson for an entire professional class protecting its right to continue feeding off the courts (and the public funding) is unethical and wrong. It’s not illegal — it’s simply immmoral.

     I don’t know if you are a “disenfranchised parent” (sounds like it. Man or woman? I could guess).
     http://www.franchise.org/what-is-a-franchise
     Do you know what a franchise is? When you became a parent (if so), did you think you were entering into one based on a collective owner of the concept of “parenting” to which you subscribed? Maybe that’s part of the problem.

     All words have general use, and underlying meanings. It can be shocking when one’s years of dedication and contribution are treated like nothing in the courts, or by others. I know it was for me. People handle it differently. I handled it as a problem to be looked into. I know that you don’t solve problems without identifying them, and you can’t identify ANYTHING honestly outside of its context. The context here IS the family court system — and its larger context MUST include who pays for it. It ought to include who set it up, and if you pay attention (instead of just blow-it off because you’re too busy), you can see the system in motion, who’s been pushing it, and what road it’s going down. Right now, that road is a dead end for individual liberty, let alone justice, and tweaking minor “flawed practices” in the system corrected by “consulting experts” isn’t going to change where it’s going.

     Clearly my blog is not for you, and I am not too impressed with your feedback. However, I have given you mine, and aired yours, with my opinion on it. That’s as much time as will be given to further comments from this source, unless they start speaking in specifics, provide links, and show some respect for others’ labors as you clearly respect and have exalted, your own assessment of a nationwide issue.

     

     Let's Get Honest

     July 1, 2015 at 12:50 pm

     Reply
2. Below these links and charts — which display better done by individuals than on a comments field (which loses the table format) are some more thoughts I had on the commentary about parents’ lack of time. I also point anyone reading this to, if not the content, at least the TITLE near the top of this post, which says “ACCOUNTING LITERACY MATTERS. CAUSE-BASED LITERACY DOESN’T.” Cause: 50/50 custody, fathers’ rights, parents’ rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, CIVIL rights, human rights. Where does it end? We have not been taught to think like investors, and take an investor’s interest in EXACTLY what is being done with fees, taxes, etc. collected from us, collectively, and sprinkled (poured) across the landscape. That’s part of the problem.

   We should ask why there should EVER be an “*.gov” site which has a family term in the domain name:

   Here are JUST a few. Comments fields aren’t a good place to display any charts, but I put up a link to produce a similar chart. We are approaching TWENTY YEARS (1996-2016) post -PRWORA (initials to look up and comprehend) and ought to be able to talk with another generation about what this signifies.

   http://fatherhood.gov

   Federal Programs and Resources (list of agencies the White House partners with to promote responsible fatherhood, i.e., “Federal Family Design”). This is an excuse being used to reduce representative government and increase control of state governments and through them, PEOPLE, not by legislation, but from the Executive Branch working through its powerful agencies to drive policy through the Judiciary.):

   “One of the key policy goals and priorities set out by President Obama is the promotion of Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities. As part of this goal, the White House has partnered with a number of other Federal Departments to promote these partnerships and activities that promote fatherhood in local communities.”…

   https://www.fatherhood.gov/about-us – Who are we?

   The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse is an [HHS/ACF/] Office of Family Assistance (OFA) funded national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs/Federal grantees, states, and the public at-large who are serving or interested in supporting strong fathers and families.
   ________________ A “resource” is a what, not a who. NRFC is not a “we” but it most definitely consumes public (federal agency) funding.

   “Funding”

   The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is a resource of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

   The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA) re-authorized funding for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). The NRFC was initially funded through the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.”

   National Healthy Resource Center (“Initial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant 90-FH-0001 (9/11/2006 – 9/29/2011)
   This site managed by Public Strategies
   © 2008 – 2015 National Healthy Marriage Resource Center)”

   Now that fatherhood, and healthy marriage programming has been written into law (including the Social Security Act, with major re-tooling of the purpose of that act in 1996ff) and the public hasn’t wised up yet to privatization, there’s a National Healthy Marriage AND Families Resource Center.”

   National Healthy Marriage AND Families Resource Center – About Us

   “Disclaimer: Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: [90FH0002]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.”

   Where you can look up an HHS grant number: (Advanced Search). 90FH0001 (and plenty more) went to a for-profit PR firm in Oklahoma. Profit for them, loss for the public — but the TANF contingency fund was sitting around, and a certain governor (Frank Keating) and his religiously-included Human Services people (Jerry Regier, others), plus some UDenver Professors with a business plan (PREP, Inc.) — did I mention also, for-profit — exercised their collective mutual consent to bypass (fast-track) the legislature, grab public funds, and set up programming to steer profits towards marriage and relationship educators and call this “in the public interest.”
   ______________________
   However, in 90FH0002 — the grant went to a group labeled “I C F” (with spaces inbetween the name to defeat anyone who might have been smart enough to search for the group BY NAME on this database) — which is in fact ICF International, began as “Inner City Fund” long ago, and so fat after decades of federal contracting (and grants — why GRANTS?) — that it is routinely acquiring other companies, has go public, then private again and is now international, and last I looked a $949 MILLION dollar enterprise.
   https://taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearch.cfm
   ______________________________________
   90FH0001

   Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 DEVELOPING HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE MATERIALS 09/22/2006 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 2,000,000
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 DEVELOPING HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE MATERIALS 09/21/2007 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 09/29/2008 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 03/26/2009 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 0
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 09/24/2009 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 09/27/2010 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
   PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 01/29/2015 93086 SAM CRAVENS $- 150,655
   Results 1 to 7 of 7 matches.
   Run it yourself for a better display, and you’ll see $15.25 million GIVEN to a public relations firm from 2006 – 2010. For ONLY that grant (IN 2015 for some reason, a negative entry). That’s an average of $15M a year. The HHS literally “made” this organization at the expense of taxpayers, as it also did ICF International, below.

   PUBLIC STRATEGIES [Oklahoma] HISTORY:
   Public Strategies was established in 1990 as a public relations and event-planning firm. Under the leadership of Mary Myrick, Public Strategies has grown from a one-woman operation to a comprehensive project management and communications firm with a staff of more than 150 professionals from diverse backgrounds and disciplines.

   The journey from a small firm serving the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team to a large, multifaceted organization serving dozens of local, state and federal clients….

   ____________________________________________________________________
   90FH0002
   Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
   I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/28/2011 93086 Cindy Sherlock $ 1,500,000
   I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/27/2012 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 1,500,000
   I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 04/05/2013 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 0
   I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/27/2013 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 1,500,000
   I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/16/2014 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 1,500,000
   I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 11/07/2014 93086 BERNARD MOLEPSKE $

   ICF International: A Technology, Policy and Management Consultancy.”
   “ICF International was founded in 1969 as the Inner City Fund, a venture capital firm whose mission was to finance inner-city businesses.”
   . . . “In 2006, ICF Consulting was renamed ICF International to reflect our growing geographic presence and increased scope of our service offerings from advisory services through implementation and improvement. The firm also pursued an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and now is a publicly traded firm listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol ICFI.”

   It looks to me that by 2010, when the $1.5M freebies (90FH0002) started, HHS should’ve been able to name its grantee correctly, or correct it since. They have with some grantees (Futures without Violence), but they have not here. Why not, I wonder.

   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

   Parents might have more time if they had more resources. Parent mights have more resources if they demanded to know how their precious wages, or if they are recipients of child support, someone else’s, are being utilized by those that collect, hold, and re-distribute them, as well as collect income taxes, licensing fees, penalties, of all sort, and for SOME, state franchise taxes, and for OTHERS (nonprofits) exempt them from state franchise taxes. After learning some of this, one is in a position to comprehend that the federal faucets(actually “fire hydrants” — gushers) are on the continual “on” position accompanied by lies about scarcity in the budget, as a basis for actually cutting (or, consolidating) services and centralizing control of them ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL LINES ESTABLISHED IN THE US CONSTITUTION. Incidentally, that’s been suspended under emergency powers since about 1933 anyhow, so let’s get real about how much we may expect of it to be in current use– or of current interest!
   ______________

   In response to be told my stuff was “crap” no parent would want to read, and missing that I do not have children in the household (this blog was not started until three years after contact had been cut off overnight), I am writing in part for people who have experienced this — and for their supportive friends and others who have been asked BY certain policies, to help pick up the pieces. Either welfare does, or friends/relatives do when work is gone, or no one does. This system HAS also made people homeless.
   _________
   Regarding “Homework” — we were a homeschooling family. I learned experientially (and knew as a parent and from long-time work in a variety of school systems, and not just plush surbuban ones, and not only public schools either) that schools have been pushing arts, music, and so-called “enrichment” courses out of the mainstream of “core curricula” for decades. I know because I worked for private or after-school groups that would put them back in. Why should schools determine whether or not arts, music, or anything else is central to a child’s education? When parents have no time it’s from a combination of school/work/life issues. As a homeschooling even single mother post-domestic violence, we had time for Dad, time for life, and I had time to work in a sustainable profession, because the majority of every single day, five days a week wasn’t spent by my kids in an institution, or me in support of an institution. This was a functional lifestyle with children on the college-track, which by experience, I knew how to accomplish.
   ______________
   AFTER driving my kids out of a healthy situation, and BOTH (in our case) parents out of their lives, to create a financial dependency where there was none “en route” and actually none at the time I eventually learned to look for “what’s in it for whom?” Why would any system proclaiming it exists to do good, specialize in inflicting harm, and setting up systems which do this with ease? HOW did this happen, and where’s the profit in it. Because for every loss somewhere, there is often a profit somewhere else.
   _________
   TO look at that, you have to ask a lot of questions, and get them answered, pay attention to the less than obvious (which people are not being conditioned to do) and understand at least SOME of the existing systems. I eventually decided (a personal decision) that while nonprofits claim they are there for service, in fact they exist for tax-exemption, and many times, they can and do exist fro diversion of funds to people who deserve them, into people who neither need nor deserve them. The word “DIVERSION” is key to understanding welfare reform and privatization/federalization of government as a means to ELIMINATING — not providing, but ELIMINATING — what the average person might think is “justice.”
   _______________

   

   Let's Get Honest

   July 1, 2015 at 3:04 pm

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

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