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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for May 2016

Georgia Center of OPPORTUNITY (for whom?) in re: Exploiting 1996 PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work OPPORTUNITY Reconciliation Act) HHS grants streams

with one comment

Did you read my last post?  Got Feedback or Questions?


A much more detailed Feedback Form available at an 11/24/2013 post, however it comes with a rant. Either one, feedback is emailed to me. I may not reply, but will read.


Related post:   Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia.  Also, Page (see rightsidebar, “Vital Links”) on HMRF funds in Georgia and recent “Note to Readers” post notifying about the page, and containing more related information.

 

ForeWords.

I have been exploring certain networks and explaining the elements of them.  I look up not only grants, grantees, or organizations, but also for where and how these connect or are networked with others.

I also know, generally speaking, the average readership — not including those entities I’ve been reporting on, which can sometimes be seen on the blog —  has not voiced or demonstrated an understanding of the basic networked elements by type, and what business models (macro) are at work here.  Talking across the chasm of understanding and definitely at cross-currents to the typical agenda requires a lot of repetition, defining terms, and pointing out what the background-story may be on a better “translation according to usage” of some of the typical jargon, which will help recognizing it as jargon when it’s encountered.  Perhaps remember this phrase: “The Power of Networking is the Appearance of Consensus“(I just made it up)…  Looking at the network may show just how much overlap between seemingly multiple different entities of different types, especially when academia gets in there, the temptation may be to just give up and think, “I disagree — but I’m such a minority!!”As my blogging, I hope, shows, most people thinking this, or over-whelmed by the same rhetoric coming at them from so many angles — and IF you engage in receiving social services, you will encounter its influence, whether or not its acknowledged — actually are NOT “the minority.”  In fact, the majority of population was not consulted in advance about the wisdom of these programs.

Congress (which, it’s fair to say, does represent a major power structure) authorized PRWORA once and continued re-authorizing subsequent versions of it, periodically. Not one version of it ever removed the HMRF funding, and there was little debate on this, in part, because of just how many people in the know agreed NOT to publicize it outside of their own circles and where marketing.

Did you ever hear, in the years 2000 – now, a major women’s rights or feminist organization engaging in ongoing, serious debate on their websites about these HMRF grants streams?

I recently reviewed “Legal Momentum,” formerly “NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund” on its’ “Welfare Reform” pages.  Not a word about these grants.  Take a look under their “Programs” (a well-developed menu), heading “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families”).  It is informative, but not one (!!) reference to HMRF funding, or Access and Visitation as a factor why mothers are losing custody of their children to fathers (and being driven into poverty) as a result of its successful policy intent to do just that, exactly.

TANF: A Social Safety Net for Women and Families

TANF stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the federal name for the national assistance program for needy families with children. TANF is often referred to as “welfare.” The majority of families assisted by TANF are families headed by a single mother.

Read the rest of this entry »

Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation

with 4 comments

This post is about 10,000 words.  Enjoy!

I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.

By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.

However, it does.  In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.

There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters.  One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.


Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published.  Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”  

I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog.  It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.

It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.

**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s:  unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.

We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.

For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below.  The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012.  Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:


THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

 …

(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d.  Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system.  Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.”  Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind.  These are rarely 100% neutral.  [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name.  It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members.  This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them.  Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC?  I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY:  The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show.  The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind


But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office.  Then, they combined them.  Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts.   “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC.  AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.

They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”

Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Note To Readers: See New Page “Just HHS, Just Georgia, Just HMRF” grants

with one comment

Publicizing my new pageHHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!  You will see it in the right sidebar, atop a list labeled “Vital Info/Links.” Scroll or “page-down” below a green-background rectangle of text (“Contributions Appreciated” section) to find “Vital Links.”

Also see this related (or, “what inspired it”) 5/12/2016 post:  Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia

But first and FYI in the cream-colored, fine-print, maroon-bordered box right below, I also put a link to a “Congressional Research Service” (CRS) 12/11/2012 Report showing the Origins of HHS, certain Presidential Powers, and some Recent Developing Trends, and possibly already passed, House and Senate bills re-instituting those Presidential Powers (odd capitalization there deliberate).

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.

[An extended version of this box recurs below, while I talk some about the situation]…

I might start posting this link at the top of ALL posts until the message sinks in that existing federal agencies are in a state of constant transition, and sometimes re-organization, and we ought to get a basic read on where they came from — and in which direction they are now going.  For, example, does this direction EVER include reducing budgets based on having actually solved any problems they were set up to solve, or curtailing grants streams the grants streams were set up to resolve? And if not, does that not reflect (badly) on either the operation of, or perhaps even the original intentions of, those who pushed for the funding streams in the first place? (“Who” entails both individuals and corporate, often nonprofit “persons” run by certain individuals).
Read the rest of this entry »

Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia

leave a comment »

#”…IRS acknowledges” in the title refers to being qualified to accept tax-deductible contributions, explained below, right underneath the tax return tables showing those two different EIN#’s.  As this business entity (or is it two entities?) is mostly government-funded anyhow, it’s kind of a moot point.  Still, having HHS describe this on its grants database as ONE organization which suddenly (2015) changes its EIN# — and leadership — and type of formation (Private Foundation / Public Charity) — and leadership — and location (without checking “New Address”) is a little disconcerting.

This post sprang (so to speak, actually it was extracted by me and didn’t move on its own) out of one dated May 2, 2016 and which I eventually posted as “Red Herring Alert’s “Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner/HMRF funds,” and about those funds…

Post-publication post update:  Based on some of these findings, I added a PAGE (to right sidebar) on May 14, 2016, called HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run.  Take a look! Will also be posting to publicize that page later today.  The Page displays grants tables; they take long to compile and have a lot to say, I didn’t want this information disappearing beneath a succession of posts, but to be visible on the sidebar. Georgia is “Below the Bible Belt” and “Faith-Based” goes over well, obviously.  It also has among the larger Violence-Prevention grantees, a “Criminal Justice Coordinating Council” which I believe bears more looking into.

The Page also demonstrates beyond argument the relative size of HMRF versus “Violence Prevention” grants — and that State agencies are getting both types (!!).  While the Page doesn’t discuss this (due to size limits), I also noticed again “University of Georgia Research Foundation” who I’d noticed years earlier running the social science R&D programming, including targeting African-American families, and using “PREP,” i.e., a curriculum developed by professors at the University of Denver and also heavily promoted within the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” which, famously around the turn of this century, and under a Catholic Governor (Frank Keating) and religious protestant evangelical high up in the state-level “HHS” responsibility, “Jerry Regier.”  In that scenario, a public relations firm received a real helping-hand for managing the resulting “Healthy Marriage Resource Center” (also propped up by HHS grants).

As a sample, obviously “FBO” (“Faith-based Organization,”), I took a look at this organization, as it says below, and could only say,

Oh my goodness, this organization (website “WWW.MTCIGA.ORG” per the 2014 return, …) is “something else…”

This draft began on May 2, 2016.  I’ve published three others since, and am currently studying and about to continue posting on some of the Focus on the Family Statewide Policy (501©4) and Family (501©3) organizations.  This MTCIGA has shown up to be either part of this circle, or closely associated with it.

That is a large topic.  There will be more than one post, I have not finished getting some outstanding questions answered, and may not, but what I do have to show is enough to raise red flags on WHY groups which fill out tax returns in some crazy-ass ways, and then have executive directors forming some of the curricula they are promoting — but said curriculum nonprofit doesn’t stay incorporated — and a number of other simply “funky” behaviors should say, WHERE’s HHS Accountability in all this?  Do they give a damn?

  • Check out TAGGS.hhs.gov report of “93010” CBAE (Community Based Abstinence Education) Grantees in Georgia; this is one.  Any column title can be sorted by clicking on it, active links are also clickable; which for any organization should show what other types of grants they may have gotten.  Only 25 results per page show — suggest try different sorts, including the Sum of Awards ($$, rightmost) column to see largest versus smallest amounts.   Notice the variety of types of organizations which obtained abstinence education grants. For example, in addition to what would appear to be other FBOs (“Crowned for Victory,” “Metro Atlanta Youth for Christ, Inc.” — looks like several million dollars, etc.) there is a Housing Authority, a Board of Education, a “Wholistic (sic) Stress Control Institute” called a “Research Institution, Foundation and Laboratory” (also drawing funds for Teenage Pregnancy Prevention, Drug-Free Communities, Preventing HIV/SA, etc.)

Wholistic Stress Control Institute (not the topic of this post) I notice in passing and is also “something else” in similar ways…although rather more on the “new age” spirituality than conservative Christian side, Apparently.

[“Wholistic Stress Institute” section marked by light-blue background and “Arial Narrow” font. Below that, more discussion on the “Faith-Based Organization” referenced in post title.]

The name of its Abstinence Education Award:  “THE GOAL OF THE 2 HYPE “A” CLUB IS TO TEACH AN ABSTINENCE EDUCATION TO 300 AFRICAN AMERICAN YOUTH (12-18) IN METRO ATLANTA”Basic search for HHS grants from this organization (Not its only stated source of gov’t grants, though) — click here to see it’s about $6.0M, that is, those recorded on TAGGs database which only goes back to 1991 (mostly about 1995) -for an organization formed in 1988.  The DUNS identifier is “620828681” if you want to do other searches:

I plunked down this new (to me) section near the top of this post not actually about this group.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR Form PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Wholistic Stress Control Institute GA 2014 990 23 $367,459.00 58-1786170
Wholistic Stress Control Institute GA 2013 990 27 $344,171.00 58-1786170
Wholistic Stress Control Institute GA 2012 990 27 $268,068.00 58-1786170

YearEnd 2014 – Page 2 (Program Service Accomplishments) for some reason is blacked out.

YearEnd 2013 — brief description provided on page 2 shows that they have confused grants distributed with grants received.  And, as Part I (Summary) and Part VIII (Revenues) also show — the majority, in fact nearly all, grants received are government grants.  This organization does not provide enough program service revenues to survive off the government dole — and having been founded in 1988, they have not yet, apparently, figured out the difference (despite the IRS form explaining this on Page 1, and Page 2) between money they RECEIVED and money they Re-DISTRIBUTE to others, which was, none.  They also failed to identify on details (Pt. III page 3) what would certainly appear (Part VIII, Line 2) as revenues, but DID on Summary, Pt. I, Line 6

They are not redistributing anything to others; their charitable services seems to consist of programmings run, mostly for nothing, but some fees (See Part VIII) are being charged, as “Program Service Revenues” it says.  However in Year End 2011, this amount was $103K — but not shown on Part III at all)…

From “Wholistic Stress Institute,” Fiscal Yr. 2012 Form 990 (middle row above), Page 2, Part III:

4a (Code: )(Expenses $ 934, 565. including grants of $ 934, 565. )(Revenue $ 0. )

TO INCREASE PERSONAL RESOURCES FOR COPING WITH STRESS THROUGH TRAINING PROGRAMS, CONSULTATION ; EDUCATION AND A VARITY OF MULTI-PURPOSE HUMAN SERVICES EDUCATION.

There are no grants distributed. There were, however, some (minimal, but some) Program service revenues, which are not showing up here (compare to Part VIII).   The grants shown, that year, were a total of $944K, and are organization revenues, not organization expenses.

That yellow quote above is a transcription, verbatim of the only description in this section of “Program Service Accomplishments.”

It obviously is not a description of what they did that year, but of a mission statement.  It also, notably — has obvious errors in:  spelling (“varity”), grammar/usage [“a varity of …education.” The word “variety” followed by “of” should refer to a plural, not singular noun.  What they probably mean — and what the website makes it clear they are offering –is classes.  Plural.], and punctuation [in a list of only four items, they begin with a comma, then add a semi-colon preceded by a space.  Commas would do just fine there].  The single paragraph as a short description lacks any identifiable detail traceable to the organization (such as names of classes offered — this would be the typical place to list them on a tax return].  It’s a failure to name things, i.e., in labeling. 
Read the rest of this entry »

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture (#3 of 3 on a “Red Herring Alert” Post and HHS/OFA’s “Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood” (“HMRF”) Ongoing Distributions)

with one comment

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture

I JUST FOUND RECENTLY:  Meyer Elkin Feb. 27, 1992 Oral interview by David Kuroda, found on Video, posted on May 6, 2013.  The 1992 transcript is on my right sidebar (has been for some years) and a link also within the summary below.

Meyer Elkin (d. 1994?) has more to do with the origins of family court than most people outside the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts may realize.  This would be a good listen (and/or read) showing the original inspirations, which continue today…  It’s good to hear folklore, which this is,  (self-reporting on one’s own work, as interviewed by someone engaged in similar business and as a “founder” of such a movement) in the folklorists’ own words..  As summarized on YouTube — bookmark this in your memory please, and take some time to consider what you find in that interview, how it may relate to what we are experiencing today in the same courts:

Published on May 6, 2013

Interviewed by David Kuroda on February 27, 1992

An interview with Meyer Elkin as he discusses the beginning of his career in social work; education in social work at Berkeley; early positions during social work career; work with the Jewish Committee for Personal Service; the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles.

Meyer Elkin, a social worker with an MSW from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, created the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles as a vehicle for the Court to provide mediation and counseling to families considering divorce. It became the prototype for other conciliation court programs elsewhere in the United States.

To view a transcript of the interview, visit https://libraries.usc.edu/california-…

The California Social Welfare Archives (CSWA), established in 1979, is a non-profit organization operating under the auspices of the USC School of Social Work and affiliated with the University Libraries. It collects and preserves documents and personal histories of significant contributors to the evolution of social welfare ensuring their availability to future generations — students, teachers, historians, and researchers. Collection activity includes gathering and archiving social welfare materials of historical significance, conducting oral history interviews with contributors to social welfare solutions in California, and creating events to publicly recognize significant contributors to California social welfare.

For a written transcript of the interview, please email cswa@usc.edu.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts jointly publishes Family Court Review with Hofstra University (Maurice A. Deane? School of Law).  A look at its editorial board would be a lesson in itself in who’s been running these operations, or trying to anyhow.


For the context, see blog title.  I wrote out, non-stop and almost intuitively, what I believed was relevant to the viewing audience of a 4/26/2016 post which had actually raised information on the HMRF funding — below detailed, case-specific information about no less than FIVE criminal prosecutions arising out of ONE high-profile (at least in the Dakota County, Minnesota) case with which many family court litigants might identify, regardless of whether they may be on the same socioeconomic scale (apparently — high) of the two family lines involved.

That post actually has given rise to what will be FIVE other posts:  This 3-part series, one I already published, and another one which is looking in more detail at a specific “FBO” (Faith Based Organization) in Georgia with some peculiar fiscal habits I haven’t gotten to the bottom of.

Such as, how HHS is citing (again) the wrong city and address for this grantee, as compared to what the grantee is writing on its own tax returns; [##straightened out below; see “Georgia Corporation Search Results” found after THIS post was published.  It doesn’t “straighten out” why a Board of Directors would use a different address on its federal tax returns than when reporting to the State of Georgia, however…];

…and how the grantee is functioning apparently under two DIFFERENT EIN#s, only one which shows up as the legitimate recipient of tax-deductible contributions, and another which has been used since 2014 (fiscal year 2013 as I recall),

…and — more to the point — why again, there is enough internal inconsistency in this organization’s reporting of its predominantly ABSTINENCE_focused activities (along with healthy marriage, etc.) — such that it is self-reporting on the organization details, receipt of profits in EVERY category of program service activity– but this does NOT show on Page 1 (at all) and it does not show on the Schedules at the back of tax returns which are supposed to also report this, along with the grants.

Again, the organization itself (according to their tax returns) seem to exist primarily courtesy federal HHS grants (and some, other levels — state or county I guess, which might likewise still represent HHS grants to the state, passed through to the county, or directly to that county) contributions, and supposedly NOT running a profitable business, courtesy the taxpayers, tax-exempt, and without admitting to the profits. But, that certainly does appear to be what it’s doing.


Let me talk about this for a bit:

A big case of “Huh??? !!” regarding just ONE, and hardly the largest one among others, grantee in Georgia…

(running programming from another grantee, in Colorado who at a certain point not too many years ago, got mixed up in an Uganda President’s “kill-the-gays” movement and had to backtrack, apparently ALSO change organization names and corporate business entities a few times, issue a disclaimer “THAT wasn’t our intention!” (searchable on this blog and on-line)

..and that entity in Georgia’s lack of demonstrating (year after year) even an understanding of how to fill out a tax return, let alone those tax returns reflecting what HHS says the organization is and where it operates (!!).  Even a casual look only leads to even more “Questionability” on the ultimate purpose (agenda) behind these HMRF and post-PRWORA-based federal grants systems in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »

Early Morning Intuitive on “the Larger Picture” (#2 of 3: TAGGS, FBOs, Competitive Abstinence Education, and other Oxymoronic Public Policy Labels)

leave a comment »

….So few people are keeping these topics “on the front burner,” despite their regular impact on the federal budget (a few billion over the years) but much larger on the public, including confusion, family partition, and fragmentation of understanding!

As these things go, I write, sometimes the core post in one sitting, then I start adding supporting detail (links, visuals), clarifying terms with examples, and we have a very long post.  Or, the posts are split, requiring linking narratives.

So, here is the second three posts labeled “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s how they started on my reading a certain Red Herring Alert post written by someone in Minnesota, courtesy Dakota County Family Court Case, who is at risk of being incarcerated by the State of Minnesota for allegedly interfering with an allegedly (but now that past is being actively dismissed, as is typical for the family court venue in general) abusive father’s parental rights to access all children, including two teenagers who at the time made it quite clear they didn’t want that contact, or to live with him.
In fact, in this case, which on my part is hearsay — I understand he is also ordered to also receive child support payments and health insurance payments from his ex-wife, although the court seems to have already broken her back financially some years ago. But I do realize generally, this is about  par for the course in family court contested cases — SOMEONE is going to lose through attrition, and someone else is often going to win. What’s less well-known is how our federal government both stages some of these battles AND sets the stakes, places the odds on one party to win and another to lose.

Most people don’t stage bloodsports (which divorce, face it, sometimes literally is) and dramatic conflict through altruism, but usually because it’s good for business — that is to say, profits.  This is ALSO true, whether you like this news or not, as to HHS as a grant-making agency involved in the “Federal Designer Family” business (my terms) or, if you will “healthy marriage promotion/responsible fatherhood” business (their terms).  “HMRF!!”  Here, one can identify spectactors, promoters, agents, and the extended family of those actually in the ring.  There are the coaches, and the medics (obviously a necessary part of the deal)…and sometimes, crime-scene cleanup.

It is not a popular view to see a major federal agency primary purpose, as regards healing and helping families, to actually be “losing the money in the cracks, and keeping up the pressure on the middle- and of course, low-income population” by continually talking about debts and deficits.

And not talking about just how very large is the nonprofit sector, including the FBO nonprofit sector in this country, along with the religious-exempt organizations who tend to sponsor the same (and get to do so with complete lack of transparency as to their operations to the general public, and working with a handy set of volunteers and target audiences (for government programs, I’m talking) who typically are not well-informed on their leaders’ assets, liabilities, income and revenues — or just how many corporations the head pastors (in some denominations) may be setting up, controlled by them, and both 501©3 and for-profit LLCs.  And with who else are they setting these up.

Before you pass judgment on my supposedly unpatriotic and/or heretical attitude, my skepticism, or my so-called negativity, please put your hands, as I have been, on some of the evidence, and identified place where that evidence cannot be shown.

After doing this, give me a better way to describe the same evidence, or interpret it, and I’ll be glad to consider — if I see that you have actually looked at it, and have some insight into its existence in the first place. (Comments fields are appropriate places to do this).


That RedHerringAlert (blog) post, Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler Posted on April 26, 2016Dede Evavold’s continued attempt, with assistance, obviously from the individual over at LionNews …

Image from Lion News


On the other end of the “prosecuting and jailing people for parental interference spectrum are countless cases where the authorities, including law enforcement AND the courts, didn’t give a cr@p about a fathers’ interference with mothers’ rights, even court-ordered ones.

As I’ve made clear periodically in this blog, I’m one of those mothers.  I also have seen the long-term, chronic impact of this on my family line (three generations of it).

The original alleged purpose for radically restructuring welfare (that is, the Social Security Act of 1934 as reframed in 1996 under the privatization and “Block Grants to States” and “fatherlessness is a social disease” logic), the rationale was an emotional mix — wrapped up in some social science rhetoric to make it seem less emotional (and racist/sexist) than it actually was, is that to help people out of poverty, they must constantly be reminded what got them there — too much sex too early (as opposed to safe sex, abstinence is the preferred FBO solution), and especially not getting or staying married. However, once the infrastructure was set in place — as no question, this “HMRF” grants stream has been — there’s nowhere to go but expand and perpetuate, re-brand and replicate — trademarking terms along the way as needed.


Along those lines —
Read the rest of this entry »

Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture” (#1 of 3, Intro.)

leave a comment »

It’s taking too long (nearly a week, sometimes) to get out these posts. While I’d rather just do this as one long one — as I learned, I added the material, which has now resulted in 18,000 words. Splitting this into three posts seems fair enough — the alternative being, I shut up — so it is now partitioned. Some language in the middle may refer to “below” when it’s actually in another section, but for the content, the value is still delivered. I used the same tags are the same for all three.

Speaking of value delivered year after year free of charge, here’s myDonatebutton for those with the inclination and the wherewithal. It’s processed through PayPal, so any amount accepted. I’m not a 501©3 though, so don’t do it for tax exemption purposes…because it’s not tax-deductible.

I included some of the surrounding text from my appeal on the sidebar:

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, “you’ve been flagged.”


Heard of “disruptive technologies?” Disruptive innovations?  Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who’ve already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don’t do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.


Despite the blog’s appearance, I know what I’m doing! You’re looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the “non-experts,” in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I’m not afraid to ask:


Donate Button with Credit Cards
The formula wasn’t complex, but the concept itself was just so devious insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don’t notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth — where it’s heading, and for lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it’s heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it).

Thanks for any contributions to the cause…

 

“Introduction”

The post has three major sectionsinstallments marked by titles of this size, alignment and color: each preceded by “Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture.”  This post is “Introduction,” then, the next will be:

Intermediate Section 

(TAGGS, FBOs, and Sex Prevention*) 

(a.k.a. “Abstinence Education”)

[And the last will actually be that “Early Morning Intuitive” writing]…and the one which inspired this post is the third (see below).  It started as a comment on a post over at Red Herring Alert, which had brought up things I report on, as well as progress of a case I’m also interested in for several reasons:  like how in the heck does an entire system, the family law system, whose self-declared leadership back in the 1970s emphasized new words and new practices to reduce the OLD language of criminal law in favor of the NEW language of behavioral health** — in order to rescue families, better, my dear— end up with multiple state-level, felony criminal prosecutions against one mother, another mother, and a married couple for actually helping protect children who had run away from, several say, an abusive situation?

**Check out that “Combating Divorce” link  which starts with a quote from parental-alienation-original Richard Gardner, M.D., or at least referencing him, followed by the sales pitch for “Collaborative Divorce” and Mediation — followed by the quote I was referencing above:  “new vs. old.”

In 1975, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Review Editor Meyer Elkin, editorialized on the language of family law:

“Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law? Or is it something else? Is it a reflection of the prevailing ambivalence of this society which, on the one hand, tells people that divorce is okay, but by its actions, or lack thereof, shows that many still do not accept the idea of divorce in a pair-oriented society? We need to develop new words that will alleviate stress on the divorcing family rather than add to stresses already present…. Family law is entering a new period. There is now present an opportunity for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals regarding the strengthening of the family. Lets us now start the search for the words.”

And in the 20th Anniversary issue (1983) of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Elkin commented on the ripple effect of transforming divorce from a battle into a process of healing and growth:

“Let all of us, in our own unique way, recommit ourselves to the search for the pebbles of change that can be cast into the social pond. Let us create a divorce process that recycles divorce pain into new patterns of personal and familial growth, which, in turn, will also strengthen our entire society. Let us protect our children from the unnecessary hazards of the divorce experience so that they, like their parents, can be strengthened by divorce rather than defeated by it. And let us never forget that if the lights go out in our children’s eyes, be they children of divorce or any other children, we will all live in darkness.”

What’s interesting — I found this by a straight Google search for Meyer Elkin’s 1975 speech.  However no link on the current menu of the fairly simple web page “divorcepeacemaking.com” leads to this page, or would alert the unaware that this individual has a high allegiance to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, as a “neutral” professional in the divorce field. Unless through exposure one knows the authors and noticed those on the Resources page as, largely AFCC also, i.e., Wallerstein, Kelly, Constance Ahrons, Philip Stahl, etc…


Yes, let’s get divorce away from the courtroom and into better and MUCH less scary-looking hands whose academic interests appeared to have been Germanic languages, apparently brilliant, but then(?) took a turn into a more guaranteed line of work — clinical psychology, educational psychology and counseling psychology in California’s State university system…====>

Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., L.M.F.T., psychotherapist, in Laguna Hills, CA

And, rather than presenting evidence before merely a judge, why not get more paid professionals involved and let them work it out with divorcing couple?

Traditional Litigation — Courthouse and the couple below (“Subjected!” and the text says there are actually winners and losers, and it’s a battle);  Mediation, no judge and the couple on top (“You”l be in charge” and the text says the mediator is a neutral);Collaborative Divorce — the Gang’s all Here (images from same website FAQs page).

Each Parent has Divorce Coach & Attorney. “Family” has “Child Specialist” and “Neutral Financial Professional.” More accurately, this would have (3+3+2=)8 stick figures shown. The circle “Family” is emphasized, however more accurately it might read “Children” and have more figurines. What there really are more of is involved professionals — but no Judge. NO JUDGE and NOT IN COURT seems an overall goal, although most of one’s legal rights to due process, codes of evidence, the right to subpoena, etc. seems to exist when there IS a legal case.

 

What’s that about — reducing the competition in the “modern family rescue team” business– “No Parents Allowed!” ???

 

 

I’m starting to think the overall picture was to disarm and dilute prosecution of crime, in general, giving safe haven to certain kinds of crimes which are fairly unique to families.  (See also elimination of the seven prior causes of divorce — one of which included involvement in felonies — which “no-FAULT divorce” facilitated).   Redefining what is, and is not, a felony ???   Which brings me to the third section title:

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture.

Which is below the other sections, the bottom “third” of this post of this series.

In between are several charts, tables, basic vocabulary, and how to tell an HHS “tell”  for consideration.  It’s called “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s what it was.  I’d had a nearly sleepless night after another, recent, psychic shock, although its accusations as some of the others, were pure “schlock” and was almost absent-mindedly reviewing a recent Red Herring Alert post, and noticed it had mentioned the federal funding.  This being familiar territory, I just opened my mouth (sic) and went into what ended up being a nonstop narrative that pretty much distills the essence of (this blog, and the larger picture).  It came out at least coherent enough to preserve on a post, not comment alone.

Pretty much what’s in between is much more analytical, show-and-tell, and labored.  That doesn’t make it any less valid.

Show and Tell is important.  But, if you just want “Tell” for a change (not my style), scroll or page down to that bottom section, and hopefully your eyes may peripherally catch some of the substance in between, for example, that it’s time to for more people to get hands-on to TAGGS.HHS.Gov, start using it (with observation in the “on” position) and asking some intelligent questions about what they see there, and what they do NOT see there, and how it does (or does NOT) correspond to other sources of information on the same data.


One reason my posts tend to get so long as I am talking about things people tend NOT to talk about it, and doing so using terms and resources that are also typically under-utilized, and some, so broad and vague in their symbolic meaning (example:  “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations” and anything labeled “_______ Prevention”) I feel it necessary to continue re-iterating what vocabulary might better describe how the entities (often government entities — here, a federal agency called “HHS” — actually are talking about — without really talking about it — if you know what I mean…

First of all, anything labeled XYZ “Prevention” (case in point in this post, having sex outside marriage, especially while a teenager) means running some programming, possibly developed originally by another organization already on the HHS grants stream, as a nonprofit or for-profit.  Case in point “Abstinence Education,” “The Center for Relationship Training” (Colorado) and it’s “WAIT Training” as well as a Stone Mountain, Georgia (?) FBO (Faith-Based Organization) called “More Than Conquerors, Inc.” whose most recent nearly $10M of funding and historic activity has centered around Abstinence Education — including using that WAIT Training Curriculum and targeting at-risk youth.  Meaning, typically, poor and/or of the darker-skinned ethnic backgrounds…

So, regarding some of these terms SHOULD you happen to stumble across the existence of $150M/year allocation (since 1996) and $10M allocation (since 1996) being run through HHS using such terms as “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations,” and “_______ Prevention” including “family violence” or “child abuse” prevention, as well as good, positive words like “Healthy” and “Responsible” — know that:

There’s the intended meaning for the target audience — the bystanding public who IF they even hear about these social policies and programming, and the family courts as they exist now vis-a-vis diverting criminal prosecution of so-called “family/relationships” matters [[which what we used to mean by “domestic violence” or “child abuse” is rapidly becoming]] is supposed to feel great about all this when they file income taxes or deal with the IRS, or even thank their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their own wisdom in not having such crazy lifestyles?) that they aren’t facing some of the hellish circumstances some neighbors, or others heard about (on-line, in print, or locally/nationally) are, Grazzini-Rucki case in point, in which one family with young children is split into multiple pieces (including potentially some runaways, some in foster care, one or more pieces in jail or threatened with it) locked in chronic war with each other +conflicting stories about WHY from the presiding court-appointed professionals, and law enforcement and/or MSM contributing their insight and opinion on who’s the good guy and who’s the bad-guy and just how this ties into XYZ national problem….

….and then there’s the telegraphed meaning for those on the inside, participating program recipients, curricula providers, tax-exempt foundation backers, and I suppose potentially HHS employees** who thankfully, can routinely choose the same, or similar, organizations to distribute the largesse (grants) to THIS time. Many of these will be thanking their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their on sagacity in hooking up with, or forming 501©3s exempt from paying taxes on corporate revenues because they ARE the good guys (charitable service providers) — and these people know more directly what the symbolically, internationally, quasi-religious language actually means to their bottom line, conference circuits, write-offs, and social networking.   (**whether or not HHS employees feel this way, they at least currently have a job — and probably have a nice pension also….and health insurance, etc., and if they get laid off, some business connections in this field….)
Read the rest of this entry »

Red Herring Alert’s “Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner/HMRF funds,” and about those funds…

leave a comment »

Dakota County is in Minnesota:  look for the Twin Cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis) metro area.

That RedHerringAlert (blog) post, Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler Posted on April 26, 2016Dede Evavold’s continued attempt, with assistance, obviously from the individual over at LionNews …

Image from Lion News

…to communicate to a County Commissioner (image below-right, red suit) that it’s high time

Dakota County Commissioners (image from the RHA blog post 4/26/2016)

to make some crooked things straight and for Dede to refuse to submit to being (my disclaimers:  “possibly,” or  “apparently”) framed for criminal activity and forced to show up without information sufficient to defend herself, as is required by law to be provided her.

Underneath that detailed, case-specific information and posting of correspondence on that ‘Conversation,”and neatly tied into it under things that County Commissioners do — like “authorize receipt of federal/state funds on healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” — was the bottom half of the post on the same, which I discovered while myself in a somewhat sleepless state from having just learned  about, ah, er, some yet still more recent “developments” in my personal, legal, and safety-focused saga of separating from certain, ah, “individuals,

I am again seeing just how far certain kinds of “individuals”*  may go in assuming multiple persona (and often bringing others with similar schizoid, multiple-persona-issues proclivities (=habits!), referring less to things psychological, but than things incorporation-al) in the process of smoke-screening (his/her/their) own (“apparently” or “possibly”) previous unethical/negligent/illegal activities vis-a-vis (as regards) the targeted individual — which is more appropriately understood as “ANY AND ALL RESOURCES POSSIBLY ASSOCIATED WITH AND UNETHICALLY OR ILLEGALLY OBTAINED/ EXTRACTED and/or even EXTORTED FROM THE TARGETED INDIVIDUAL  FOR FUN, INCLUDING KEEPING ONE’S TECHNIQUES IN THIS SHARP, and the THRILL OF HAVING GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT, etc., AND PROFIT. “

Part of this includes not just obtaining more, but safeguarding existing profits (obtained legally or illegally, ethically or unethically).  For protecting that status quo, threatening to engage, or engaging in pre-emptive litigation strikes against any further public exposure of what has, known to the same, been taking place for months or years previously, under their aggressive initiative or, as it may be, chronic, passive negligence, whichever mode (“Passive/Aggressive”) suits the overall strategic goal of — building income-producing, ideally, tax-sheltered and not in one’s own name (in case of guess what else? litigation from the targeted individuals — or competitors) assets for fun and profit and in part by defrauding others.  The “not in one’s own name” is where the “Multiple-corporate-persona” comes in.

So, the unethically, illegally at times will include “fraudulent” which in essence is what in common terms would be called lying.  For added bonus and impact, such blatant lying is also psychological attack on the other, and asserts a position which the targeted individual may very well know is false, but it is intended that the eventual audience (in the intended theatre — whether a courtroom, a police station, or elsewhere — whose influence is desired to bring up on the targeted person. It’s a form of bluster and boasting, and it keeps the other side busy (and lawyers in business), calling them out) either does not know, or chooses not to admit that they know, participating in the charade, for THEIR fun and profit..

For the term “For Fun and Profit” I have to credit Catherine Austin Fitts’ analogy of “Sam and Dave Unload Boatloads of White Agricultural Substances.”  The shortest summary of this is that those who operate above-the-board legally are hard put to compete against those who completely evade corporate and/or personal income taxes by  operating under-the-table in the criminal sphere.  I wrote and posted it, get this:  12/12/12 (Dec. 12, 2o12) over at another blog, Cold, Hard Facts.  “Nothing Complicated Here: Want Real Change?  Enact This!”  Huh, another Presidential Election Year, then, too…..  within a few paragraphs, it makes its point (and links to the Fitts article too).


(Continued at bottom of the post under FootnoteUnethicallly or Illegally Obtained for Fun and Profit through Targeting Specific Individuals“)..

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: