I intend  this series (like the blog) to be illuminating and empowering, and that it may encourage people who will live longer than me, and possibly build on this information, thus knowing more sooner, to continue “looking it up” and teaching others why this is AS important as following the daily mainstream media and weighing in pro or con on the issues it spits out, regularity, each season, to weigh in on– while keeping THIS information on a collective MSM blackout.

While what I find is usually disturbing information, and discredits the good intentions of substantial charities and public-interest causes, it’s still a good thing to know what is taking place in those sectors, and some of the backdrop of their operations.  There has been an extreme level of computer problems since I first published this post, including saving revisions, or with my laptop working — at all.  I shortened this post, removed major sections to a different one, and am hoping nearly one full week later to get Posts #2 and 3 (links below will activate when I do) published.

*Shortlink to this Post #1 of 3 .** Post #2 of 3 at this link, and *** Post#3 of 3

This post as updated 6/21/2016 has much less text, and more charts directly related to that Connecticut’s Secretary of State (“SOS”) Databased, labeled “C.O.N.C.O.R.D.”   I moved major sections to a new post and published it 6/20/2016, the Monday after Father’s Day.   See Shortlink to that post, which explains why I’m doing a series on Connecticut and certain organizations running marriage/fatherhood (and youth mentoring) within it.  Some references from the removed material remain.  The result so far is now down to just over 6,000 words (significantly shorter).

Posts #2 & #3 will be published under those links as soon as I finish split process; their contents are already basically complete. As of late Tuesday 6/21/2016, they are not yet active, however.  (There was a computer-related delay last weekend).

Also see my prior, 6/8/2016, post “Courtesy PRWORA, HHS, and Public Apathy, the Good Ol’ Boys Network with help from (speaking of which) Yale University is Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock, in this example, as “Male Involvement Network” revisits Connecticut and links back to several of my Spring 2013 posts on Connecticut’sfamily courts. “Male Involvement Network,” an aside on one of those post, I since learned is a collaboration begun in 1997.  One article on it was produced by at least three (actually more) key entities.  As I have in some other states, while working on-line and electronically from California, in investigating family court operations, organizations, or high-profile custody cases in specific states, I am typically also networked (to a degree) and long-term, dealing with some people involved locally, active on others’ blogs or MSM blogs in comments fields.  My awareness of these situations, while not local, is still in-depth in the larger context and with levels of influence within state government — simply because I look at more than one sector of influence on these courts.  After all, you can see well over 600 posts on this blog, completed over six years’ time, and a lot of time spent on each one.  The perspective is not just anecdotal evidence, not just a mothers’ perspective, and differs significantly from the average “take” on the situations involved.

Don’t Get Completely Distracted From “Looking It Up” by Current Events and the News.

Apart from who owns the mainstream (and other major on-line) media …. at some levels ALL news deals with government/private sector interplay, and accounting.  Media is not just to inform, it’s also to please its owners (often very wealthy corporations; at a certain level of wealth, individuals or families can go BUY a sports team, or a major newspaper. By definition, most major wealth is if not obtained, at least u pouring finances into them.  by stowing large parts of it into tax-exempt foundations, or p

Most days, weeks, months and years, there always will be an ongoing series of distractions from looking at how the government of the USA, and state governments taking significant federal input to their economies via the Social Security Act funds, as amended 1996 and passed a few times since with some amendments, and NO amendment, to date, having eliminated the HMRF* or Access/Visitation funds — or the expanding infrastructure, in the private sphere, they continue to not just directly support, but encourage continued expansion through public relations, evaluations, demonstrations, and social science/public health sectors of universities.

[[*HMRF stands for “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” and refers to a public (federal agency HHS) grants stream I have been blogging on for six years now.  The “HMRF” acronym may be more recent.  “HMRF” while in use by HHS is not searchable on its Database, “TAGGS.hhs.gov” of distributed grants and grantees.  To find HMRF grants in any state (or all states), use CFDA 93086; recommended, under “Advanced” search options.]]

Why should we NOT make sincere and diligent efforts to comprehend what this means locally?  We are being constantly fed paid-for promotions by the participants of what GOOD things it means locally, where is the counterpoint reporting, based on an overview and linked to supporting details other than more journalism based on, essentially, storytelling designed to increase readership and sell stories & programming?

Let’s continue to take sample readings of the corporations engaged in activities representing the major privatization of government services 1996 PRWORA did enable, and how it relates to the family courts, when we are seeing family court rulings getting:  lawyers jailed, handcuffed in court hearings, and/or disbarred; parents thrown out of their home, permanently (and “leave the children behind!”), ongoing (Grazzini-Rucki not the only one) and NOT on domestic violence protective orders with kickout which allege it’s necessary to protect life and limb from imminent danger (and which, generally, can be removed shortly after, and often are)..

Second, about this 12,000-word theme in basically three posts

This post has been hard to get out!  Too many inter-related parts, and I am already into a short post series since discovering the publication involving a few different organizations, one of them being “Yale University” (!!) in Connecticut, only a few (approximately five) years after two other major types of scandals surfaced in this state —

• Project Pierre-Toussaint & the Haiti Fund (wherein a graduate Doug Perlitz, from a Jesuit University in Fairfield Connecticut, and a priest (Fr. Carrier) raising funds for this, founded a program for street orphans in Haiti, part of the “deal” for these young boys and men, in exchange apparently for food and shelter, they got to be sexually molested by Mr. Perlitz.  Nearly two dozen of these Haitian men, now a little older, filed lawsuits, and Mr. Perlitz (who was eventually arrested in Colorado) at the latest website I saw on it (about Year 2013) is expected to get out of prison around 2026, and,

• Likewise, as I pointed out in the last post, the family courts in Connecticut, and (specifically) the Chapter of AFCC, was also around the same time drawing high-profile reporting as to its corrupt practices, and helping facilitate (involving participation of, in one case, a GAL who later was confirmed as a judge) a little boy being repeatedly raped by his father, for which medical evidence was claimed by a medical doctor (Eli Newberger), while his mother, meanwhile — and her side of the family — was being rapidly drained of funds, not to mention, also vicariously traumatized over what was being done to her son that the powers that be didn’t seem to care about.  The GAL was then confirmed judge, and a vote NOT to investigate the protests was made by those that confirmed her.

Part of my post series beyond the #1, 2, and #3 of 3 already written, soon to be published, summarizes that.

On revisiting “the latter matters” (second point) recently, I saw my own reporting on the “Male Involvement Network” and an organization out of 370 St. James Street, New Haven (at that time).  I looked it up again, was newly offended and disturbed at the strange locations, low quality, and propagation of this type of networking in places which ought to know better — like academia, and like at anything under the category “NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) over at NIMH.gov. which is exactly where I found the writeup (quoted again, below).  In addition, the text of that 2012 article referenced another fatherhood network I’d run across (National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families) or similar name — there are only so many combinations of acronyms using the three letters N, F, and P — and had previously attempted to track down ITS corporate registration, without much success because it didn’t exist.

The closer one looks, obviously, the more one sees.  I saw the Connecticut Database situation only recently in looking up an organization.  For that discussion, see the bottom half of this post.  

Because of my comments in the title, I felt I should clarify my concerns about this NHFA, and, apart from my concerns about its fiscal behavior, found out other disturbing events were reported in 2014 and 2015 about one of its programs, the Street Outreach Worker Program. For that,  SEE POST #2 of 3, link, at top of page:

In this post you’ll also see by the bottom of this page how the City of New Haven is involved, through its Youth Division, of condoning and endorsing continued programming and advertising for at least one — and I doubt the only one — charity targeting at-risk youth, particularly young men of color.

NHFA —  The New Haven Family Alliance, Inc.

Regarding the “NHFA,” to clarify my terms “Inactive/Defunct,” as a Connecticut Corporation since 1991 it is still marked “Active”:

…although WHY it is still marked “Active” is questionable, as the Commercial Recording Division of the Secretary of State’s database “C.O.N.C.O.R.D.” says it’s not filed any annual report since 2011. In some (not all) other states, this would’ve resulted in automatic involuntary dissolution. Take a look at the cover sheet which shows when one clicks on organization name above for the details.  Filing history (link not shown) would be a third click and level of detail for search results on any organization.

IRS Revocation for non-filing (re-posted below also) (searchable at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ – use EIN#)

EIN	Legal Name (Doing Business As)	City	State	ZIP	Country	Exemption Type	Revocation Date	Revocation Posting Date	Exemption Reinstate-ment Date
06-1324343	NEW HAVEN FAMILY ALLIANCE	NEW HAVEN	CT	06511	US	501(c)(3)	15-Nov-2015	11-Apr-2016

« Prev | 1-1 | Next »

I have to consider, regarding why is it still “ACTIVE,” other than that, so far, probably no one in the larger public, or even reading about this news-making (locally) organization probably noticed, or if someone noticed, no one communicated with Denise W. Merrill, Secretary of State (see logo below) or at the Commercial Recording Division to point it out — that the NHFA might just be a little too high on the food chain to “out.”

After all, its main source of revenues has been public, that is, government, grants, over one million/year recently.

CONTINUED and FURTHER DEVELOPED on POST #2 of 3.  See also NHFA Tax Returns on 6/8/2016 Post.

C.O.N.C.O.R.D., CONNECTICUT’S BUSINESS INQUIRY SITE

The Connecticut Secretary of State (Commercial Recording Division) has a “Business Inquiry” Search page. Only three options available, and if you’re not lucky enough to know exactly what transformation any business entity name may have adopted THIS year, of whether the organization’s website is perhaps not displaying its actual legal name, good luck.  If that entity is  also now defunct, good luck.

Secretary of State databases that work are a public need.  We should demand them!

Without making it clear that the public is watching, why should public institutions or private corporations bother to operate honestly and openly?  There are too many, throughout the country, for ALL to be monitored at public expense — why not start putting in some personal effort to explore this public-interest area, and get a friend to?

Without effectively communicating that WE (not just a few favorite heroes, advocates, or even investigative journalists // bloggers) are paying attention — close attention — there is no real exercise of our power to insist and maintain anything close to balance of power between people and government- because there is no real objective measure of what government is doing, with whom, HOW, and FOR HOW MUCH!

There has to be an expressed consensus to look followed by a collective effort to explore and understand what’s going on between government entities and private, particularly not-for-profit business entities.  This should come from many people, and in many different states.

OTHER STATES’ DATABASES:

Each state’s database is differs from the others. Some are actually highly functional  informative and flexible, showing images of filed documents handwritten and electronic both (http://sunbiz.org – Florida), some are, well, inflexible (http://kepler.sos.ca.gov – California).

Some, states, like Minnesota’s, force a person to select “Active/Inactive” or “Include/Exclude Prior Names” (and one other criteria) before any search, thereby forcing a user to try a number of different searches, potentially (if unaware whether or not status was “inactive” or name had suddenly changed since the last website was put up).  To make it a bit more confusing, the “On/Off” status of any choice (Include/Exclude, Active/Inactive) indicators isn’t really clear. For ANY search one must set, literally, three different binary (on/off) choices to the on or off position — or take the defaults.

If I’m not mistaken, this could result in multiple searches to get one solid result for even one organization: 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1 = 720 possible combinations. [?????]

Also, while it shows filing histories, it displays no images to go with it. It also only lists one principal officer and one registered agent per filing, unlike Massachusetts, or when you get to that level, Connecticut’s.  Search results on “Active” “Conciliation” displays this odd result — and the address (if “Details” were clicked) are Hennepin County Government Center, date of filing 1981, other filings — NONE SHOWN — yet this remains labeled “Active.”  Not the first time I’ve brought this up to Minnesotans here or off-blog:

Some, such as Pennsylvania’s, are literally “a joke” they are so UNhelpful, (after clicking on an organization to get a few basic details, after that, have your debit card ready for more information! It does not show “filings” in part because they only have to file every 10 years!  Nor does it even list principal officers for free).  This database has been radically altered since I began blogging. (Previously it was free, and didn’t tell much, either).

But even Pennsylvania’s newer, more expensive, database with URL ending in *.gov, UNlike Connecticut’s, allows one to select “Active Organizations Only” and if you get multiple results, sort on any column.

Some organizations file similar, but not identical names as business entities within a single state, at the same time.  Sometimes this may be a entity filing + a “dba” (trade name).  Some also, which I am finding currently on the publisher (owned by a single PhD man with a 1978 doctorate from Utah State, who decided to go the “push my curricula (plural) trademarked through the public institutions, nationwide) route, and apparently has enough friends within the USDOJ to make this happen:  The trademark is “Nurturing Parenting® but the business name (he’s the only principal on it, in all versions I’ve seen so far) is “Family Development Resources, Inc.”

By contrast, here’s Massachusetts’ which allows search by: Business Entity, Individual name, Filing # or Business ID, and specifying “Begins with” or not for two of those searches.  It explains that  ” The available search methods are: exact match, begins with, full text (entity name only), or soundex search.”  On the sidebar, it’s possible even to search for “Rejected Filings” (although only by specific date if you don’t have an organization name) and a display of why each one was rejected.  I searched “Tax-Day” (4/15/2016) for these results.

Anyhow, as to the topic of this post — in any post, generally, I am typically going to be looking at business registrations, tax returns, and more.  When databases are transformed, or dysfunctional, or undergo major transfers to new websites, are are simply less than helpful all round — I notice!  And, usually, talk about it, as I did about TAGGS.hhs.gov when it went down for some weeks in Fall 2013, when it was recently transformed again, and in general, when its data entry is inconsistent, and its reports, while impressive, still not fully functional.

I don’t know that most other people do; I have yet to see people spending a WHOLE lot of time on a WHOLE BUNCH of state-level business entity searches, in many different states, and obtaining a feel for how different states have organized the information (including whether images are available — or readable — or how much information is given out for free before the start charging per search to look at it….) AND 990finder.foundationcenter.org (or other tax return search sites), AND periodically the IRS Publication 78 (lists entities for which contributions are tax-deductible, extensively and searchable, as well as those who were automatically revoked (for failure to file) as well as those whose IRS Form 990 images aren’t going to show up because they filed a Form-N-990 tax return, meaning a postcard statement that revenues were under a certain level — I believe it’s $50,000.

Not to mention TAGGS.hhs.gov, and even an attempt to look at a USDOJ single database tracking already distributed grants – – – because (if you’ve looked for this) — there isn’t one!

To look at business registrations requires a functional, state-level business entity search site.  Connecticut may have had one in the past, but apparently has a reduced-function one now.  I find that odd.  That’s what I’m talking about.

Also on this post, because it’s on my mind for the current several posts (in the pipeline…) is the hypocrisy for a City (New Haven) to be publicizing how great is an organization which doesn’t comply with local business registration laws, or IRS laws.

The dysfunctional database phenomenon happens in many different states.  I’m just curious how, why, or when Connecticut developed an additional level of dysfunction, and whether it had anything to do with negative publicity a few years back on a non-filing organization closely tied into the state-wide family court judicial department, i.e., AFCC:

Connecticut Chapter of AFCC, C.O.N.C.O.R.D [Commerc’l Rec Divs’n of CT) CoverSheet (showing Principals & Year Inc 2013:Dissolved 2015  (<==Click to view the cover page (image below also) from pdf of the site 6-15-2016)

Regarding Connecticut Chapter of AFCC “FILE DETAILS”

While obstructing citizens’ access to tracking on state databases what their taxes are being used for, and once they start looking (as has been documented within this state in recent years) erect more barriers, Connecticut, I see, simultaneously uses those taxes, ongoing, allegedly to increase low-income, noncustodial, and sometimes incarcerated, or ex-offender fathers’ access to their children and overcome barriers to that access.

Anthony Judkins of CT Social Services, largest ($1,000,000/year) recipient of HMRF (CFDA 93086) federal grants for several years. Second-highest awardee at $800,000/year — Catholic Charities Inc. – Archdiocese of Hartford. Third-highest awardee: “The Village for Families and Children” (deals extensively with foster care and trauma treatment and, of course, prevention: see their website.  Motto on logo: “So every child believes in tomorrow.”)

Of course some of its funds come from the federal government in this noble purpose: Recent TAGGS.HHS.GOV search of HHS grants to CT, ALL YEARS, for CFDAs 93086 andf 93597 (respectively, healthy marriage/promoting responsible fatherhood [“HMRF”] and | Grants for Access and Visitation) for Connecticut, all years, produces $11 million spread over 42 line items (Award actions) (some negative, some not) for years approximately 1999 – now.  

Click on any column heading to sort, but do notice from that report (I sorted by $$ column largest to smallest) that it’s the CT State Department of Social Services getting both types of grants, at a ratio of approximately 10:1.  In other words, $1,000,000 (a year) for promoting fatherhood/marriage, and $100,000 (a year) only for “Access and Visitation.”

You will see a Principal Investigator name “Anthony Judkins.”  His LinkedIn page describes this in more detail, and shows what a bachelors’ degree from a Catholic (apparently: “Sacred Heart”) institution and years of working within government, particularly as representing the favored minority group in at least gender and race, can do for anyone’s career.

ANYHOW…

Sometimes businesses which once existed, by one means (organization choice) or potentially another means (registering entity choice — whether the Secretary of State, or the IRS, i.e., revocation, administratively dissolved, suspended, or revoked a status after discovering organizational misbehavior), no longer exist.  And WHEN they do not, the public should have access to find out that they do not.

That’s where these databases come in as a way to look such things up.

With the state of Connecticut (after some further exploration of their State-level Business Entity Search database labeled “C.O.N.C.O.R.D.” in the context of “Someone got this evidence, you could too!” posts of three years ago, I learned that the listing of various statuses a business entity can hold is — or at one time was:

● Converted ● Dissolved ● Expired Reservation ● Expired ● Forfeited ● Merged= ● Reserved Cancelled ● Redomesticated ● Registered ● Renunciated ● Reserved ● Revoked ● W Second
● Withdrawn

I’m curious that the status “INACTIVE” isn’t listed above as in other states.

When it comes to researching organizations with similar themes which MIGHT be reflected in their titles — such as “Family” or “Court” or “Male” or “Fatherhood” or ‘Conciliation” or “Community” or “Alliance” (etc.) — or, say “women” or “mothers” (or  anything on the other side of the gender spectrum) might it not be helpful for the State of Connecticut in a goodwill gesture of openness and transparency and being “on the same page as the people” to on its gesture of openness and transparency Secretary of State Business Inquiry Database “C.O.N.C.O.R.D.,” to allow (facilitate) responsible and inquiring citizens and wage-earnersm inside or outside the state, in doing a general business inquiry (search) first selecting on status and then looking for an entity or group of entities, as opposed to being forced to look up entities one by one by one, hoping their names haven’t changed meanwhile (making them hard to find)?

As it turns out, on this database you can’t get to the Status page until you find the Business Entities in a Search result. And (until I’m able to prove otherwise), it appears that current search results misleadingly may only include “Active” status entities, obstructing searches on misbehaving (Forfeited, for example) Status.

---

I have been attempting to research certain corporate members of the Male Information Network in Connecticut, and am beginning to have some questions about the structure of C.O.N.C.O.R.D. database which, since the 2013ff AFCC exposures, which were published in well-known on-lines (Washington Times and Huffington Post, and surrounding some of which a number of hearings were held regarding the behaviors of GALs and the confirmation of a certain judge involved as a GAL in a high-profile child custody case where a little boy was being raped (with medical evidence of the same) repeatedly by his father while his mother was forced to pay exorbitant — and unusually selected — supervised visitation fees to see him.

Apparently there was at one time an Advanced Search capability over at C.O.N.C.O.R.D. which permitted one to search by Business Status.  Right now, this is simply not accessible.  WHY NOT?  Evidence in a “How-To” page under “help” on the same site indicates that at one time, there was such a function available.

Also, in general, the failure to have any bottom-of-the-web-page fine print on who provided the site (even if it’s government and not a contractor), a copyright date, or any readily visible place to report problems to any webmaster, seems unbusinesslike and unprofessional.  And, this is state government — the state of Connecticut.

 

Showing this, I’ll copy sections, but then perhaps show images of the page.  I’m not qualified to do a proper “technical writing” expo here on a free wordpress blog.  Any images are just for reference when readers may choose to click on link and see the websites for themselves.  I cannot guarantee image quality in doing this.

XXX

The Commercial Recording Division files and maintains legally required records showing the formation of and fundamental changes to corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships, limited partnerships and other businesses. The division disseminates that information to the general public, the business, banking and legal communities.

File Annual Reports	Search  Database /  Business	Get Legal Existence
File Documents	Search UCC Liens	Verify Certificate of Legal Existence
File UCC Filings	Forms	Fees

Events

Click on the Yellow “SEARCH DATABASE / BUSINESS” link above.  This is where we want to look up businesses, including businesses which MIGHT have existed, but no longer do.  For example, that defunct (?) chapter of Association of Family Conciliation Courts for Connecticut.  Some states, such as Minnesota, allow a sort on Active/Inactive.  California doesn’t, but displays both active and inactive corporations, obvious by engaging in any search.  So does Wisconsin.  Right now, Connecticut does not.  This is what you’ll see (in content, not exact image qualities):

“SEARCH SITE:”

Business Inquiry Business Inquiry Search by Name: Search by Business ID: Search by Filing Number: The wild card search can be done on Business names using the asterisk symbol *. Example: Search for business name Hartford*. Result: All businesses with business name starting Hartford will be displayed. Number of Records per page: 25 50 75 100

 

MY COMMENTARY ON THAT

“BUSINESS INQUIRY SITE”:

The viewer is given options, as you can see, of only three selects, plus how many records per page to show:

• Business Name
• Business ID
• Filing Number.

Which Brings up a “few” basic questions:

What if an organization name has changed without searcher’s awareness and they don’t know Business ID or Filing Number (who, in a general inquiry search, knows that?)?

What if the database mis-spells an organization’s name somewhat? (HHS does this a lot; are we to suppose state-level databases don’t have typos?)

Why are there no explanations of “Business ID or Filing Number” near those options?  Anyone could provide it under an image. It’s not a hard thing to put in a link with a pop-up definition.  The IRS does this on its database searches.

Why are the “Home” and “Help” buttons so small, so far away from the main, oversimplified search page.

Where is the link to search on Status Active or Inactive?  Why is there not a search results field which will display Active/Inactive as in many other Secretary of State sites?

Where is the statement that search results will NOT include inactive organizations, if they do not?

---

What it seems that Connecticut, however, is doing at this point, is — without notifying viewers — ONLY displaying “Active” corporations.  Therefore any search on a formerly-existing corporation (or one now currently showing up as Active under the same name search, for example, if it changed its name since) would simply just not be found.

This can be confusing to both residents of Connecticut affected by the existence or non-existence of a business operating as a private membership association on behalf of their judiciary, OR continuing to take federal or state grants (as apparently The New Haven Family Alliance, Inc. has) while failing to file annual reports and failing for three straight years to file Form 990s either and so maintain their tax-exempt status associated with that EIN#.

NHFA is currently listed as “Active” despite historically — if this same database is to be believed — skipping annual reports fo YEARS at a time throughout its history, but nor forfeiting active status.

If Connecticut as it seems do some other states, automatically administratively dissolves a non-filing corporation, not that it seems to be a significant penalty– the organization can then pay-up and get reinstated, that process should leave a footprint on the database.

What MAY be happening here, and what bothers me if I want the background story on a number (not just one or two) organizations in order to screen “How much follow-up is warranted here?” (i.e., whether to start writing letters to officials, or ordering certified copies of legal existence — which I doubt is free) — is that Connecticut, WITHOUT informing viewers, is simply only reporting ACTIVE corporations.

---

The Secretary of State HAS such information on file. if an organization was administratively dissolved or not, and whether the database searches on ALL corporations historically, or ONLY ACTIVE corporations historically.

I fail to see what is the honorable, or public-service purpose of just not making it available for free, to viewers of their database:

---

CLICKING ON the HELP PAGE — not immediately helpful or obvious, but scroll down to see that there used to be an “ADVANCED SEARCH” data entry page.   

User Manual for Business Inquiry

[ BACK ]

Developed by PCC Technology Group

CONCORD Home Page:

The CONCORD Home Page, as illustrated below, will appear after the user successfully accesses the system by typing in the URL WWW.CONCORD-SOTS.CT.GOV/CONCORD.  This page will display a welcome message and other appropriate information that relates to the Commercial Recording Division.  From this page you may select several options:

• File Annual Reports
• Search Business
• Get Legal Existence
• File Documents
• Search UCC Liens
• Verify Certificate of Legal Existence
• File UCC Liens
• Forms
• Fees

Then it shows a screenshot of the home page — which I copied above, with the three columns and their buttons/images, above (green-background table). OK, so we can click on the options we already just saw, above, labeled.  Which doesn’t explain much except that they exist.

It then goes to list the details showing under each option (which any user might discover by clicking on them also).  However when it comes to what they call “BUSINESS INQUIRY” (second bullet above, actually labeled “Search Business” and on the button, currently labeled “Search Database / Business”  — i.e., not very good technical writing, or update)…  under BUSINESS INQUIRY as described on this HELP page (IF you scroll down far enough, i.e., are persistent) .. we can see that there formerly (it seems) was an ADVANCED SEARCH CAPABILITY:

You may also click on the Help link located on the Inquiries submenu to access the online help facility, which provides explanations of the fields and functions of each of the inquiry screens.

Business Inquiry:

The Business Inquiry search screen, as illustrated below, is accessed by clicking on the Business link in the Inquiries submenu on the Main Menu.  The Business Inquiry search screen’s function is to search the CONCORD database for the business.   A sample Business Inquiry search page follows.

This next screen has TWO parts, apparently referring at the time of this “USER MANUAL” Prepared by “PCC TECHNOLOGY GROUP” (when — it doesn’t say).  BOTH parts apparently at some point in time would ahve displayed on ONE web page.  The actual image: (the second orange-font heading reads “Advanced Search” as viewed full-size on this user manual):

Sorry about the image visibility.

However, under “ADVANCED SEARCH (second line of orange font in the image) I see options for Business Name — with side-click for “similar sounding names” — for Business TYPE, Business STATUS, CITY, ZIP Code, REGISTERED AGENT NAME, and PRINCIPAL OFFICER.  

• WHO IS RUNNING THIS WEBSITE, and WHY ARE THOSE SEARCH FUNCTIONS NO LONGER ACTIVE?
• WHY IS THEIR NO FINE PRINT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE C.O.N.C.O.R.D. PAGES FOR POTENTIAL FEEDBACK?
• WHO IS PCC TECHNOLOGY GROUP?

On the 10th of my “Sticky posts” to this blog, ‘QUIPS THINKS AND LINKS” the topic is raised (I’m hardly the first) of what kind of governmental integrity is left if we do not have access to information integrity as to the information, that is the businesses contracting or sponsored by government, on its finances?  It brings up the factor of having military or ex-military contractors managing the information databases; specifically a Dyncorp was one mentioned. But there are plenty of others.

We reasonably should be aware, as adults with SOME sense of history, that it was most likely military budget and sponsorship involved in spearheading the development of technologies for communications breakthroughs, including the internet itself and computers.  These are essential to military operations, not just government operations.  Now they are just about essential to society — and they are also essential to any semblance of balance of power between citizens and government.

What I’m seeing is, the public is being given a semblance of openness and transparency.  Only by actually attempting to USE these databases over time, and not just one kind, or in one state, is the average person likely to become aware of how poorly they function.

The manual says under “Business Inquiry Search” that IF an entity shows up and the name is underlined, click on it and the following information under Status will be displayed:

● Converted ● Dissolved ● Expired Reservation ● Expired ● Forfeited ● Merged= ● Reserved Cancelled ● Redomesticated ● Registered ● Renunciated ● Reserved ● Revoked ● W Second
● Withdrawn

[See the same list of “Status” designations available shown closer to the top of this post].